Written by Dr.Saadia Shabnam and Zannatul Tazrin Date: 10 Match 2026
Ageing in Place in Australia: Indicative Insights from a Pilot Workshop
Introduction
Ageing in place has become a cornerstone of ageing and care policy in Australia, reflecting both demographic change and a strong preference among older people to remain living in their own homes for as long as possible. Policy reforms over the past decade have increasingly prioritised home-based care, community living, and consumer choice, positioning residential aged care as a later or last-stage option rather than a default pathway. Despite this policy emphasis, ageing in place is often treated as a singular aspiration rather than a lived, negotiated experience shaped by personal circumstances, environments, and systems of support.
This briefing paper presents indicative insights from a pilot Ageing in Place (AinP) workshop conducted as part of a broader research program. The purpose of the pilot was exploratory: to test engagement methods, surface early themes, and inform the design of subsequent research and co-design phases. The findings presented here therefore offer a surface-level understanding of how ageing in place is conceptualised by a small group of participants. They are not intended to be representative or generalisable, but rather to provide early signals that can be situated within, and interpreted alongside, established national evidence.
Ageing in Place in the Australian Policy Context
Australia’s population is ageing rapidly. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, people aged 65 years and over now constitute a growing proportion of the population, with the majority living in private dwellings rather than institutional settings (ABS, 2023). This pattern reflects both preference and policy. National surveys consistently show that most older Australians wish to remain living at home, even as their health and functional capacity change (AIHW, 2023).
The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare reports that the aged care system has increasingly shifted toward home-based support, with the majority of people receiving aged care services now doing so through home care packages and the Commonwealth Home Support Programme (AIHW, 2023). The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety reinforced this direction, emphasising the importance of autonomy, dignity, and choice, and highlighting widespread dissatisfaction with institutional care environments (Royal Commission, 2021).
At the same time, national inquiries and policy reviews have identified persistent challenges that complicate ageing in place. These include fragmented service systems, difficulties navigating aged care pathways, housing stock that is poorly designed for ageing, transport dependence, and unequal access to digital and community infrastructure (Productivity Commission, 2023; AHURI, 2022). It is within this context that the AinP pilot workshop sought to explore how ageing in place is understood and experienced at an individual level.
Methodological Approach and Scope
The AinP pilot workshop employed a qualitative, exploratory design. A small number of participants with diverse life circumstances were invited to take part in a facilitated discussion focused on their visions of ageing in place, perceived enablers and barriers, and ideas for improvement. The workshop was structured around guided prompts and perceptual mapping activities spanning six domains: physical environment, health and care needs, social connection, psychological wellbeing, financial security, and access to services, transport, and technology.
The pilot was not designed to generate statistically robust findings. Instead, its primary purpose was methodological, to assess whether the workshop format and conceptual domains resonated with participants and to observe how individuals themselves connect different aspects of ageing in place. All data were collected with informed consent and analysed at a non-identifiable, thematic level. The insights reported here should therefore be interpreted as preliminary and indicative rather than definitive.
Indicative Insights from the Pilot Workshop
One of the strongest impressions from the pilot workshop was that ageing in place is not a uniform or fixed concept. Participants described ageing in place in ways that were deeply personal, shaped by long-term attachment to home, cultural values, family relationships, and expectations about future health and independence. For some, ageing in place was inseparable from remaining in a long-held home that embodied identity and continuity. For others, it was understood more flexibly as living in a familiar, supportive environment, even if that environment might change over time. This diversity echoes existing research showing that ageing preferences vary significantly across life course, migration history, and household structure (Wiles et al., 2012; AIHW, 2023).
Across these diverse narratives, independence and control emerged as central to participants’ understanding of ageing well. Ageing in place was repeatedly associated with maintaining decision-making authority, preserving daily routines, and avoiding settings perceived as restrictive or impersonal. Even when participants acknowledged the likelihood of declining health or increased support needs, they expressed a strong desire to retain agency for as long as possible. This emphasis aligns closely with national and international evidence linking autonomy and perceived control to wellbeing and quality of life in later life (Sixsmith & Sixsmith, 2008; Royal Commission, 2021).
Family support was widely recognised as an important enabler of ageing in place, but it was not assumed to be universally available or uncomplicated. Participants valued family involvement while also acknowledging variability in family capacity, geographic proximity, and willingness to provide care. Some expressed discomfort with the idea of becoming a burden on family members, while others recognised that not all older people have family networks to draw upon. These reflections resonate with policy concerns about the sustainability of ageing-in-place models that implicitly rely on unpaid family care, particularly in the context of smaller families, increased workforce participation, and longer life expectancy (Productivity Commission, 2023).
Transport emerged as a critical factor shaping participants’ sense of independence and social connection. The ability to drive or access reliable public transport was described as central to maintaining everyday activities, accessing healthcare, and sustaining social relationships. Participants perceived the loss of driving capacity as a potential turning point that could significantly constrain daily life. This aligns with national evidence identifying transport disadvantage as a major contributor to social isolation and reduced service access among older Australians, particularly in suburban and car-dependent environments (Infrastructure Australia, 2022).
Participants also described the aged care system as complex and difficult to navigate. Engaging with services was often perceived as confusing, time-consuming, and reactive rather than preventative. Even those with familiarity or professional experience in aged care acknowledged the challenges faced by individuals attempting to plan ahead. These perceptions mirror findings from system-level reviews that highlight fragmentation, administrative burden, and limited navigational support within Australia’s aged care system (Royal Commission, 2021; Productivity Commission, 2023).
Technology was discussed in ambivalent terms. Participants recognised its potential to support connection, safety, and access to information, while also describing frustration with poorly designed interfaces, digital complexity, and exclusion. These mixed experiences reflect well-documented digital divides among older Australians, particularly for those with sensory impairments or limited digital literacy (ABS, 2022). The pilot discussions reinforce the importance of designing technology that accommodates diverse capabilities rather than assuming uniform digital confidence.
Finally, housing was framed as an active component of ageing rather than a static backdrop. Participants spoke about the need for homes to adapt over time, whether through physical modifications, accessibility features, or proximity to services and transport. This perspective aligns strongly with national housing research showing that most Australian dwellings lack basic age-friendly design features, increasing risk and reducing functional independence as people age (AHURI, 2022).
Implications and Interpretive Caution
Taken together, the pilot workshop insights suggest that ageing in place is best understood as a dynamic interaction between personal capability, environmental design, social relationships, and system responsiveness. However, it is essential to emphasise that these insights are exploratory and provisional. The pilot does not provide a sufficient basis for firm conclusions or policy recommendations. Its value lies in highlighting areas that warrant deeper investigation and more systematic engagement.
The recurring emphasis on autonomy, transport, system navigation, adaptable housing, and inclusive technology reinforces themes already present in the literature, while grounding them in lived experience. These early signals will inform subsequent phases of research designed to broaden participation, strengthen evidence, and support co-designed innovation.
Limitations and Next Steps
The limitations of this work are significant and explicit. The pilot workshop involved a very small, non-representative group, relied on qualitative discussion at a single point in time, and prioritised methodological testing over data saturation. As such, the findings should be treated as directional rather than conclusive.
Future phases of the Ageing in Place research program will expand the scale and diversity of engagement, refine workshop tools, and integrate additional methods to develop a more robust understanding of how ageing in place can be effectively supported across different contexts and life stages.
References
- Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (2022). Household use of information technology, Australia. ABS.
- Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (2023). Older Australians. ABS.
- Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI). (2022). Housing for an ageing population. AHURI.
- Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). (2023). Australia’s aged care system. AIHW.
- Infrastructure Australia. (2022). Social infrastructure and ageing. Australian Government.
- Productivity Commission. (2023). Review of the aged care system. Australian Government.
- Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. (2021). Final report: Care, dignity and respect. Australian Government.
- Sixsmith, A., & Sixsmith, J. (2008). Ageing in place in the United Kingdom. Ageing International, 32(3), 219–235.
- Wiles, J. L., Leibing, A., Guberman, N., Reeve, J., & Allen, R. E. (2012). The meaning of “ageing in place” to older people. The Gerontologist, 52(3), 357–366.
Collaborate With Us!
Email: unheardconsumer@curtin.edu.au
Phone: 92663875
Live Experience Lab (B402.416)
Curtin University, 208 Kent Street, Bentley, WA 6102