1183000

research-article2023
AAS0010.1177/00953997231183000Administration & SocietyWarner and Zhang

Article
Administration & Society

Representative
2023, Vol. 55(9) 1738­–1757
© The Author(s) 2023
Article reuse guidelines:
Bureaucracy, Age- sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997231183000
DOI: 10.1177/00953997231183000
Friendly Planning, and journals.sagepub.com/home/aas

the Role of Gender,

Public Engagement,
and Professional
Management

Mildred E. Warner1,2 and Xue Zhang1,2,3,4

Abstract
What leads to more age-friendly cities: professional management, passive
gender representation in management, or active public engagement? In a
survey of 1,378 local governments, age-friendly features were measured
in the community comprehensive plan, zoning codes, and economic
development plan. Gender representation does not distinguish level of age-
friendly planning, but public engagement promotes age-friendly practices in
all three areas: comprehensive plans, zoning, and economic development
plans. Structural equation models find professionalism and public engagement
matter more than gender representation in management, as they promote
active representation, which leads to more age-friendly practices.

Keywords
gender, age-friendly planning, professionalism, local government, public
engagement, representative bureaucracy

1
Department of City and Regional Planning, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA
2
Department of Global Development, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA
3
Lerner Center for Public Health Promotion and Population Health, Syracuse University, NY
4
Center for Policy Research, Syracuse University, NY
Corresponding Author:
Mildred E. Warner, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA.
Email: mwarner@cornell.edu
Warner and Zhang 1739

Introduction
Public administration scholars are giving more attention to gender represen-
tation, but this has been understudied with respect to female city managers
(Hamidullah et al., 2015). Women are underrepresented in local government
management in the United States (Caceres-Rodriguez, 2013; Holman, 2017)
and hold under 17% of city/county management positions (ICMA, 2019).
This article presents results from a nationwide survey of US cities and
counties to assess which factors distinguish communities with more age-
friendly planning and zoning (such as mixed use zoning and walkability). It
explores the effect of professional management, passive gender representa-
tion in management, and active public engagement in planning for child and
age-friendly cities. Models analyze the level of attention to age-friendly
issues in comprehensive plans, zoning codes, and economic development
plans by gender, professional management, and level of public engagement.
This research enables us to explore the effect of professional management
and gender in distinguishing communities with more age-friendly planning.
We are also able to explore the effect of public engagement on age-friendly
outcomes: planning, zoning, and economic development. Public administra-
tion recognizes the need to address a wider set of residents, especially chil-
dren and older adults who have traditionally been marginalized in the
planning process. This paper helps clarify the importance of active represen-
tation of the public, gender representation in management, and the profes-
sional council manager form of government.

Literature Review
Professional Management and Active Public Engagement
US society is aging, but cities are only beginning to recognize the challenges
this brings for city services, comprehensive planning, and the built environ-
ment (Lehning, 2012; Warner & Zhang, 2022; Wolf & Amirkhanyan, 2010).
The World Health Organization (WHO, 2007), United Nations Children’s
Fund (UNICEF, 2004), and the American Association of Retired Persons
(AARP, n.d.) have outlined the key domains where cities need to give atten-
tion to the needs of older adults and children. These include housing, trans-
portation, services, built environment, public engagement, and social
inclusion. The American Planning Association (APA, 2014) has articulated
guidelines for age-friendly cities, that call for attention to the needs of chil-
dren and older adults in comprehensive plans, zoning and land use, and eco-
nomic development. While these frameworks for age-friendly cities give
1740 Administration & Society 55(9)

attention to the importance of public engagement, they are silent on the role
of public management.
This paper looks specifically at the effect of professional management,
gender representation in management, and public engagement in distinguish-
ing local governments with more age-friendly practices. City managers are
appointed professionals in the United States, and local governments of the
council manager (CM) form are considered more professional (Carr, 2015;
Hefetz et al., 2014; K. L. Nelson & Svara, 2012). Professional city managers
oversee the day-to-day administration of the municipality. Council manager
governments tend to be more aware of new practices in public administration
and planning due to their participation in professional associations such as
International City/County Management Association (ICMA) and the APA
(K. L. Nelson & Svara, 2012), and are more likely to engage in comprehen-
sive policy actions that address broader community benefits and promote
innovative planning, zoning, and economic development practice (Carr,
2015; Feiock et al., 2014; Warner et al., 2017).
While the separation between politics and management is a core feature of
council manager governments, research and practice show the city manager
influences policy design and implementation through actions complementary
to the political role of councils (Demir & Nyhan, 2008; Nalbandian et al.,
2013; Svara, 2001). Professional managers are more likely to negotiate the
divides between political and administrative functions—leading to more
interaction with their councils (Svara & Nelson, 2008) and the public
(Nalbandian et al., 2013).
Professional managers recognize the importance of public engagement,
and much work has been done on how to promote public engagement, espe-
cially from marginalized groups. Council manager governments are more
likely to promote citizen participation (Nalbandian et al., 2013) and best
practices for citizen engagement (B. Nelson & Wood, 2010). Strategies for
engaging women, children, older adults, low income, and people of color
reach beyond the traditional planning board meeting to new modalities such
as photovoice (Sancar & Severcan, 2010) and charettes (Keyes & Benavides,
2017) to promote direct public engagement (Nabatchi & Amsler, 2014).
Engagement can facilitate active representation, and this is why it is recog-
nized as a core pillar in the age-friendly recommendations of WHO (2007),
UNICEF (2004), AARP (n.d.), and the APA (2014). Empirical work has
found engagement of families with children and older adults in the planning
process is one of the strongest factors distinguishing communities with more
age-friendly planning and services (Keyes & Benavides, 2017; Lehning,
2012; Warner et al., 2017; Warner & Zhang, 2022), but zoning and economic
development planning have been more resistant to change (Micklow &
Warner and Zhang 1741

Warner, 2014; Reese & Ye, 2015; Zhang et al., 2017). Power and organiza-
tional structure limit public participation and gender representation in the
regulatory aspects of planning such as zoning, infrastructure, and economic
development (Siemiatycki et al., 2020).

Gender Representation in Public Administration

Representative bureaucracy theory addresses both participation and organiza-
tional structure (Bishu & Kennedy, 2020; Kennedy et al., 2020; Krislov &
Rosenbloom, 1981; Meier, 2018; Sowa & Selden, 2003) and acknowledges the
difference between passive and active representation. The links between the
two depend on both organizational and community characteristics and leader-
ship discretion (Meier, 2018; Sowa & Selden, 2003). While diversifying voices
inside local government can increase identity salience, active policy change
requires critical mass, and administrative discretion to promote shifts in organi-
zational culture (Bishu & Kennedy, 2020; Meier, 2018). Male domination his-
torically has led to less attention to gender issues in city government (Stivers,
2000). Bureaucracies are not neutral (Portillo et al., 2020). Administrative dis-
cretion is important in enacting policies representative of emerging minority
interests (Sowa & Selden, 2003). Representation can move from symbolic to
active when there is critical mass for emerging or minority interests within the
government organization (Bishu & Kennedy, 2020).
Research needs to explore if communities with women managers will be
more likely to include attention to age-friendly issues in their plans or more
constrained in raising these matters due to traditional gendered norms about
land use, zoning, and economic development. Prior research has found when
women are in leadership roles, they are more likely to promote policies of
interest to women and their families (Caceres-Rodriguez, 2013; Park, 2012),
and improve organizational performance (D’Agostino, 2015). Women lead-
ers in economic development and environmental management have paid
more attention to social equity issues (Homsy & Lambright, 2021; Read &
Leland, 2019), but women are often less likely to be heard in policy discus-
sions (Turesky & Warner, 2020), especially those around physical infrastruc-
ture in transportation and planning agencies (Siemiatycki et al., 2020).
While some research finds gender differences in attitudes and actions
(DeHart-Davis et al., 2006; Kennedy et al., 2020), these may not receive full
expression due to organizational constraints and bias in the workplace (Bishu
& Headley, 2020). Public administration scholars have called for the need to
look at the intersection between gender and professional government
(Bearfield, 2009; Riccucci, 2018). Organizational context helps determine if
women’s voices are heard inside the bureaucracy. Job segregation and lack of
1742 Administration & Society 55(9)

recognition of the emotional labor in public service contributes to gender dif-

ferences (Guy & Newman, 2004). In local government, women are more
likely to be occupationally segregated into social services or redistributive
functions (Johnson & Crum-Cano, 2011). Lowi’s (1972) typology of policy
arenas suggests that redistributive policy arenas will be more likely to be
represented by women, while regulatiory, distributive, and constituent poli-
cies will have an imbalance toward men. For example, gendered power dif-
ferences in economic development and infrastructure planning agencies
(Siemiatycki et al., 2020) limit the voice of women, and this gender bias gets
reflected in the focus and choice of planning policies (Johnson & Crum-
Cano, 2011), and in the lack of attention to paradigm change to address the
needs of women and the aging (Hirt, 2013: Micklow & Warner, 2014; Zhang
et al., 2023).
Research on the organizational dynamics of planning workplaces finds it
is not the gender of the planner, but the nature of the leadership which enables
women’s voices to be heard (Turesky & Warner, 2020). Organizational psy-
chology recognizes the importance of role congruity and expectation states
on why women and their concerns may remain unheard in bureaucratic set-
tings (Bosak et al., 2012; Correll & Ridgeway, 2006). In council manager
governments, professional managers have been found to devote more time to
managerial processes and innovation (Carr, 2015; Feiock et al., 2014); thus
women may be more likely to heard in governments of the council manager
form.
With the aging of America, addressing the broader care needs of society is
gaining attention, but it requires a paradigm change to address new modali-
ties for planning, zoning, and economic development (Lehning, 2012; Reese
& Ye, 2015; Warner & Zhang, 2022; Zhang et al., 2023). What distinguishes
the level of age-friendly planning and zoning across US cities and counties?
What role do professional management, gender, and public engagement
play? This article draws from a nationwide survey of local governments to
examine differences by gender, professionalization (council manager form)
of government and public engagement in comprehensive planning and zon-
ing, and economic development.

Data and Method

In 2013, we conducted a nationwide survey with the International City
County Management Association (ICMA) of local government actions on
age-friendly planning. Surveys were mailed to the chief administrative offi-
cers in cities and counties across the United States. The sample frame included
all counties, all municipalities over 25,000 people, a one in three sample of
Warner and Zhang 1743

municipalities under 25,000, for a total of 7,948 local governments. We

received responses from 1,474 municipalities. The survey asked the respon-
dents’ gender, and 1,378 municipalities provided this information. That is the
sample used in this analysis, with a 17% response rate. A two-sample
Kolmogorov–Smirnov test shows the distribution of population between the
universe and the sample data are not significantly different.
The survey measures age-friendly community practices. These include
attention to the level of age-friendly planning in the comprehensive and the
economic development plans and the extent of the community covered by
age-friendly zoning codes. The survey also has measures of the level of pub-
lic engagement in planning, the professionalism of the local government, and
the composition of the community governing board/council. Planning and
zoning authority varies by government type and includes various volunteer
planning and zoning boards. This analysis focuses on the jurisdictional level
and asks if the jurisdiction has plans and zoning codes in place. Counties are
included in the analysis because they provide technical assistance to jurisdic-
tions within the county. Each survey respondent is identified by their com-
munity’s respective FIPS code. Based on the FIPS code, survey data are
linked with socio-economic data from the American Community Survey to
control for demographic and place characteristics.

Dependent Variables
Age-friendly planning. The survey asked if a community has a comprehensive
plan and an economic development plan, and if those plans “specifically
address the needs of children and older adults.” The extent of age-friendly
planning is measured as (no plan), 1 (plan does not address the needs of chil-
dren or older adults), 2 (plan addresses only children or older adults), and 3
(plan addresses both children and older adults). Comprehensive plans are
commonly adopted by communities (80%), and 39% of respondents indi-
cated that their comprehensive plan addresses the needs of both children and
older adults. Only 62% of the communities had an economic development
plan, and only 16% of the respondents reported that their economic plan
addresses the needs of both children and older adults. Only comprehensive
plans require a public engagement process, so lack of attention to age-friendly
needs in economic development plans may be explained by the lack of public
engagement.

Age-friendly zoning codes. Zoning codes regulate development. The survey

measured 14 age-friendly zoning codes on a scale of 1 to 5 for the percent of
the community covered by each code (0% = 1, 0–25% = 2, 26–50% = 3,
1744 Administration & Society 55(9)

51–75% = 4, >75% = 5). The zoning code index is the aggregate sum of each
zoning code by the percent of community covered. The zoning codes with the
highest coverage “allow family sized housing (with 2 or more bedrooms,”
“mandate sidewalk systems,” and “promote parks and recreation facilities in
all neighborhoods.” More than half of respondents reported that those zoning
codes cover more than 50% if the community. The least common zoning ele-
ments were “provide density bonuses (for affordable housing, open space and
transit),” “mandate universal design for new housing construction (physi-
cally accessible to people with limited mobility),” “allow accessory dwelling
units,” and “require complete streets (street designs for multiple users—cars,
bikes, pedestrians).” While these zoning codes would enable residents to age
in place, more than half of respondents reported these zoning codes cover less
than 25% of the community. Other zoning codes include: “promote afford-
able housing,” “allow multi-family housing,” “allow childcare centers,”
“allow childcare business in residential units by right,” “allow mixed-use
(e.g., retail and services in residential areas),” “contain pedestrian-friendly
design guidelines,” and “require street connections between adjacent devel-
opments.” These zoning elements provide the mix of services residents need
to age in place. Despite the best practice recommendations from APA (2014)
and AARP (n.d.), the survey finds less than half the communities have most
of these zoning codes in place.

Independent Variables
The key variables of interest in this analysis are whether professional man-
agement, gender, and public engagement distinguish communities with more
age-friendly planning and zoning. We also control for governing board, pro-
fessional interest, community demographics, county, and metro status.

Gender and professional management. The survey was mailed to the chief
administrative officer of each community. Thirty-four percent of respondents
were female and 66% were male. Forty-nine percent of respondents were in
council manager (CM) governments, with the remaining 51% in other forms
of government. We created interaction terms between gender and profes-
sional management to measure gender representation in management:
10.23% of female respondents were in CM government, 23.44 % of female
respondents were in other forms of government, 38.32% of male respondents
were in CM government, and 28.01 % of male respondents were in other
form of government. Table 1 uses the Scheffe test for differences in subgroup
means. Respondents from CM forms of government are more likely to report
Warner and Zhang 1745

Table 1. Age-Friendly Planning: Descriptive Statistics by Gender and Form of

Government.
Male
Female respondents Male
respondents Female in council respondents
in council respondents manager in other
manager form in other form form of form of
of government of government government government
(N = 141, (N = 323, (N = 528, (N = 386,
Variables 10.23%) 23.44%) 38.32%) 28.01%)

Age-friendly planning
Comprehensive plan 1.82a,b 1.27c 2.04a 1.54b
(level 0–3)1
Economic development 1.07a 0.96a 0.97a 1.00a
plan(level 0–3)1
Age-friendly zoning codes 43.39a 37.27b 43.39a 39.56b
(14 elements, level 1–5)1
Public Engagement (3 5.92a 5.38b 5.59b 5.58b
elements, level 1–3)1
Controls
Governing board (4 1.73a 1.89a 1.74a 1.71a
elements)1
Professional interest (3 1.50a 1.23b 1.44a 1.39a,b
elements)1
Years working in current 7.25b 10.02a 7.42b 8.77a,b
position1
Poverty rate (%)2 14.31a 14.51a 15.01a 13.92a
Percentage of dependent 37.87a 39.0a 37.93a 38.82a
population2
Population (ln) 2 10.55a 9.32b 10.29a 9.45b
Population density (ln) 2 6.53a 5.09c 6.92a 5.70b
Population growth (%)2,3 19.30a,b 9.42b 22.51a 15.31a,b
Median age of housing2 36.57b 43.39a 36.50b 39.70b
Percentage of 9.96b 13.11a 10.89b 14.11a
population working in
manufacturing industry2
County government1 0.30b 0.39a 0.20b 0.28a,b
Metro core4 0.31a 0.06b 0.23a 0.07b
Suburb4 0.45a 0.46a 0.55a 0.54a
Rural4 0.24b 0.47a 0.23b 0.39a

Data sources: 1Planning Across Generations Survey 2013. 2American Community Survey 2009 to 2013.
3
American Community Survey 2005 to 2009. 4US Census 2010.
Note. N = 1,378 US local governments. Superscripts a, b, c denote Scheffe test results: a: high, b: medium,
c: low.
1746 Administration & Society 55(9)

comprehensive plans and zoning that address the needs of children and older
adults than respondents from other government types (Table 1). However,
Table 1 reports few differences between male and female respondents in CM
forms of government. Regarding age-friendly economic development plans,
there was no difference by gender or professional management (Table 1).
Where differences appear is between female and male respondents in non-
CM governments, where female respondents report significantly less atten-
tion to age-friendly issues in their comprehensive plans (Table 1). These
results suggest it is professional management more than gender that helps
explain communities with more age-friendly practices. A closer look shows
female respondents in non-CM forms of government are more likely to work
in smaller, rural communities.

Public engagement. The survey asked about the “level of engagement of

seniors, youth and families with children in planning for their needs.”
Engagement of each group was measured on a three-point scale (1 = not at all
engaged, 2 = somewhat engaged, and 3 = very engaged). Seniors were
reported to have the highest level of engagement, followed by families with
young children and youth. Engagement is statistically significantly higher in
communities with female managers and in CM governments (Table 1). Com-
munities with more public engagement are expected to have more age-
friendly planning and zoning.

Controls
Governing board. The survey asked four questions about the composition of
the community governing board. The questions were structured on a contin-
uum with three options; for example, “My community’s board/council is pre-
dominantly: long-time residents, evenly mixed, newcomers.” The index to
measure if the governing board was evenly mixed aggregates across four
sub-questions: (1) evenly mixed between long-time residents and newcomers
(32% of respondents), (2) evenly mixed between older residents and younger
residents (58%), (3) evenly mixed between conservative and liberal (48%),
and (4) evenly mixed between male and female (36%). Communities were
least likely to report governing boards evenly balanced by gender or length of
residence in community (Table 1). This might lead to less responsiveness to
age-friendly concerns. However, Table 1 shows no difference in governing
board representativeness by gender or professional management.

Professional interest. The survey asked “what motivates your professional

interest in multigenerational planning?” The majority of respondents reported
Warner and Zhang 1747

they are motivated by “community needs” (74%, not differentiated by CM

form of government). Only a minority reported they were motivated by “fis-
cal efficiency” (38% CM government, 35% other forms of government), but
those motivated by “literature on best practices and emerging trends” were
more likely to be professional (32% CM government, 23% other forms of
government, p < 0.05). Professional managers would be expected to have
more professional interest in these issues, and both male and female respon-
dents from CM governments report higher professional interest compared to
respondents from other government types (Table 1). The survey also asked
“how many years have you been in your current position?” Table 1 shows
female respondents from non-CM forms of government have been in their
position for more years.

Socio-economic conditions. Control variables include socioeconomic factors

(poverty rate) and demographics (percent of dependent population, total pop-
ulation, population density, population growth). Percent of dependent popu-
lation includes the percent of population under 18 and percent of population
over 65. Economic structure (percent employed in manufacturing) is con-
trolled in the economic plan model, and the age of the community (median
age of housing) in the comprehensive plan and zoning models, as older com-
munities may be less likely to plan for changing needs. These variables are
drawn from the American Community Survey’s 2009–2013 and 2005–2009
estimates. We differentiate counties from other government types. We control
for metro status. Metro core includes cities and counties which have a princi-
pal city, and this serves as the reference category. Suburban places are all
other metropolitan places. Rural is nonmetropolitan.

Results
Two structural equation models (SEM) were estimated. SEM can estimate
sub-models simultaneously and has been used frequently in public adminis-
tration research (Davis & Stazyk, 2017). SEM uses maximum likelihood
methods and can address missing data to preserve sample size. The first SEM
model measures the path linking comprehensive plans and zoning codes. The
second SEM model measures the factors differentiating communities with
more attention to age-friendly issues in their economic development plan.
The models were estimated in STATA 14.0 without latent factors. Model per-
formance is tested using equation-level goodness of fit. Model results are
shown in Table 2.
Female and male respondents by CM and non-CM government are mea-
sured with dummy variables. Female respondents in non-CM governments
1748 Administration & Society 55(9)

Table 2. Age-Friendly Planning: SEM Model Results.

Model 1 Model 2

Comprehensive Zoning Economic

Variable plan1 code1 development plan1
Gender representative in management
Female respondents in other form of government (reference group)1
Female respondents in 0.062* 0.031 −0.005
council manager form of
government1
Male respondents in 0.195** 0.053 −0.023
council manager form of
government1
Male respondents 0.055 0.020 0.013
in other form of
government1
Public Engagement1 0.107** 0.175** 0.166**
Controls
Comprehensive plan1 0.157**
Governing board1 0.039 0.038 0.113**
Years working in current −0.010 0.049 0.003
position1
Professional interest1 0.091** 0.043 0.115**
Poverty rate (%)2 −0.069* 0.010 0.067*
Percent of dependent −0.041 −0.012 0.022
population2
Population (ln)2 −0.003 0.082 0.114**
Population density (ln)2 0.219** 0.318** −0.019
Population growth (%)2,3 −0.026 0.049 0.058*
Median age of housing2 −0.074* −0.049
Percentage of 0.005
population working in
manufacturing industry2
County government1 0.028 −0.014 0.060
Metro core (reference group)4
Suburb4 −0.011 −0.082 0.035
Rural4 −0.012 −0.037 0.058
N 1,378 1,378
Goodness of fit 0.33 0.09

Data sources. 1Planning Across Generations Survey 2013. 2American Community Survey 2009
to 2013. 3American Community Survey 2005 to 2009. 4US Census 2010.
Note. N = 1,378 US local governments.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
Warner and Zhang 1749

are the reference category. Model results show CM communities are more
likely to have comprehensive plans that address the needs of children and
older adults than non-CM communities. The coefficient for male respondents
is higher than female respondents, but both female and male respondents in
CM governments have higher levels of age-friendly planning. It is the profes-
sional structure of government that matters more than gender. This lends sup-
port to a professional effect over a gender effect. Public engagement has a
statistically significant positive effect in both models. It is the only model
variable that has a strong positive effect on all three outcomes: comprehen-
sive plans, zoning, and economic development plans.
Communities with age-friendly comprehensive plans have more age-
friendly zoning codes. This is expected, as comprehensive plans provide the
vision and foundation for elaborating zoning codes. However, no difference
by gender or CM government is found in zoning codes. Zoning codes are
path dependent and reproduced in the built environment. Thus, institutional
barriers to change are stronger in zoning than in comprehensive planning.
Age-friendly zoning is higher in larger communities with greater population
density. This may reflect the fact that age-friendly best practices are based on
principles of walkability and mixed use, which are easier to achieve in more
urban environments (Zhang & Warner, 2023).
Neither gender nor CM form of government explain differences in age-
friendly economic development plans. However, communities with a more
evenly balanced governing board are more likely to address the needs of
children and older adults in their plans. Communities with higher poverty are
also more likely to have age-friendly economic development plans, as are
larger communities and those with more growth.
The professional interest variable includes attention to community need,
fiscal efficiency, and literature on best practices. Professional interest has a
positive effect in both the comprehensive plan and economic development
plan models; this professionalism evidently enables managers to address
emerging needs and embrace new paradigms for age-friendly planning.
Community characteristics also matter. Communities with more older hous-
ing and higher poverty are less likely to have age-friendly comprehensive plans,
but communities with higher poverty are more likely to have economic develop-
ment plans that address the needs of children and older adults. Larger communi-
ties have more age-friendly economic development plans. Denser communities
have more age-friendly comprehensive plans and zoning codes. Density
increases recognition of the need for age-friendly planning and zoning and
makes these practices easier to achieve. County governments do not show sig-
nificant differences. Differences by metro status are not significant once popula-
tion size and density are controlled. Level of dependent population has no effect.
1750 Administration & Society 55(9)

Discussion
Representative bureaucracy theory emphasizes active representation, and
these models show public engagement distinguishes the level of age-friendly
planning and zoning across US communities. Communities which engage
families with children and older adults are more likely to reflect their needs
in comprehensive plans and zoning and in economic development plans.
Public engagement is the only factor which has a positive effect on all three
measures of age friendly practice. This supports the theoretical frameworks
offered by UNICEF (2004), WHO (2007), and AARP (n.d.) on how to pro-
mote more age-friendly communities.
Regarding gender representation and professionalism, the models show
that professional management, more than gender, distinguishes communities
with more age-friendly planning. Why does gender of the manager not have
more of an effect? Recall that female respondents were more likely to be from
smaller, rural governments that were not of the council manager form. In these
governments, it is possible that organizational culture may be more traditional
(Stivers, 2000), and administrative discretion may be limited. Even though
female respondents in our sample on average had 2.5 more years of experi-
ence in position, they may not have enough power to change paradigms or
enough external professional engagement to be aware of new age-friendly
planning practices. Future research should explore these questions.
Research on planners has found that even when female planners are in
place, they may not have the power to be heard or effect policy change
(Turesky & Warner, 2020), especially in regulatory planning functions
(Siemiatycki et al., 2020). Similar results have been found among female city
managers (Bishu & Headley, 2020; Holman, 2017). Role congruence and
expectations may constrain the ability of women to push paradigmatic bound-
aries (Bosak et al., 2012; Correll & Ridgeway, 2006).
In CM governments, both men and women have a positive effect on age
friendly planning. This may be because professional managers help promote
active representation, both inside and outside the organization (Bishu &
Kennedy, 2020). Research on gender dynamics in planning workplaces has
found more gender respect and attention to age-friendly planning issues in
planning agencies with female managers (Turesky & Warner, 2020).
Professional managers are more likely to be aware of emerging trends (Carr,
2015; K. L. Nelson & Svara, 2012; Warner & Zhang, 2022). The models here
show where these professional interests are higher, comprehensive plans and
economic development plans are more age-friendly.
While the findings include a positive effect of both CM government and
female respondent in the comprehensive planning process, there was no effect on
Warner and Zhang 1751

zoning or economic development. Zoning and planning boards are separate enti-
ties and have independence from local government managers. Although vari-
ances may be granted by these boards, there is strong path dependence in zoning
regulations. Zoning codes are baked into the built form of the community and
difficult to change in the short term. Once zoning codes are written, they may stay
on the books for years. This makes paradigm change difficult. Feminist planners
have criticized the gender bias in zoning that privileges single family dwellings
and separation of public and private spheres (Hirt, 2013). As residents change
and needs shift, zoning codes need to be updated. The comprehensive planning
process is more open to public engagement and visioning, but zoning codes are
harder to change. Residents can put pressure on their governments by operating
in violation of zoning codes (Micklow & Warner, 2014) or seeking variances, but
changing zoning requires a willingness to challenge old paradigms.
Similar challenges are faced in economic development, where powerful
business interests keep economic development policy focused on tax abate-
ments at the expense of broader community development concerns (Feiock,
et al., 2003; Read & Leland, 2019). Less than a quarter of respondents to our
survey reported that the needs of children or older adults were addressed in
their economic development plans. Similarly, the survey found planning and
economic development agencies were less likely to collaborate to address the
needs of children and older adults. This is where professional city management
can make a difference. The manager, as the chief administrative officer, can
require planning and economic development agencies (often male-dominated)
to address age-friendly concerns. AARP (n.d.) recommends building commu-
nity coalitions to push for change. Collaboration across community agencies
has been shown to be a critical factor in addressing age-friendly needs (Warner
& Zhang, 2021; Zhang & Warner, 2023). However, such collaborations often
are limited to social service agencies. To address the structural change that is
needed, a broader set of community agencies must be engaged.
Age-friendly planning has the potential to make communities livable for
everyone. This universalizing aspect may be one reason why it is profession-
alism and public engagement, more than gender representation, that distin-
guish communities with more age-friendly planning and zoning. AARP links
its age-friendly initiative as part of its broader Livable Communities initia-
tive to emphasize this universalizing approach (Harrell et al., 2014). The
intersectionality of gender with age and the built environment creates both a
challenge for equity in governance and an opportunity to bring together a
broader coalition of community interests to address the need for paradigm
change in planning and zoning.
Building an age-friendly community requires moving beyond traditional
conceptions of land use and economic development to make changes in policy
1752 Administration & Society 55(9)

and practice. Local governments with professional managers are more able to
make those shifts. Bearfield (2009) and Riccucci (2018) have called for more
research to address the role of professional government in enabling active rep-
resentation for policy change. This study shows how professional management
facilitates broader public engagement to promote age-friendly planning.

Conclusion
This article explores the first national survey to address age-friendly planning
and asks if representative bureaucracy can help explain communities with
more age-friendly planning and zoning. It finds that public engagement is a
major factor distinguishing age-friendly communities. Active representation,
through public engagement, is key.
The models also show that professional management, more than gender
representation, distinguishes age-friendly communities. Much public admin-
istration research has explored the role of professional management and
found managers balance among policy interests of the governing board, resi-
dents, and best practices emerging in the field (Nalbandian et al., 2013).
Shifting old paradigms to new models of action requires an active role of
professional management. To become age-friendly, comprehensive planning
must shift from segregated to mixed land use, from commuting to complete
streets and walkability, and from single family housing to a wider mix of
housing options (Warner & Zhang, 2022). Economic development policy
must shift from business attraction strategies to a focus on local services and
the care economy (Reese & Ye, 2015; Warner & Liu, 2006). These paradigm
shifts require challenging old gendered stereotypes, a process that can be
bolstered by support from professional managers. This is not just women’s
work, but work for all in planning and public administration.
The promise of representative bureaucracy is that wider representation of
the diversity of the community will lead to change. Active public engagement
matters. Passive gender representation does not distinguish age-friendly
communities, but professional leadership does. Council manager govern-
ments are more open to new ways of working, which help communities
become more responsive to residents’ needs. Both male and female managers
are promoting age-friendly cities.

Authors Note
Xue Zhang is also affiliated to Lerner Center for Public Health Promotion and
Population Health, Syracuse University, NY, USA and Center for Policy Research,
Syracuse University, NY, USA.
Warner and Zhang 1753

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported in part by
US Department of Agriculture, National Institute for Food and Agriculture Grant nos.
# 2019-68006-29674 and #2021-67023-34437.

ORCID iD
Xue Zhang https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5786-4235

References
AARP. (n.d.). The age friendly process and program cycle. https://www.aarp.org/liv-
able-communities/network-age-friendly-communities/info-2014/getting-started.
html and https://livabilityindex.aarp.org/
American Planning Association. (2014). Aging in community policy guide.
Bearfield, D. A. (2009). Equity at the intersection: Public administration and the study
of gender. Public Administration Review, 69(3), 383–386.
Bishu, S. G., & Headley, A. M. (2020). Equal employment opportunity: Women
bureaucrats in male-dominated professions. Public Administration Review,
80(6), 1063–1074.
Bishu, S. G., & Kennedy, A. R. (2020). Trends and gaps: A meta-review of represen-
tative bureaucracy. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 40(4), 559–588.
Bosak, J., Sczesny, S., & Eagly, A. H. (2012). The impact of social roles on trait
judgments: A critical reexamination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
38(4), 429–440.
Caceres-Rodriguez, R. (2013). The glass ceiling revisited: Moving beyond discrimi-
nation in the study of gender in public organizations. Administration & Society,
45(6), 674–709.
Carr, J. B. (2015). What have we learned about the performance of council-manager
government? A review and synthesis of the research. Public Administration
Review, 75(5), 673–689.
Correll, S. J., & Ridgeway, C. L. (2006). Expectation states theory. In J. Delamater
(Ed.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 29–51). Springer.
D’Agostino, M. J. (2015). The difference that women make: Government perfor-
mance and women-led agencies. Administration & Society, 47(5), 532–548.
Davis, R. S., & Stazyk, E. C. (2017). Putting the methodological cart before the theo-
retical horse? Examining the application of SEM to connect theory and method
in public administration research. Review of Public Personnel Administration,
37(2), 202–218.
1754 Administration & Society 55(9)

DeHart-Davis, L., Marlowe, J., & Pandey, S. K. (2006). Gender dimensions of public
service motivation. Public Administration Review, 66(6), 873–887.
Demir, T., & Nyhan, R. C. (2008). The politics–administration dichotomy: An empiri-
cal search for correspondence between theory and practice. Public Administration
Review, 68(1), 81–96.
Feiock, R. C., Jeong, M., & Kim, J. (2003). Credible commitment and council-manager
government: Implications for policy instrument choices. Public Administration
Review, 63(5), 616–625.
Feiock, R. C., Lubell, M., & Lee, I. W. (2014). The political market framework and
policy change (Working paper). Florida State University.
Guy, M. E., & Newman, M. A. (2004). Women’s jobs, men’s jobs: Sex segregation
and emotional labor. Public Administration Review, 64(3), 289–298.
Hamidullah, M. F., Riccucci, N. M., & Pandey, S. K. (2015). Women in city hall:
Gender dimensions of managerial values. The American Review of Public
Administration, 45(3), 247–262.
Harrell, R., Lynott, J., & Guzman, S. (2014). Is this a good place to live? Measuring
community quality of life for all ages. AARP Public Policy Institute.
Hefetz, A., Warner, M. E., & Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2014), Professional management and
local government service delivery: Strategic decisions across alternative markets.
Public Performance & Management Review, 38(2), 261–283.
Hirt, S. (2013). Home, sweet home: American residential zoning in comparative per-
spective. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 33(3), 292–309.
Holman, M. R. (2017). Women in local government: What we know and where we go
from here. State and Local Government Review, 49(4), 285–296.
Homsy, G. C., & Lambright, K. (2021). Beyond community characteristics: A lead-
er’s gender and local government adoption of energy conservation practices and
redistributive programs. Local Environment, 26(2), 297–312.
International City/County Management Association. (2019). Data on ICMA women
members in the profession. 15 May.
Johnson, B. J., & Crum-Cano, B. D. (2011). Glass walls in urban planning: An exam-
ination of policy type and gender segregation within a profession. Review of
Public Personnel Administration, 31(4), 386–409.
Kennedy, A. R., Bishu, S. G., & Heckler, N. (2020). Feminism, masculinity, and
active representation. Administration & Society, 52(7), 1101–1130.
Keyes, L., & Benavides, A. (2017). Local government adoption of age friendly poli-
cies: An integrated model of responsiveness, multi-level governance and public
entrepreneurship theories. Public Administration Quarterly, 2017, 149–185.
Krislov, S., & Rosenbloom, D. (1981). Representative bureaucracy and the American
political system. Praeger Publishers Inc.
Lehning, A. J. (2012). City governments and aging in place: Community design, trans-
portation and housing innovation adoption. The Gerontologist, 52(3), 345–356.
Lowi, T. J. (1972). Four systems of policy, politics, and choice. Public Administration
Review, 32(4), 298–310.
Meier, K. J. (2018). Theoretical frontiers in representative bureaucracy: New directions
for research. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 1(2), 39–56.
Warner and Zhang 1755

Micklow, A. C., & Warner, M. E. (2014). Not your mother’s suburb: Remaking com-
munities for a more diverse population. The Urban Lawyer, 46(4), 729–751.
Nabatchi, T., & Amsler, L. B. (2014). Direct public engagement in local government.
American Review of Public Administration, 44(4), 63S–88S.
Nalbandian, J., O’Neill, R. Jr., Wilkes, J. M., & Kaufman, A. (2013). Contemporary
challenges in local government: Evolving roles and responsibilities, structures,
and processes. Public Administration Review, 73(4), 567–574.
Nelson, B., & Wood, C. (2010). Repercussions of reform: The effect of munici-
pal form of government on citizen participation strategies. Journal of Public
Administration, 3(3), 25–43.
Nelson, K. L., & Svara, J. H. (2012). Form of government still matters: Fostering
innovation in US municipal governments. The American Review of Public
Administration, 42(3), 257–281.
Park, S. (2012). Does gender matter? The effect of gender representation of pub-
lic bureaucracy on governmental performance. The American Review of Public
Administration, 43, 221–242.
Portillo, S., Bearfield, D., & Humphrey, N. (2020). The myth of bureaucratic neu-
trality: Institutionalized inequity in local government hiring. Review of Public
Personnel Administration, 40(3), 516–531.
Read, D., & Leland, S. M. (2019). A gendered perspective on local economic devel-
opment: Differences in the perceived importance of public services in the busi-
ness recruitment process. Administration & Society, 51(2), 175–196.
Reese, L., & Ye, M. (2015). Trends in local economic development policies. In ICMA
municipal yearbook 2015 (pp. 3–14). Washington, DC: International City County
Management Association.
Riccucci, N. M. (2018). Managing diversity in public sector workforces: Essentials of
public policy and administration series. Routledge.
Sancar, F. H., & Severcan, Y. C. (2010). Children’s places: Rural–urban comparisons
using participatory photography in the Bodrum peninsula, Turkey. Journal of
Urban Design, 15(3), 293–324.
Siemiatycki, M., Enright, T., & Valverde, M. (2020). The gendered production of
infrastructure. Progress in Human Geography, 44(2), 297–314.
Sowa, J. E., & Selden, S. C. (2003). Administrative discretion and active repre-
sentation: An expansion of the theory of representative bureaucracy. Public
Administration Review, 63(6), 700–710.
Stivers, C. M. (2000). Bureau men, settlement women: Constructing public adminis-
tration in the progressive era. University of Kansas Press.
Svara, J. H. (2001). The myth of the dichotomy: Complementarity of politics
and administration in the past and future of public administration. Public
Administration Review, 61(2), 176–183.
Svara, J. H., & Nelson, K. L. (2008). Taking stock of the council-manager form at
100. Public Management, 90(7), 6–14.
Turesky, M., & Warner, M. E. (2020). Gender dynamics in the planning workplace:
The importance of women in management. Journal of the American Planning
Association, 86(2), 157–170.
1756 Administration & Society 55(9)

UNICEF. (2004). Building child friendly cities: A framework for action.

Warner, M. E., Homsy, G. C., & Morken, L. M. (2017). Planning for aging in place:
Stimulating a market and government response. Journal of Planning Education
and Research, 37(1), 29–42.
Warner, M. E., & Liu, Z. (2006). The importance of child care in economic devel-
opment: A comparative analysis of regional economic linkage. Economic
Development Quarterly, 20(1), 97–103.
Warner, M. E., Xu, Y., & Morken, L. J. (2017). What explains differences in avail-
ability of community health-related service provision for seniors in the United
States? Journal of Aging and Health, 29(7), 1160–1181.
Warner, M. E., & Zhang, X. (2021). Serving an ageing population: Collaboration is
key. Local Government Studies, 47(3), 498–517.
Warner, M. E., & Zhang, X. (2022). Planning communities for all ages.
Journal of Planning Education and Research, 42(4), 554–567. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0739456X1982805
Wolf, D. A., & Amirkhanyan, A. A. (2010). Demographic change and its public sec-
tor consequences. Public Administration Review, 70, s12–s23.
World Health Organization. (2007). Global age friendly cities: A guide.
Zhang, X., & Warner, M. E. (2023). Linking urban planning, community environ-
ment, and physical activity: A socio-ecological approach. International Journal
of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(4), 2944.
Zhang, X., Warner, M. E., & Homsy, G. C. (2017). Environment, equity and eco-
nomic development goals: Understanding differences in local economic develop-
ment strategies. Economic Development Quarterly, 31(3), 196–209.
Zhang, X., Warner, M. E., Xu, C., & Wang, Y. (2023). Invisible women in compre-
hensive plans (Working paper). Cornell University.

Recent publications
Warner, M. E., Aldag, A., & Kim, Y. (2021a). Pragmatic municipalism: US local
government responses to fiscal stress. Public Administration Review, 81(3), 389–
398. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13196
Warner, M. E., Aldag, A., & Kim, Y. (2021b). Privatization and intermunicipal coop-
eration in US local government services: Balancing fiscal stress, need and politi-
cal interests. Public Management Review, 23(9), 1359–1376. https://doi.org/10.1
080/14719037.2020.1751255
Warner, M. E., & Zhang, X. (2021). Serving an ageing population: Collaboration is
key. Local Government Studies, 47(3), 498–517. https://doi.org/10.1080/030039
30.2020.1787166
Warner, M. E., & Zhang, X. (2022). Planning communities for all ages.
Journal of Planning Education and Research, 42(4), 554–567. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0739456X19828058
Zhang, X., & Warner, M. E. (2023). Linking urban planning, community envi-
ronment, and physical activity: A socio-ecological approach. International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(4), 2944. https://doi.
org/10.3390/ijerph20042944
Warner and Zhang 1757

Author Biographies
Mildred E. Warner is a professor of City and Regional Planning and of Global
Development at Cornell University. Her research focuses on local government, plan-
ning, economic development, and public health.
Xue Zhang is a postdoctoral scholar in the Lerner Center for Population Health at
Syracuse University. Her research focuses on urban planning, governmental policy,
economic development, and population health.