Successful Aging in Hawaii - AARP · Successful Aging in Hawaii: A Survey of Developers, Landowners, and Other Land Use Stakeholders 4 INTRODUCTION Hawaii, and the rest of the United

Successful Aging in Hawaii:A Survey of Developers, Landowners, and Other Land Use Stakeholders

January 2011

Successful Aging in Hawaii: A Survey of Developers, Landowners, and

Other Land Use Stakeholders

Report Prepared by Aisha Bonner and Laura Dierenfield

Copyright © 2011 AARP Research & Strategic Analysis

601 E Street NW Washington, DC 20049

www.aarp.org/research Reprinting with Permission

AARP is a nonprofit, nonpartisan social welfare organization with a membership that helps people 50+ have independence, choice, and control in ways that are beneficial and affordable to them and society as a whole. AARP does not endorse candidates for public office or make contributions to either political campaigns or candidates. We produce AARP The Magazine, the definitive voice for 50+ Americans and the world's largest‐circulation magazine with over 35.1 million readers; AARP Bulletin, the go‐to news source for AARP's millions of members and Americans 50+; AARP VIVA, the only bilingual U.S. publication dedicated exclusively to the 50+ Hispanic community; and our website, AARP.org. AARP Foundation is an affiliated charity that provides security, protection, and empowerment to older persons in need with support from thousands of volunteers, donors, and sponsors. We have staffed offices in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. State Research brings the right knowledge at the right time to our state and national partners in support of their efforts to improve the lives of people age 50+. State Research consultants provide strategic insights and actionable research to attain measurable state and national outcomes. The views expressed herein are for information, debate, and discussion, and do not necessarily represent official policies of AARP. Peoples Advocacy for Trails Hawaii (PATH) is a 24‐year‐old nonprofit community‐based organization that advocates for healthy, livable communities in Hawaii. PATH is headquartered in Kailua‐Kona, Hawaii and works in partnership with many organizations throughout the State of Hawaii to advocate for investments in safe, connected active living infrastructure such as trails, pathways, and bikeways.

Acknowledgements

AARP staff and volunteers from the Hawaii State Office, Government Relations and Advocacy, and Research and Strategic Analysis contributed to the design and implementation of the study. Special thanks are extended to AARP Hawaii leadership including Executive Council Chair Stuart Ho, AARP State Director Barbara Kim Stanton and Associate State Director Jackie McCarter Boland as well as John Whalen and Janice Dief. Additional thanks to Coralette Hannon of Government Relations and Advocacy; and Rachelle Cummins, Terri Guengerich, and Cheryl Barnes of State Research, Research and Strategic Analysis. Additional thanks are extended to Nancy Bell, Office of General Counsel, for her legal review of the report. Laura Dierenfield and Aisha Bonner co‐authored the report. For more information, contact Terri Guengerich at (202) 434‐6306 or Laura Dierenfield at (808) 326‐7284.

Successful Aging in Hawaii: A Survey of Developers, Landowners, and Other Land Use Stakeholders 1

About this Report This report is intended to be used as a reference for elected officials, regulators, advocates, developers, and landowners who are interested in learning more about meeting the housing and transportation needs of Hawaii's growing 65+ population. This report highlights the findings from a survey of developers, landowners, and land use stakeholders; a series of in‐depth interviews with developers, and a discussion group of selected representatives from the building industry. AARP Hawaii collaborated with Peoples Advocacy for Trails Hawaii (PATH) to better understand what barriers face developers, landowners, and other land use stakeholders in developing livable communities for people age 50 and older. This report is divided into three sections. Section One explores developers’ and landowners’ level of understanding of concepts of livable communities, and their current practice and future likelihood of incorporating such concepts into development projects. It also reports on the perceived barriers to applying these concepts in current projects. Section Two focuses on trends in aging in Hawaii and on how the desire to age‐in‐place among Hawaii's 50+ population will impact the housing market and development projects in the future. Section Three looks at the where barriers may exist in building livable communities for Hawaii's 50+ population.

The conclusion section follows with mechanisms for improvement and suggested next steps. The study methodology is next, followed by characteristics of survey respondents, and a full annotation. A bibliography and additional national and local resources are provided on the last page with hyperlinks to the websites of each resource.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 3

Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 4

Key Findings........................................................................................................................ 6

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 14

Methodology .................................................................................................................... 16

Characteristics of Respondents ......................................................................................... 17

Survey Annotation ............................................................................................................ 18

End Notes ......................................................................................................................... 27

Additional Resources ........................................................................................................ 28


Executive Summary Successful Aging in Hawaii January 2011

A Survey of Developers and Landowners and Other Land Use Stakeholders

Hawaii's population of residents over 65 years of age is expected to grow by nearly 40 percent in the next 10 years,1 and the majority (69%) of these residents have expressed the desire to age‐in‐place – to remain in their own homes as they age.2

The desire to age‐in‐place among America's growing 65+ population has prompted many communities to re‐examine their existing housing and transportation infrastructure in new ways. The concept of creating livable communities where one can walk to the grocery store or pharmacy, visit a relative while in a wheelchair, or go for a bike ride with grandchildren are essential elements for successful aging‐in‐place.

Creating a livable community where one can age‐in‐place successfully takes many partners and significant investments in infrastructure. One critical group of stakeholders is developers and landowners, who make decisions on the types of residential opportunities older adults will have.

In 2009, AARP Hawaii and PATH (Peoples Advocacy for Trails Hawaii) began research in the area of aging‐in‐place in Hawaii. This report describes the results of a survey as well as group and individual interviews conducted with developers, landowners, and other land use stakeholders statewide.

Goal of this Report The primary goal of this project was to better understand the barriers and opportunities faced by Hawaii's major developers and landowners in building communities where Hawaii's 65+ population can age‐in‐place.

Study Methodology A 40‐question survey was mailed and emailed to 84 developers, landowners, and other land use stakeholders in the State of Hawaii. A total of 26 completed the survey. In addition, interviews were done with 20 firms statewide on Kauai, Maui, O'ahu, and the Big Island. Results were computed with the assistance of AARP’s Research & Strategic Analysis.

Summary of Key Findings

1) Hawaii's developers, landowners, and other land use stakeholders have a strong understanding of livable community concepts, and the vast majority feel these concepts are important in developing housing products for the Hawaii residential market.

2) Hawaii's developers and landowners feel they currently apply, and are likely to apply in the future, key livable community concepts such as multi‐modal transportation (Now: 65%, Future: 81%), mixed‐use development (Now: 62%, Future: 81%), visitability (Now: 50%, Future: 65%), and walkability (Now: 81%, Future: 88%). Although likelihood is high for future application of these concepts, significant barriers exist that must be addressed by a variety of public and private sector partners.

3) Whereas less than one‐third of Hawaii's developers and landowners have focused on developing housing for Hawaii's 50+ population in the past, more than two‐thirds say their work will be affected by the aging of Hawaii’s population, and half say that housing projects that meet the needs of Hawaii’s 65+ population will be a profitable endeavor for their company.


INTRODUCTION Hawaii, and the rest of the United States, is aging. Every 11 seconds a baby boomer turns 603 in the U.S. and by 2030, one‐fifth of adults in America will be 65 years of age or older, 4 and one in five will not drive.5 Hawaii is experiencing double digit growth in its 65+ population right now. Residents in Hawaii 65 years of age and older will increase by nearly 40 percent in the next 10 years, adding over 73,000 people to the 65+ population in the state. This number is projected to double by the year 2030 (2000 to 2030).6 In addition, Hawaii has also seen a large influx of the 50+ population into the state from other areas. Twelve percent of those who immigrated to Hawaii between 2005 and 2007 were 50 years of age or older.7

The profound demographic shift in Hawaii's 65+ population, coupled with the desire to age‐in‐place, presents new challenges for meeting the unique housing and mobility needs of an aging demographic. These challenges include finding affordable, accessible housing in proximity to goods and services for a population that is likely to develop some kind of mobility impairment as they age. In a recent survey of AARP Hawaii members (some 149,000 people statewide in 2010), the majority reported a desire to age‐in‐place in their homes. Aging‐in‐place means the ability for people to live out their lives in their own home while maintaining a connection to family, services, and community engagement. It should come as no surprise that many people in Hawaii choose to age‐in‐place. Hawaii's population is heavily influenced by Asian and Pacific Island cultures where caring for elders is highly valued. However, this desire must be met with the reality that as we age, our ability to move about in our homes and in our communities is likely to become more and more difficult without assistance. In addition, real estate in Hawaii is expensive making it difficult for families to find affordable alternatives to their current homes. Successful aging‐in‐place requires a combination of mixed‐use development where commercial services such as grocery stores and pharmacies are in close proximity to residential housing, multi‐modal transportation where non‐drivers have easy, safe, and convenient access to walking, bicycling, para‐transit, or public transportation options, and homes that have universal design concepts such as wide doors, low fixtures and cabinetry, and zero‐step entrances. Livable communities capture this unique blend of accessibility, mobility, and proximity. AARP defines a livable community as one that has affordable and appropriate housing, supportive community features and services, and adequate mobility options, which together facilitate personal independence and engagement of residents in civic and social life. It's not enough to meet older adults’ minimum survival needs. Our communities need to go beyond meeting older adults’ minimal survival needs and provide the infrastructure and services that will provide a high quality of life in our golden years.


Hawaii's land use and development patterns present significant challenges to achieving livable communities that enable successful aging‐in‐place in Hawaii. Hawaii's early development of small plantation towns and villages connected by long rural highways has largely given way to sprawling suburbs built during the post statehood auto‐age. Other than urban Honolulu, there is little in the way of mixed‐use development or multi‐modal transportation options, especially for sparsely populated rural counties of Kauai, Maui, Hawaii, and windward O'ahu.

Achieving livable communities with affordable, accessible housing, proximity to goods and services, and mobility options is a challenge many elected officials, private industry, and community‐based organizations struggle with in Hawaii. Among these stakeholder groups, Hawaii's developers and landowners are among the most critical to providing housing options for Hawaii's aging population.

In November of 2009, AARP Hawaii commissioned a study to find out more about how Hawaii's landowners and developers felt about livable communities’ concepts and what barriers or opportunities may exist to spur development of communities where Hawaii's 65+ population can age‐in‐place successfully.

The study revealed several key findings:

1) Hawaii's developers, landowners, and other land use stakeholders have a strong understanding of livable community concepts (34‐92%) and feel these concepts are important in developing housing products for the Hawaii residential market (78‐97%).




KEY FINDINGS

Section One: Concepts of Livable Communities Mixed‐use development is defined as a real estate project with planned integration of some combination of retail, office, residential, hotel, recreation, or other functions. It is pedestrian‐oriented and contains elements of a live‐work‐play environment. It maximizes space usage, has amenities and architectural expression, and tends to mitigate traffic and sprawl. For older adults, it can be particularly helpful to aging‐in‐place if housing is located within walking distance of essential services like doctor’s offices, pharmacies, and grocery stores.

Walkability is a measure of how friendly an area is to walking – having many health, environmental, and economic benefits. Factors influencing walkability include the presence or absence and quality of sidewalks and amenities for pedestrians (such as shade trees and places to rest) or other pedestrian right‐of‐ways, traffic and road conditions, land use patterns, building accessibility, and safety.

Visitability seeks to make homes accessible to people who require the assistance of wheelchairs, walkers, scooters, etc., or who have other mobility impairments. The concept is to construct a home so that someone in a wheelchair can live in and “visit” – arrive at, enter, freely move about inside, and use the entry level of the home, including a bathroom.

Multi‐modal transportation includes walking, biking, public transportation, driving, etc. It considers how all modes of transportation interface to allow people to access employment opportunities, goods, services, and places of recreation. It is about making non‐automotive modes more attractive and effective and giving people a choice in how they get from place to place.

Universal design means products and buildings are accessible and usable by everyone, including people with disabilities. Universal design is a framework for the design of living and working spaces and products, benefiting the widest possible range of people in the widest range of situations without special or separate design. Universal design includes design details within the home such as no step entry, wide doors, and easy to reach cabinetry. Universal design also refers to accessibility in public spaces outside of the home environment.


Familiarity with Livable Communities’ Concepts The majority of developers and landowners expressed a high degree of familiarity with the basic concepts of livable communities. Ninety‐two percent were extremely or very familiar with both mixed‐use development and the concept of walkability. About seventy percent were extremely or very familiar with multi‐modal transportation options and visitability. Finally, seven in ten were at least somewhat familiar with the concept of universal design. Knowledge of the concepts surrounding livable communities is a positive first step for the development of aging‐in‐place communities. Walkability The ability to walk in one’s community is very important to the principles of livable communities and to those who wish to age‐in‐place. Over half of developers and landowners stated that walkability was extremely important in planning for residential communities. Another 43 percent felt it was either very or somewhat important to consider in planning. Only four percent did not think it was at all important to consider walkability in their residential planning. The vast majority of developers and landowners stated they have applied walkability concepts to residential projects. The high number of developers and landowners who had applied the walkability concepts is very close to the number who indicated that the concept was extremely or very important (92%). Figure 2. Applicability and Importance of Walkability (n=26)

Application of Walkability in Current Projects

Yes, 81%

No,15%

Not sure,4%

15%

23%

27%

38%

38%

19%

46%

42%

54%

54%

38%

23%

23%

4%

4%

19%

4%

4%

8%

4%

4%

4%

4%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Universal design

Visitability

Multi‐modal transportation options

Mixed‐use development

Walkability

Familiarity of Concepts of Livable Communities (n=26)

Extremely Very Somewhat Not very Not at all

Figure 1.


Eighty‐four percent of developers and landowners stated they were extremely or very likely to apply walkability concepts in future housing projects. Only eight percent were not likely to employ these concepts in their future planning. The high number of developers and landowners committed to walkability is positive news for the proponents of aging‐in‐place communities. Barriers do exist in incorporating walkability concepts into residential developments. Local and state regulations were noted as a significant barrier as city codes drive up costs, and zoning laws and subdivision codes make it difficult to balance walkability concepts and profitability. Another significant barrier mentioned was cost issues related to level grading, sidewalk, and tree maintenance. Regulatory inflexibility and marketability were also both mentioned as barriers.

Visitability Visitability can aid in strengthening community cohesiveness by enabling residents with mobility impairments to live in their homes and visit homes of family and friends.

Almost 80 percent of developers and landowners think that it is important to consider visitability concepts when planning residential communities. Only 8 percent indicated they did not think of visitability as an important building concept.

Exactly half have applied visitability concepts to past housing projects. However, nearly two‐thirds stated it was likely that they would apply visitability concepts to future housing projects, with almost twenty percent stating they were extremely likely. Figure 3. Number of Developers & Landowners Who Have Applied Visitability

Concepts to Housing Projects (n=26)

Yes, 50%

No, 27%

Not sure, 15%

No answer, 8%

Barriers exist in incorporating visitability concepts into new homes or existing homes. The biggest barrier mentioned was cost. For some developers and landowners, the challenge was the cost of additional features necessary for a visitability design. For others, the cost of materials and specific equipment necessary for adding visitability to a housing project were the main issues. Another issue mentioned was the belief that there was little or no market or demand for the visitability concept in the design of homes.


Multi‐Modal Transportation Options Multi‐modal transportation is a key component to a livable community in terms of preserving independent mobility to residents who have outlived their driving years. Almost ninety percent of developers and landowners indicated that considering opportunities for multi‐modal transportation in residential planning was important. Nineteen percent stated that multi‐modal transportation planning was extremely important. No respondents felt that multi‐modal transportation planning was not important to residential building projects.

Not only do respondents state that multi‐modal transportation is important for planning residential projects; almost two‐thirds have already utilized multi‐modal options in past housing projects. Twenty‐three percent have not applied multi‐modal transportation options in past projects.

Figure 4. Number of Developers & Landowners Who Have Applied Multi‐Modal Transportation Options to Housing Projects (n=26)

Yes,65%

No,23%

Not sure, 4%

No answer, 8%

However, in future housing projects, 81 percent stated that they are likely to incorporate these concepts. Only 4 percent stated they were not likely to utilize multi‐modal transportations options in future housing projects. Barriers to multi‐modal transportation options fell into four distinct areas – cost, regulations, market forces, and insufficient cooperation from public entities. The cost barrier has been a consistent theme across all barriers mentioned in utilizing livable communities’ design elements in residential planning. The same can be said for the barriers related to regulations; this continues to be identified by developers and landowners as a problem for including livable community design elements in planning, specifically the codified zoning laws and government ordinances. Market forces are also a consistent barrier. While there is demand to link work and business areas through multi‐modal transportation options, businesses often do not want to be located in residential areas. Market forces are also a barrier when government needs and individual needs are conflicting; for example, the case when government entities show favoritism for automobile transportation options while individuals may prefer pedestrian or multi‐modal access. Finally, developers and landowners mentioned barriers in the intersection of transportation and government control of public transportation and dedicated roadways.


Nearly 90 percent of developers and landowners indicated that incorporating elements of multi‐model design were at least somewhat important when planning new residential projects. The three most important multi‐model design elements were:

(1) Maintaining connectivity to, from, and within the development to transportation options (89%);

(2) Balancing the use within the right‐of‐way to accommodate multiple transportation modes (88%);

(3) Sidewalks wide enough for at least two people to walk together (88%). The multi‐modal design element that was considered less important was having sidewalks with adequate shade and places to rest (80%).

Mixed‐Use Development Mixed‐use development is a challenging but important aspect of achieving livable communities. Successful mixed‐use development places residential housing in close proximity to commercial services such as grocery stories and pharmacies. By doing so, residents can safely and easily walk or ride a bike to necessary goods and services.

Over three‐quarters indicated that it was extremely or very important to consider opportunities for mixed‐use development when planning residential communities. No respondents indicated that it was not important to consider such opportunities.

Sixty‐two percent of developers and landowners indicated they have engaged in mixed‐use development in building projects; and eighty‐one percent are likely to engage in mixed‐use development projects in the future.

Figure 5. Number of Developers & Landowners Who Have Applied Mixed‐Use Development to Housing Projects (n=26)

Yes, 62%No, 27%

Not sure, 4%

No answer, 8%

Respondents to the survey noted that zoning and local policies are among the most significant barriers to the success of mixed‐use development projects. Some survey respondents stated that current zoning laws did not accommodate mixed‐use developments or in some cases didn’t even exist. In addition, the re‐zoning process can be costly. Others stated that market constraints were a significant barrier to this type of development project. Many noted that mixed‐use developments have not been marketable, and finding large enough tracts of land is difficult. As mentioned previously, cost was another barrier.


Over 75 percent of developers and landowners indicated that incorporating elements of mixed‐use development were at least somewhat important when planning new residential projects. The four most important mixed‐use elements were:

Having a major economic generator, such as a major employer, educational facility, or entertainment center (88%)

Building vertical structures – more density (88%).

Having public transportation stops within walking distance to homes (85%)

Public sector involvement (85%) The lesser important factor was having a suburban location (42%).


Section Two: Aging‐in‐Place In the last three years, three in ten developers and landowners (31%) say their companies have been involved in a development project that focused on the 50+ population. Some of these development projects include:

1) Rental senior housing development and ownership;

2) New homes with universal design concepts or renovating homes with these concepts;

3) Cooperative projects with elder care developers to create independent, assisted living, and nursing homes.

Nearly seven in ten developers and landowners (69%) say their companies will be affected by the desire of the 50+ population to “age‐in‐place” or remain in their homes as they age and the growth of the 65+ population in Hawaii. Developers and landowners say that these aging trends will affect their company’s work by increasing their focus on building for aging populations, including universal design concepts, age‐restricted communities, mixed‐use development, and assisted living. Developers and landowners will need to meet the needs of the aging population and begin planning efforts to create better living situations for this population.

Only about one in eight developers and landowners say that residential projects geared to the 65+ population will be extremely or very profitable to their companies. Nearly two in five believe they will be somewhat profitable, with about one in five saying they will be not too profitable.

Figure 7. Profitability of Developing Residential Projects for the 65+ Population (n=26)

Extremely, 4%

Very, 8%

Somewhat, 38%

Not too,23%

Not sure, 19%

Missing, 8%


Section Three: Barriers Developers and landowners were asked to consider barriers to achieving livable communities for the 50+ population in terms of each aspect of the development process, starting with financing and concluding with construction. The largest barriers appear to be in obtaining financing for these types of projects, followed by the time delays associated with the permitting process and the high costs of construction. Fewer reported barriers to plan approvals, subdividing, or zoning.

Top Barriers to Developing Livable Communities for People 50+ In one‐on‐one interviews, several developers elaborated on these barriers. Many pointed out that the large, master planned communities are much more able to absorb the additional costs associated with livable communities’ concepts but that parcels large enough for such projects tend to be located away from village centers of commerce and services. Infill development on a smaller scale is less likely to be able to absorb the costs associated with livable communities’ concepts, but are ideally suited to these aspects due to their preferred location.

Other developers pointed out the lack of marketability of mixed‐use development. Many families still prefer living in cul‐de‐sacs and having single‐family detached housing with front and back yards and space between themselves and their neighbors.

Other developers pointed out the prevalence of multigenerational living as a means of affording a mortgage on market rate housing, especially on O'ahu. They recognize a need to develop a housing product that meets this need.

Many developers expressed the frustrations in the variability among regulators when approving projects and the need to "level the playing field" when it comes to the regulatory process.

Financing

•Difficult to get or unavailable

Zoning/Re‐Zoning

•Time delays

•Complex and costly

•Lack of community support

Subdividing

•Time delays

•Regulatory structure

Plan Approvals & Permitting

•Time delays

Construction

•Cost


CONCLUSION

Top Three Survey Conclusions

1) Hawaii's developers, landowners, and other land use stakeholders have a strong understanding of livable community concepts and an overwhelming majority feel these concepts are important in developing housing products for the Hawaii residential market.



Mechanisms for Improvement

Developers and landowners identified several mechanisms for building livable communities in Hawaii, such as:

Developing community facilities districts as a means of financing and absorbing liability for

public spaces that enhance the livability of a community;

Looking at linear open space or increasing setbacks to meet recreational set aside

requirements;

Including components such as trails and pathways in the planning and design phase, and

setting aside right‐of‐way with future build out once financing can be secured;

Developing a tax incentive for livable communities’ designs;

Update zoning codes;

Determine means of maintaining natural elements such as trees and bushes with county

resources.

More incentives for incorporating walkabilty, bikeability, and mixed‐use development include:

Accelerating approval process;

More cost sharing participation in infrastructure;

Make the regulatory process less burdensome in terms of conditions;

Flexibility in designing with best practices.


Next Steps

Several developers and landowners asked for more market research on the aging trend and the desire to age‐in‐place. Specifically, survey respondents asked for:

Market studies that back up assumptions about the market trends predicted by demographic shifts;

Analysis on the spending power of this market;

Revisions to the pro forma financial statements to include a return on investment (ROI) for pathways.


METHODOLOGY

AARP Hawaii contracted with PATH to complete this study. The study was conducted from October 12th, 2009

to December 31st, 2009. This study has three components: a survey (delivered online and paper), personal

interviews, and a focused discussion group.

Potential respondents were classified into two main categories: landowners or developers. Potential

respondents were identified from the online membership lists of major developer and professional building

organizations, the 2008 Pacific Business News Directory, as well as word of mouth. A database was prepared

listing all potential respondents with a contact name, title, phone number, email, and website.

PATH and AARP Hawaii scheduled three special presentations to share information about the project and

encourage participation in the survey. The presentations consisted of an MS PowerPoint slide show explaining

the aging‐in‐place concept, the aging trends in Hawaii, and a request to be a part of the survey. These

presentations were made to the Hawaii Developer's Council, the Land Use Research Foundation, and the

Hawaii Leeward Planning Conference (Hawaii County).

A total of eighty‐four (84) developers, landowners, and land use stakeholders were contacted. Initial contact

consisted of a personal email sent from AARP Hawaii staff to all identified email contacts on November 6th and

7th of 2009 with a link to the online survey as well as a cover letter imbedded in the email and attached as a

PDF file requesting participation in the survey. A copy of the survey was also attached to the email in MS

Word. This email was followed up with a letter sent via US mail on November 10th, 2009. The letter included

the same cover letter personally addressed to each contact as well as a self‐addressed stamped return

envelope and paper copy of the survey. A third email was sent from AARP Hawaii staff on December 10th,

2009 thanking firms who had completed the survey and asking all others to please complete of the survey.

Twenty‐six respondents completed the entire survey. Four responses were incomplete and determined

unusable. Twelve surveys were completed on paper and mailed or handed back in person. These were then

manually entered into the online database.

Beginning on November 16th and lasting through December 11th, 2009, PATH conducted personal interviews

with 20 firms statewide. Interviews were conducted in the counties of Maui, Hawaii, Honolulu, and Kauai. The

interviews consisted of a tabletop presentation of the same PowerPoint presentation given to the three major

developer groups (using a bound color copy of the PowerPoint printed on 8.5 x 11" paper) followed by a 45‐90

minute discussion about key barriers and opportunities to achieving livable communities that allow for aging‐

in‐place. These discussion points are incorporated into the narrative sections of the key findings portion of this

report.

Finally, a focused discussion group was held at AARP Hawaii on December 8th. Attendees included a

representative from the building industry, a major developer, a major landowner, a professional planner, and

an architect. Key themes of this discussion are incorporated into the key findings section of this report.


CHARACTERISTICS OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS

This survey of developers and landowners collected responses from a diverse group of firms, associations, and individual stakeholders statewide. Respondents were given the option of identifying themselves or remaining anonymous.

Most of the respondents to the survey were local companies (58%) followed by national companies (19%) and multi‐national companies (12%). Firms represented all counties except for Kalawao County on Molokai. The majority of firms are located on O'ahu, followed by Hawaii Island firms (27%), Maui (18%), and Kauai (14%).

Most firms were for‐profit firms (77%), and most have been in business for more than 20 years (65%). Only one firm identified themselves as a Certified Aging‐In‐Place (CAPS) Builder. Respondents to the survey included small firms of 1‐24 employees up to larger firms of 100 ‐ 499 employees. The majority of respondents were firms with 100 or less employees. The person completing the survey tended to be a high level executive, manager, or owner.

Respondents to the survey focus on a wide variety of development project types as well as different stages of the development process. The majority of respondents provide residential, commercial and mixed‐use, from entry level to high‐end clientele. Approximately a third is working in hospitality (resort / hotel) and very few deal in public housing projects. Two firms specified working on military housing and one focused on schools and infrastructure.

Survey respondents reported expertise in all aspects of development, including zoning, site selection, concurrency, conceptualization, and turnkey. The areas with the weakest level of expertise included financing strategies, market analysis, and environmental regulations.

Mahalo to the developers, landowners, and other land use stakeholders who participated in this survey.

A & B Properties Brian Cook Development, Inc. Castle and Cooke, Inc. DR Horton Grove Farm Ho'okuleana Inc. Independent Third Party Review Kamehameha Schools Maui Land and Pineapple Company Mark Development Pa'ahana Enterprises Palamanui Queen Emma Land Co. Queen Liliuokalani Trust Stanford Carr Development The Gentry Companies Tinguley Development Land Use Research Foundation Hawaii Developers Council

Forest City Hawaii Leeward Planning Conference


2009 AARP Hawaii Survey of Developers, Landowners, and Other Land Use Stakeholders

n=26

Livable Communities 1. Livable communities are places where people of all ages and abilities have affordable and

accessible housing choices, as well as public buildings, retail and services, parks, and streets that meet their needs to stay safe and comfortable in both their homes and neighborhoods.

How familiar are you with the following concepts?

Extremely

familiar Very

familiar Somewhat familiar

Not very familiar

Not at all familiar

▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼a. Walkability ................................................. 38% 54% 4% 0% 4% b. Visitability .................................................. 23% 46% 23% 4% 4% c. Multi‐modal transportation options ......... 27% 42% 23% 4% 4% d. Mixed‐use development ........................... 38% 54% 4% 0% 4% e. Universal design ........................................ 15% 19% 38% 19% 8%

2. Walking is the second most used mode of transportation after privately owned vehicles.

Walkability is a measure of how friendly an area is to walking – having many health, environmental, and economic benefits. Factors influencing walkability include the presence or absence and quality of sidewalks and amenities for pedestrians (such as shade trees and places to rest) or other pedestrian right‐of‐ways, traffic and road conditions, land use patterns, building accessibility, and safety.

How important is this walkability concept in planning residential communities?

54% Extremely important 35% Very important

8% Somewhat important 0% Not very important

4% Not at all important 0% Not sure

3. Has your company applied walkability concepts to any housing projects?

81% Yes 15% No 4% Not sure


4. How likely is your company to apply walkability concepts to future housing projects?

42% Extremely likely 42% Very likely 4% Somewhat likely 4% Not too likely 4% Not at all likely 4% Not sure

5. In your opinion, what barriers, if any, exist to incorporating walkability concepts into residential

developments? 6. Visitability seeks to make homes accessible to people who require the assistance of

wheelchairs, walkers, scooters, etc., or who have other mobility impairments. The concept is to construct a home so that someone in a wheelchair can “visit” – arrive at, enter, freely move about inside, and use the entry level of the home, including a bathroom.

How important is it in planning residential communities to consider visitability concepts?


35% Somewhat important

8% Not very important

0% Not at all important

8% Not sure

8% Missing

7. Has your company applied visitability concepts to any housing projects?

50% Yes 27% No 15% Not sure 8% Missing

8. How likely is your company to apply visitability concepts to future housing projects?

19% Extremely likely 23% Very likely 23% Somewhat likely 8% Not too likely 4% Not at all likely 15% Not sure 8% Missing


9. In your opinion, what barriers, if any, exist to incorporating visitability concepts into new homes or existing homes?

10. Multi‐modal transportation includes walking, biking, public transportation, driving, etc. It

considers how all modes of transportation interface to allow people to access employment opportunities, goods, services and places of recreation. It is about making non‐automotive modes more attractive and effective and giving people a choice in how they get from place to place.

How important is it in planning residential communities to consider opportunities for multi‐modal transportation?

19% Extremely important 62% Very important 8% Somewhat important

0% Not very important 0% Not at all important

4% Not sure

8% Missing

11. Has your company applied multi‐modal transportation options to any housing projects?


12. How likely is your company to apply multi‐modal transportation options to future housing

projects?


13. In your opinion, what barriers, if any, exist to incorporating multi‐modal transportation options

into new housing developments or existing housing developments?


14. How important is it to incorporate the following multi‐modal elements into planning new residential projects?

Extremely

important Very

important Somewhat important

Not very important

Not at all important

▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼a. Sidewalks wide enough for at least two

people to walk together ............................ 46% 38% 4% 0% 4% b. Sidewalks with adequate shade and

places to rest ............................................. 23% 38% 19% 8% 4% c. Bicycle trails or paths ................................ 15% 50% 19% 4% 4% d. Access to public transportation ................ 23% 58% 4% 4% 4% e. Balancing the use within the right‐of‐

way to accommodate multiple transportation modes (walking, biking, driving, public transportation) .................. 15% 58% 15% 0% 4%

f. Maintaining connectivity to and from, and within the development to transportation options .............................. 31% 46% 12% 0% 4%

15. A mixed‐use development is a real estate project with planned integration of some

combination of retail, office, residential, hotel, recreation, or other functions. It is pedestrian‐oriented and contains elements of a live‐work‐play environment. It maximizes space usage, has amenities and architectural expression, and tends to mitigate traffic and sprawl. For older adults, it can be particularly helpful to aging‐in‐place if housing is located within walking distance of essential services like doctor’s offices, pharmacies, and grocery stores.

How important is it in planning residential communities to consider opportunities for mixed‐use development?


12% Somewhat important

0% Not very important

0% Not at all important

4% Not sure

8% Missing

16. Has your company engaged in mixed‐use development projects?



17. How likely is your company to engage in mixed‐use development projects in the future?


18. In your opinion, what barriers, if any, exist to developing mixed‐use development projects? 19. How important are the following factors to the success of a mixed‐use project?

Extremely important

Very important

Somewhat important

Not very important

Not at all important

▼ ▼ ▼ ▼ ▼a. Public sector involvement ......................... 19% 31% 35% 4% 4% b. Having public transportation stops

within walking distance to homes ............ 19% 54% 12% 4% 4% c. Having a major economic generator,

such as a major employer, educational facility, or entertainment center .............. 19% 42% 27% 0% 4%

d. Being a part of a master‐planned site ...... 12% 31% 31% 15% 4% e. Having an urban location .......................... 27% 31% 23% 8% 4% f. Building vertical structures (more

density)...................................................... 15% 50% 23% 0% 4% g. Having a suburban location ..................... 0% 4% 38% 35% 15% h. Building horizontal structures ................... 0% 8% 46% 31% 8% i. Developing it as part of an infill site ......... 0% 15% 54% 19% 4%

Age‐in‐Place 20. Most people age 50+ want to “age‐in‐place” or remain in their homes as they age – maintaining

a desirable lifestyle by participating in their communities, remaining independent as their health allows, having access to educational, cultural, and recreational facilities, feeling safe, and living in an intergenerational environment.

This desire combined with the growth in people age 65 and over in Hawaii – projected to be 327,000 or 22 percent of Hawaii’s population in 2030 – may lead to new opportunities for developers and landowners.

In your opinion, will your company’s work be affected by these trends?

69% Yes 12% No ► Go to Question 22 12% Not sure ► Go to Question 22 8% Missing


21. In what ways will your company’s work be affected? 22. Is your company changing or modifying any operations due to these trends?


23. In what ways is your company changing or modifying its operations? 24. In the last three years, have any of your development projects focused on the 50+ population?


25. Please describe these development projects for the 50+ population. 26. In your opinion, how profitable could developing residential projects that meet the needs of

the 65+ population be to your company?

4% Extremely profitable 8% Very profitable 38% Somewhat profitable 23% Not too profitable 0% Not at all profitable 19% Not sure 8% Missing

Overall Barriers to Livable Communities 27. Overall, what barriers, if any, exist in developing a community that people 50+ could live in

with affordable and appropriate housing, a variety of transportation and mobility options, and supportive community features and services, in terms of the following?

Barriers to Financing:

Barriers to Zoning or Re‐zoning:

Barriers to Subdividing:

Barriers to Plan Approvals:

Barriers to Permitting:

Barriers to Construction:


About Your Company 28. What is your company’s name? (Optional)

29. Please describe briefly the work of your company. 30. What is your job title? 31. What is the principle market your company serves? 32. Is your company involved in the following types of development?

33. Does your company directly perform or subcontract any of the following activities?

Directly performs

Sub‐contracts

Does not perform

▼ ▼ ▼a. Surveying .................................................................... 4% 62% 23% b. Environmental engineering ....................................... 4% 62% 23% c. Structural engineering ............................................... 0% 65% 23% d. Architectural design ................................................... 8% 62% 19% e. Landscape architecture .............................................. 0% 69% 19% f. Land use planning ...................................................... 31% 35% 23% g. Real estate acquisition or negotiation ....................... 65% 4% 19% h. Construction ............................................................... 23% 46% 19% i. Remodeling or retrofitting ......................................... 12% 27% 50% j. Other, please specify:____________________________________________

Yes No ▼ ▼ a. Single family housing ................................................. 65% 23% b. Multi‐family housing .................................................. 62% 27% c. Office .......................................................................... 46% 42% d. Retail .......................................................................... 65% 23% e. Industrial .................................................................... 38% 50% f. Mixed‐use .................................................................. 65% 23% g. Hospitality .................................................................. 35% 54% h. Public housing ............................................................ 19% 69% i. Re‐development ........................................................ 42% 46% j. Other, please specify:____________________________________________


34. Does your company have expertise in any of the following?

Yes No ▼ ▼ a. Zoning or re‐zoning ................................................................ 77% 12% b. Concurrency (new development fitting architecturally with

existing development) ........................................................... 69% 19% c. Turnkey (new development ready to be used) ..................... 65% 23% d. Market analysis ...................................................................... 54% 35% e. Financing strategies ............................................................... 62% 27% f. Site selection and analysis ..................................................... 77% 12% g. Master plan conceptualization .............................................. 69% 19% h. Environmental regulations ..................................................... 58% 31% i. Other, please specify:____________________________________________

35. How many employees does your company have?

38% 1 to 24 employees 38% 25 to 99 employees

12% 100 to 499 employees

0% 500 to 999 employees

0% 1,000 employees and over

12% Missing

36. Are you a Certified Aging‐in‐Place (CAPS) builder?

4% Yes 73% No

12% Not sure

12% Missing

37. Are you a ….?

58% Local company (operates only in Hawaii) 19% National company (operates throughout the U.S.) 12% Multi‐national company (operates worldwide) 12% Missing

38. In which counties does your company perform work?

52% Hawaii county 78% Honolulu county 0% Kalawao county

26% Kauai county 35% Maui county

13% Missing


39. Is your company a ….?

77% For profit

8% Not for profit 0% Government 12%

Other, please specify:_________________________________________ Missing

40. How long has your company been in business?

12% Less than 5 years 0% 5 to 10 years

4% 11 to 15 years

4% 16 to 20 years

65% More than 20 years

4% Not sure

12% Missing

Thank you for your time!


End Notes 1 U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, Interim State Population Projections, 2005. Available at: http://www.census.gov/population/projections/12PyrmdHI1.pdf, http://www.census.gov/population/projections/12PyrmdHI2.pdf, and http://www.census.gov/population/projections/12PyrmdHI3.pdf. Accessed December 15, 2010. 2 The 2008 Hawaii Health and Long Term Care Survey, Available at: http://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/health/hi_ltc_08.pdf. Accessed March 19, 2010. 3 Calculated by the AARP Public Policy Institute. 4 U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, Interim State Population Projections, 2005. Available at: http://www.census.gov/population/projections/52PyrmdUS3.pdf. Accessed December 15, 2010. 5 Calculated by the AARP Public Policy Institute using the 2009 National Household Travel Survey, Version 1. 6 U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, Interim State Population Projections, 2005. Available at: http://www.census.gov/population/projections/12PyrmdHI1.pdf, http://www.census.gov/population/projections/12PyrmdHI2.pdf, and http://www.census.gov/population/projections/12PyrmdHI3.pdf. Accessed December 15, 2010. 7 American Community Survey, U.S. Census Bureau. Available at: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&‐context=dt&‐ds_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_&‐_geoSkip=0&‐CONTEXT=dt&‐mt_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G2000_C07001&‐tree_id=3307&‐_skip=0&‐redoLog=false&‐geo_id=04000US15&‐search_results=01000US&‐_showChild=Y&‐format=&‐_lang=en&‐_toggle=ACS_2007_3YR_G2000_C07001&‐SubjectID=17467552. Accessed December 15, 2010. 8 The 2008 Hawaii Health and Long Term Care Survey. Available at: http://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/health/hi_ltc_08.pdf, Accessed March 19, 2010.


Additional Resources

National Resources AARP Research & Strategic Analysis Website: http://www.aarp.org/research/ Certified Aging‐In‐Place (CAPS) Specialist offered by the National Association of Home Builders Website: http://www.nahb.org/category.aspx?sectionID=686 Aging in Place Initiative led by Partners for Livable Communities and the National Association of Area Agencies on Aging (n4a) Website: http://www.aginginplaceinitiative.org National Age In Place Council Website: http://www.ageinplace.org/

Local Resources AARP Hawaii Website: http://www.aarp.org/states/hi/ PATH Website: http://www.pathhawaii.org

For more information, please contact:

Laura Dierenfield PATH ~ Peoples Advocacy for Trails Hawaii

808.326-7284 or e-mail [email protected]

Terri Guengerich AARP Research & Strategic Analysis

202.434.6306 or e-mail [email protected]

Documents

Successful Aging in Hawaii - AARP · Successful Aging in Hawaii: A Survey of Developers, Landowners, and Other Land Use Stakeholders 4 INTRODUCTION Hawaii, and the rest of the United