Exploration of Alleviation Paths for Unbalanced Digital Services in Age-Friendly Cities from the Perspective of Algorithm Governance

Ziwei Wang

doi:10.62051/ijsspa.v10n7.10

Authors

Ziwei Wang School of Qingdao University, Qingdao, China

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.62051/ijsspa.v10n7.10

Keywords:

Age-Friendly Cities, Algorithm Governance, Digital Divide, AI Ageism, Public Services, Digital Inclusion

Abstract

Due to the combined impact of urbanisation, an ageing population and digitalisation, many places around the world are now facing age-friendly smart city construction. However, with the rapid development of algorithm-driven digital public services, serious service disparities and an aggravated digital divide for older people have inadvertently occurred. This paper proposes a way to address the problem of uneven development of digital services in age-friendly communities through algorithm governance. Systematically analyze the structural, technical and cognitive dimensions of digital exclusion, and demonstrate how 'AI ageism' and algorithmic bias in resource allocation systematically disadvantage older adults. Incorporate the World Health Organization's age-friendly framework and contemporary theories of algorithmic accountability to identify three main forms of service imbalance in this study: infrastructural mismatch, algorithmic opacity, and participatory deficit. Therefore, the following multi-level governance path has been proposed. Institutionalisation of age-inclusive algorithmic auditing, enhancement of digital literacy through participatory design, and enforcement of transparent, explainable AI policies tailored to elderly cognitive patterns are included. In short, this paper offers some ideas for promoting equitable and inclusive ageing in old age in the new era of urbanisation.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] World Health Organization. (2007). Global age-friendly cities: A guide. World Health Organization.

[2] Marston, H. R., & van Hoof, J. (2019). Who doesn't think about technology when designing urban environments for older people? A case study approach to a proposed extension of the WHO's age-friendly cities model. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(19), 3525.

[3] van Leeuwen, C., Clavijo, J. D., Mariën, I., & Jacobs, A. (2022). Invisible in the smart city: Using participatory design methods for age-friendly solutions. Frontiers in Sustainable Cities, 4, 956787.

[4] Stypinska, J. (2023). AI ageism: A critical roadmap for studying age discrimination and exclusion in digitalized societies. AI & Society, 38, 665–677.

[5] Berridge, C., & Grigorovich, A. (2022). Algorithmic harms and digital ageism in the use of surveillance technologies in nursing homes. Frontiers in Sociology, 7, 957246.

[6] Chu, C. H., Donato-Woodger, S., Khan, S. S., Nyrup, R., Leslie, K., Lyn, A., Shi, T., Bianchi, A., Rahimi, S. A., & Grenier, A. (2023). Age-related bias and artificial intelligence: A scoping review. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10, 510.

[7] Gaventa, J. (2006). Finding the spaces for change: A power analysis. IDS Bulletin, 37(6), 23–33.

[8] Cui, H., Chu, W., Wang, S., Xu, S., & Liu, S. (2025). Mechanisms of the impact of digital government on the digital divide among older adults: A scoping review. Asia Pacific Journal of Social Work and Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/29949769.2025.2487104

[9] Yao, Y. (2025). Regulating addictive algorithms and designs: Protecting older adults from digital exploitation beyond a youth-centric approach. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, 1579604.

[10] Yu, J., Huang, J., Zhou, S., Xie, Q., Wan, X., & Feng, H. (2026). Digital exclusion among older adults: A concept analysis based on scoping review. Journal of Applied Gerontology. https://doi.org/10.1177/07334648251408166

[11] Li, Z., Yu, X., & Tian, K. (2026). Algorithm-associated digital addiction among older adults: Mechanisms and public health implications for healthy aging. Frontiers in Public Health, 13, 1746304.

[12] Wang, Z. (2026). Digital inequality in AI governance: Inclusive pathways for aging populations. International Journal of Education and Social Development, 7(2), 10–13.