Indicators of Age Friendly City for Planning and Policy Formulation:

One Step Towards Age Friendly City in Indonesia

August 2013

Ni Wayan Suriastini, SurveyMETER

Bondan Sikoki, SurveyMETER

Edy Purwanto, SurveyMETER

Endra Mulyanto (SurveyMETER)

Tri Budi W Rahardjo,CAS UI

Presented at the XXVII IUSSP International Population Conference

26 – 31 August , 2013, Busan, Korea

I.INTRODUCTION

Background and Objectives

Indonesia is facing the demographic revolution. Population ageing has started emerging as a distinct demographic feature and the proportion of older persons, which remained around 6 per cent during the period 1950-1990, now exceeds 8 per cent and is projected to rise to 14 per cent by 2030. On the other hand the proportion of children under 5 which was 11 % in 1990 has been steadily declined and is expected to continue to decline by half in the year 2030. This situation needs to be celebrated because it shows the success of family planning programs, improved

nutrition, advances in health and increased life expectancy of the elderly population. However, such a major shift within a period of about four decades will give rise to diverse socio-economic issues which will need to be addressed to ensure sustainable development and maintain overall stability in the country.

Another phenomena is rapid increase of urbanization as the percentage of the population in the city also steadily increasing. Three factors infuence urbanization in Indonesia: natural growth, rural-urban migration, and rural-urban classification changes. In 2000 the Indonesian population living in urban areas is only 42.1%, in the year 2025 it is projected to reach 67.5%. The provinces in Java and Bali have a higher rate of urbanization compared to the state of Indonesia in general. In DKI Jakarta, West Java and DI Yogyakarta percentage of the population living in urban areas even exceeded 80%.

Both of these demographic phenomena not only ocured in Indonesia but also in other countries of the world. The rapid increase of elderly population and high urbanization atracts the attention of international agencies including the United Nations which issued a number of recommendations and create a variety of tools to anticipate and address emerging challenges. WHO came up with assessment tools for Age Friendly Cities Check which covers 8 dimensions namely :

1. Building and Open Space 2. Transportation 3. Housing 4. Social Participation 5. Respect & social inclusion 6. Civil Participation and Employment 7. Communication and Information 8. Community Support and Health

The first three dimensions, open spaces and buildings; transport and housing are a key characteristic of the physical environment city.The third dimension has strong influence on personal mobility, safety from injury, security from crime, health behaviors, and social participation.

The next three dimensions, Social Participation; Respect and social inclusion; Civil Participation and Employment describe the social and cultural aspects of the environment that influence participation and mental health. Meanwhile, the last two determinants, communication and information as well as community support and health services involve the social and

environmental determinants of health and social services.The eight dimensions of age friendly city complement / reinforce and interact.

Check list of 8 dimensions age friendly city that WHO promoted is very comprehensive to support the need of individuals. If a city has met these indicators, it is not just making a friendly place for elderly but also friendly for all age groups and other vulnerable groups, including children, women and also the disabled people. For example sidewalk improves mobility and independence of disabled people, young and old, pregnant women, women including children.

Globally, age friendly citities have been recognized as one of the three priorities of the Madrid International action plan on elderly declared by the UN in 2002.In this regards the government of Indonesia has shown a high committment in promoting care and empowerment of the elderly in a national action plan through the issuence of numerous government regulations,presidential decrees and ministerial decisions. However it still lack of political will when it comes to implementation.Lack of socialization, inter-sectoral corrdination and good quality data have been the major challenges in implementation of such policy.

Against this background the assessment of the Age Friendly City in fourteen cities in Indonesia was conducted in early 2013.Fourteen locations of the study are ten large cities such as Medan, Central Jakarta, Bandung, Yogyakarta, Semarang, Surabaya, Mataram, Denpasar, Makassar and Balikpapan City, and four small towns Payakumbuh, Depok City, Surakarta and Malang. The quantitative survey interviewed 2,100 men and women of pre-elderly and elderly in 140 villages. In addition, the study also interviewed local government staff related to 8 dimensions of age friendly city and 140 village staff. It also collected information based on observation of interviewers who conduct the survey. In addition to quantitative data, qualitative data were collected on best practices of six cities (Payakumbuh, Depok, Central Jakarta , Yogyakarta, Surabaya and Denpasar) participated in this study

The study aimed to document the opinions of the elderly as well as local government officials on the readiness of each city in meeting the indicators of WHO age friendly cities.Secondly, to provide recommendations to government in making policies toward achiement of Age Friendly Cities in 2030.

II.METHODOLOGY

2.1.Data Collection

2.1.1.Quantitative Method

Data were collected by two methods, namely quantitative and qualitative methods. Quantitative methods conduct surveys and observations to gather information from four types of respondents, namely: (1) Individuals, women and men aged 40 years or over, total of 2100 respondents, (2) the Village staff, interviewed total of 140 respondents, (3) Local Government staff of 14 cities, and (4) the interviewer observations, total of 48 people. The study was conducted in 14 cities (large cities and towns). Ten major cities selected study sites are five provincial capitals which has the largest population (Central Jakarta, Surabaya, Bandung, Medan and Semarang); representative provincial capital of the island of Sulawesi and Kalimantan and Nusa Tenggara island with the largest population (Makassar and Mataram), and the provincial capital with the highest number of elderly (Yogyakarta and Denpasar), as well as representative cities oil industry (Balikpapan).Meanwhile for small town, four towns were selected. Three are located on the island of Java, which is representative of the western, central and eastern (Depok, Surakarta and Malang), and representatives of outside Java (Payakumbuh).

The selection of respondents for the quantitative study is through several stages. The first stage, the city area was divided into five regions (Central, East, West, North and South) based on the size of the area. Each region has an equal size or close to equal. For example, the city's size area 250 km 2, then each region will have a coverage area of a population living in an area of 50 km 2. The villages in each area were then listed and sorted based on CBS location code.

The second phase, from each region randomly selected two villages. At each selected village, the smallest unit of sub village (RT) was randomly selected. Then, from selected RT, all the names of people aged 40 years or over by sex and age group 40-49 years, 50-59 years, 60-69 years and 70 + years with a minimum of high school education and now working/have previously worked or are currently active/previously active in the community were listed.

The third stage, from each selected RT interviewed 15 respondents in such a way that the total composition of the number of men and women alike. The composition of the respondent's age group as follows, 40-49 years age group 23.33%, 50-59 years 30%, 30% 60-69 years and 70 + years as much as 16.67%.In every city there were 10 total enumeration areas so there were 140 enumeration areas in total.Efforts were made to ensure a balance on age and sex composition of respondents.

The questionnaires used to collect the data have been subjected to a validation process. The pilot test of the questionnaire was conducted twice in Yogyakarta as well as pre-test in Bekasi. Four types of questionnaires were used in carrying out the survey : individual questionnaires, questionnaire for village staff, questionnaire for local government and interviewer observation questionnaires. Individual questionnaire collects information on the location of the four groups of respondents, respondents' characteristics and check list of readiness of cities related to the eight dimensions indicators of the of age-friendly city.At the end of the interview respondent were asked to rank the distribution of funding into each dimension. Respondent characteristics collected included age, gender, education, occupation, income and participation in community activities.

The long check list of WHO age friendly city consist of 169 indicators while essential check list amounted to 84. This study uses a essential check list which was broken down into several statements to facilitate understanding of the respondent resulted to variables reflected in 95 indicators (Table 1).Five categories of responses are: not very much appropriate, not appropriate, somewhat not appropriate, somewhat appropriate, appropriate and very much appropriate.The staff village questionnaire and interviewer observations questionnaire are same as individual questionnaire with shorter respondent characteristics. The number of local government respondents varies depending on the dimensions handled by the local government unit. In addition, for each dimension they were asked to state the short term, 1-2 years and 3 year long-term plan of the local government unit.

2.1.2.Qualitative method

The qualitative study area selection methods follow some criteria, first based on the initiative and commitment in making the city into a city of friendly for the elderly (Surabaya and Payakumbuh); capital city of the province that has the highest percentage of elderly (City Yogyakarta and Denpasar), mega city (Central Jakarta), and cities around the mega city which is part of Jakarta (Depok).

Qualitative methods include in-depth interviews and focus group discussions to document best practices age friendly city program of the stakeholders. Interviewers collected information from stakeholders in the six city quantitative study locations.

Local government planning agency (BAPPEDA) was first visited stakeholders to obtain information on planned activities and programs for the elderly as well as allocation of funds. From here interview obtain information on other stake holders which has program or activities related to each dimension of the age friendly city especially those with the best practices. On service providers, in addition to documenting what was done and constraints as well as future plans also opinion of the service provider on readiness of the city toward becoming age friendly city.

2.2. Method of Analysis

Descriptive analyses of quantitative data was presented.A total composite index per city and for each dimension of age friendly city were created, as well as the Achievement Categories towards 2030. Four categories of achievement are red for index score of 0-25%, orange for the value of the index score 26-50%, yellow for 51-75% value index score and green for value index score of 76-100.Goal achievement category in 2030 is green for all indicators /dimensions / total index. Table 1 showed number of variables used for analysis in each dimension. Within each dimension, the indicators were given equal weight. Index was created to make it easier to provide insight to the stakeholders. The index is made using 95 indicators consisting of buildings and open space 15 indicators, 22 indicators of transportation, housing 8 indicators, 10 indicators of social participation, respect and social inclusion indicators 9, civic participation and employment 8 indicators, communication and information 11 indicators, as well as community support and health services 12 indicators. An index per dimension was also formed by using indicators which are descriptions of each of these dimensions. Weight was obtained from the priority given by the respondents on each dimension on hypothetical questions posed. Respondents were given 10 sticks is likened owned funds. Respondents were asked to distribute the sticks into each dimension according to the respondent priorities.The dimensions of community support and health services are given high priority by all stakeholders, the second housing, transportation third, fourth buildings and open spaces (Table 2).

The qualitative interviews note and documents examined using content analysis and narrative analysis.In the analysis of the contents experiences, themes, issues and motives parsed, compiled and interpreted.Temporal aspects and dramatic structure considered using narrative analysis to gain a deep understanding of the subject under study.

Table 1.Number of Indicators per Dimension

No. Dimension Long check list Short check list Number of Indicators

1. Building and Open Space 16 12 15 2. Transportation 33 17 22 3. Housing 28 7 8 4. Social Participation 17 8 10 5. Respect and Social Inclusion 14 9 9 6. Civil Participation and Employment 31, 8 8 7. Communication and Information 16 11 11 8. Community Support and Health Services 14 12 12

Total 169 84 95

Table 2.Weight per Dimension

No. Dimension Individual SKPDs Village staff Interviewer observation

1. Building and Open Space 0, 9 1, 3 1, 3 1, 6 2. Transportation 1, 1 1, 4 1, 1 1, 3 3. Housing 1, 5 1, 3 1, 5 1, 4 4. Social Participation 1, 0 0, 7 0, 9 0, 8 5. Respect and Social Inclusion 0, 6 0, 7 0, 7 0, 7 6. Civil Participation and Employment 1, 1 0, 6 1, 0 1, 3 7. Communication and Information 0, 4 0, 8 0, 5 0, 3 8. Community Support and Health Services 3, 3 3, 1 3, 0 2, 5

III.CHARACTERISTICS OF INDIVIDUAL SAMPLE

In total, the ratio of the number of respondent men and women are as targeted which is 50% of men and 50% women of total 2100 respondents (Table 3).In terms of age, the percentage of respondents aged 70 years or over 15.48%, is lower than targeted due to shortage eligible of this sample age group. Age group 50-59 years, 60-69 years, respectively 30% as targeted, while the age group 40-49 years 24.52%, is larger than targeted which is for replacement of the age group 70 years and over as required by the rules of the sample. By age group, the comparison sample of men and women followed the pattern of the target in the sample, namely, in the age group 70 + years, more female respondents, in the age group below it, more male respondents.Difference in the percentage of male respondents and women in that age group is only 4.6% - 6.7%.

As mandated by the sampling procedure, at least high school education of the respondents is to reach 69%.Education of other respondent is 10% diploma and university as much as 21%.Such as the general condition in Indonesia, the education of women respondents is lower than the male respondents. Female respondents, 72% had high school education, while the university only 16%.Conversely male respondents over 25% had university and only 66% are high school education.

Overall, an average of 51% of respondent is working. Male respondent who work is higher than the female respondent 62% and 41% respectively. In terms of employment, 45% of respondents working in services sector and 28% work in trade sector and 7% in the industrial sector.Employment status, 43% employers, private employees ranked second highest with 26%, civil service ranks third on the percentage of the working 25%.Average income of respondent was 22.8 million.Male respondent had a 73% higher income than women.

As formulated in the sampling procedure, selected respondent is also participating actively in community activities.As shown in Table 3, as many as 39% of respondent participated more than 5 social activities in the past year and participated as much as 30% in 3-4 activities.More women are involved in 5 and more community activities compared to men. The percentage of women participating in community activities reached 45%, while men only 33%.Total participation types in questionnaire are 12 types namely, community meetings, cooperatives, community service, national program of community empowerment, youth group activities, religious activities, savings and loans, women group of family welfare, neighborhood health center, social gathering, sport and the arts.

Table 3.Characteristics Individual (Percentage) Male Female Total Age

40-49 26, 86 22, 19 24, 52 50-59 26, 67 33, 33 30, 00 60-69 33, 33 26, 67 30, 00

70 + 13, 14 17, 81 15, 48 Education

SMA 65, 52 72, 38 68, 95 Diploma (D1, D2, D3) 9, 14 11, 14 10, 14

BA or more 25, 33 16, 48 20, 9 % Workers 61, 62 41, 14 51, 38 Field Work

Agriculture 7, 73 1, 62 5, 28 Manufacturing / Industrial 8, 96 4, 86 7, 32

Building 5, 1 0, 69 3, 34 Trade 24, 11 35, 19 28, 54

Social service 39, 88 52, 55 44, 95 Others 14, 22 5, 09 10, 57

Employment Status Own Business 44, 05 42, 36 43, 37

Government employee 19, 01 31, 94 24, 19 Private Employees 30, 14 18, 75 25, 58

Freelance 5, 26 2, 31 4, 08 Family Worker 1, 55 4, 63 2, 78

Activity <3 activity 28, 38 32, 66 30, 53

3-4 activities 38, 29 22, 38 30, 33 5 + activities 33, 33 44, 95 39, 14

The average income per year (USD) 28953. 014 16741. 761 22847. 388 N 1050 1050 2100

IV.RESULT AND DISCUSSION: ASSESSMENT OF THE YEAR 2013

4.1. Indicators of Compliance

Figure 1 illustrates the total index of 14 cities based on three categories, the first category based on respondent response somewhat appropriate, appropriate and very appropriate; the second category base on respondent response very appropriate and appropriate; the third category based only on very appropriate response.Comparison these three categories shows that the third category, based on a very appropriate response has the lowest percentage value. The second category based on appropriate and very appropriate responses stood in the middle between the value of the first and the third catagory .The index by dimension also showed the same patteren (Figure 2). Therefore, on ward the assessment of readiness of the city in meeting WHO age friendly city indicators will use the second category namely based on appropriate and very appropriate answers. Similarly the interviewer observations provide smallest assessment, and the highest ratings were given by local government official. The individual respondent came in between. The same was seen in the index by dimensions (Figure 3).Therefore, on ward the readiness assessment of the city in meeting WHO criteria of age friendly city indicators will be taken from the individual data.

Figure 1.Total Index of 14 City, by respondent types and Respondent response category

58.5

73.8 76.9

53.2

42.9

52

61.1

23.4

0.4 4.5

2 0.5 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Individual Village Local Gov InterviewerObs

Somewhatappropriate,appropriate,veryappropriate

appropriate,veryappropriate

Veryappropriate

Figure 2.Dimensionsindex 14 City, individual statement by Respondent statement category

Figure 3.Dimensionsindex of 14 city, by respondent response, appropriate and very appropriate

0

20

40

60

80

1. Outdoorspace &building

2.Transportati

on

3. Housing

4. Socialparticipation

5. Respect &social

inclusion

6. Civilparticipation

&employment

7.Communicat

ion &information

8.Communitysupport &

healthservices

somewhatappropriate,appropriate,veryappropriate

appropriate,veryappropriate

veryappropriate

0

20

40

60

80

100

1. Outdoor space &building

2. Transportation

3. Housing

4. Socialparticipation

5. Respect & socialinclusion

6. Civil participation& employment

7. Communication& information

8. Communitysupport & health

services

Individual

Village

Local Gov

Interviewer Obs

4.2.General Achievement of 14 Cities

The Skewness and kurtosis test for normality is conducted to verify validity and sensitivity the

assessment tool of Age Friendly Cities Indexes (AFCI). Table 4 and Figure 4 present that AFCI are

normally distributed, no statistically significant evidence to reject the null hypothesis. This test

results indicate that AFC indexes can be used to assess the differences in achiement between

cities.

Tabel 4 Skewness/Kurtosis tests for Normality

N Pr(Skewness) Pr(Kurtosis) chi2 Prob>chi2

1. Building and Open Space 15 0.8815 0.5447 0.39 0.8232

2. Transportation 15 0.7122 0.7965 0.20 0.9037

3. Housing 15 0.1884 0.1530 3.77 0.1517

4. Social Participation 15 0.7398 0.9574 0.11 0.9450

5. Respect and Social Inclusion 15 0.5673 0.9628 1.26 0.5331

6. Civil Participation and Employment 15 0.9617 0.9628 0.00 0.9978

7. Communication and Information 15 0.1519 0.8005 2.12 0.3469

8. Community Support and Health Services

15 0.1808 0.7008 1.94 0.3794

Total 15 0.3449 0.7008 1.18 0.5544

Using assessment of 2,100 individual based on appropriate and very appropriate responses, the total index of 14 cities in Indonesia to meet WHO criteria of age friendly city has reached 42.9% of the total score of 100. In the color category belong to orange. In terms of achievement the leading dimension in 14 cities in Indonesia that has entered the yellow category are Social Participation (55.6%); Support Community and Health Services (53.8%), and communication and information (52.2%).The dimension which are still lacking in Indonesia is civic participation and employment, 16.9% that was still in the red category. Other dimensions are housing (31.3%) and Building and Open Space (35.2%) that were included in the orange category (Table 5, Graph 1-3).The distribution of the achiement categories of 95 indicators are as follows: only 3% of the indicators in green category, and 25% belong to red category. The majority is in orange category,39% and in yellow 33% (Table 6).

Building and Open Space Transportation Housing

Social Participation Respect and Social Inclusion Civil Participation and Employment

Communication and Information

Community Support and Health Services

Total Index

Figure 4 Histogram of Normal Distribution of the Indexes

Table 5.Index and Category Achievement of 14 cities

Index Category Achievement

1. Building and Open Space 35.2 Orange

2. Transportation 40.1 Orange

3. Housing 31.3 Orange

4. Social Participation 55.6 Yellow

5. Respect and Inclusion / Social Engagement 48.7 Orange

6. Civil Participation and Employment 16.9 Red

7. Communication and Information 52.2 Yellow

8. Community Support and Health Services 53.8 Yellow

Total 42.9 Orange

0

.02

.04

.06

Den

sity

10 20 30 40 50 60gedung

kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 3.3382

Kernel density estimate

.01

.02

.03

.04

.05

Den

sity

20 30 40 50 60transportasi

kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 4.1449

Kernel density estimate

0

.02

.04

.06

Den

sity

10 20 30 40 50perumahan

kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 3.0665

Kernel density estimate

.00

5.0

1.0

15

.02

.02

5.0

3

Den

sity

20 40 60 80 100partisipasi

kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 7.1810

Kernel density estimate

0

.01

.02

.03

.04

Den

sity

20 40 60 80penghormatan

kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 4.8908

Kernel density estimate

0

.02

.04

.06

.08

Den

sity

5 10 15 20 25 30partisipasi_sipil

kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 2.2727

Kernel density estimate

0

.01

.02

.03

.04

.05

Den

sity

30 40 50 60 70komunikasi_informasi

kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 3.9397

Kernel density estimate

.01

.02

.03

.04

.05

Den

sity

30 40 50 60 70dukungan

kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 3.9981

Kernel density estimate

.01

.02

.03

.04

.05

.06

Den

sity

20 30 40 50 60total

kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 3.0665

Kernel density estimate

Table 6. sDistribution Indicator 14 Cities By Category Achievement

Red Orange Yellow Green N

2. Building and Open Space 26.7 73.3 0.0 0.0 15

3. Transportation 27.3 40.9 27.3 4.5 22

4. Housing 50.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 8

5. Social Participation 0.0 30.0 70.0 0.0 10

6. Respect and Inclusion / Social Engagement 11.1 33.3 55.6 0.0 9

7. Civil Participation and Employment 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8

8. Communication and Information 9.1 27.3 54.5 9.1 11

9. Community Support and Health Services 0.0 33.3 58.3 8.3 12

Total 25.3 38.9 32.6 3.2 95

4.3. Comparison between Cities

Number of population and size of area influenced the progress of the city towards meeting WHO age friendly city indicators. Comparison of total index (Figure 5) shows that small towns are leading in fulfilling the WHO age friendly city criteria. The assessment of the five biggest cities ranged between 27% to 46%, other big cities between 28% to 48%, an oil industry town reached 46%, the small town has reached an index between 42% to 56%.

Comparing dimension index by city it appears that among the five largest city in Indonesia, Surabaya and Bandung are leading (Figure 6).Surabaya city is leading in dimension 8 (Community Support and Health Services), dimension 1 (Building and Open Space), dimension 2 (Transportation).Meanwhile, Bandung is leading for dimension 4 (Social Participation), dimension 5 (Respect and Social Inclusion), dimension 7 (Communications and Information).

Dimensional Index for other major cities (Figure 7) shows that Makassar has smallest value and Yogyakarta has the highest value. Meanwhile the small town (Figure 8), Surakarta and Payakumbuh leading in dimension 4 (Social Participation), dimension 5 (Respect and Social Inclusion), dimension 7 (communication and information) and dimension 8 (Community Support and Health Services)

Figure 5.Total Index by City

Figure 6.Dimension Index of 5 Largest City in Indonesia

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Jakarta Surabaya Bandung Medan Semarang

Makasar Mataram Yogjakarta Denpasar Balikpapan

Payakumbuh Depok Surakarta Malang

5 biggest cities Small Cities Oil Industry city

Medium cities

0

20

40

60

80

1.Outdoor space &building

2.Transportation

3.Housing

4.Social participation

5.Respect & socialinclusion

6.Civil participation &employment

7.Communication &information

8.Community support&  health services

Jakarta

Surabaya

Bandung

Medan

Semarang

Figure 7.Dimension Index of Other Major Cities in Indonesia

Figure 8.Dimensions Index of Small Town

0

20

40

60

80

1.Outdoor space &building

2.Transportation

3.Housing

4.Social participation

5.Respect & socialinclusion

6.Civil participation &employment

7.Communication &information

8.Community support&  health services

Makasar

Mataram

Yogjakarta

Denpasar

0

20

40

60

80

1. Outdoor space& building

2. Transportation

3. Housing

4. Socialparticipation

5. Respect &social inclusion

6. Civilparticipation &

employment

7. Communication& information

8. Communitysupport & health

services

Payakumbuh

Balikpapan

Depok

Surakarta

Malang

V.TOWARDS AGE FRIENDLY CITY IN2030

5.1. Stages towards Age Friendly City

The stages are proposed and described in sub-sections of this chapter refers to the framework stages of WHO Global Network of Age-friendly Cities. The WHO established a global network to support the cities that are committed to be elderly-friendly city by first, connecting the participating cities with each other, secondly, to facilitate the exchange of information and best practices, third, adopt interventions that are appropriate, sustainable and cost-effective to improve the livelihood of the elderly and fourth, provide technical support and training. Stages towards elderly friendly town and sustainability can be divided into 4 stages as follows:

Planning (Year 1-2): In this stage there are a number of activities that need to be done include: (1) Fund raising, commitment stakeholders, government, legislative, NGOs, private sector, the elderly where the government is the leader. (2) Identify availibility data on ageing; (3) Identification of potential cities on ageing among others: funds that can be allocated to ageing institution , ageing program that has been executed or any other program that supports the age friendly city. (4) Assessment of age friendly city. (5) Developed a 1-3years work plan by involving the elderly. (6) Identify assessment indicators.

Implementation (Year 3-5): include (1) implementation of the work plan and (2) monitor the assessment indicators.

Progress evaluation (end of year 5): (1) Measuring progress, (2) Identify successes and weaknesses that still exist.

Sustainability development program: Start again from the beginning of the process for the next 5 years until 2030.

5.2.A Recommendation on Category Achievement per Stages

As discused in the previous section for Indonesia as a whole based on the evaluation of the 14 cities in 2013 they are all still in the orange category. Among the eight dimensions there are no green at all, 3 dimensions in yellow category,4 dimensions in orange category and one dimension in red category. In 2030, all of these measurements are targeted to reach green category. As stated previously this could be achieved through the stages that are recommended as follows:

i) the the first 2 years (2013-2014) is preparation of the work program. Ii) In 2015 start the program or implement the commitment towards age friendly city; Iii) In the year 2018 or the first three years of implementation of the program there should be evaluation of the programs or identification of problems that may occured; iv) After making the evaluation of the first 3 years, in 2018 will start the program for next 5 years toward age friendly city in 2030.

In order to reach the green category in 2030 it requires a minimum total index of 32.1. Assuming an average linear growth per year, it will be a minimum 2.1% per year. The dimension which requires the greatest percentage to reach the green category in 2030 is Civil Participation and

Employment. This dimension still requires a minimum of 58.1. Assuming same growth and a linear change per year, the average percentage to be achieved at least 3.9% per year. The dimensions that require the least score to reach the green category is the social participation at 19.4. Growth per year, assuming the same achievement per year, it required minimum of 1.3% per year (Table 7).

Assuming the same growth per year for each dimension, Table 8 displays the category of achievements per stage. By 2018 the total index in four dimensions is still in orange while others has reached yellow category. In the year 2023 the total index is of seven all but one dimension have reached yeloow color.It is targeted that in 2028 all dimensions will be yellow and in 2030 will be green

Table 7.Overview of the 14 cities Percentage Rate and Color Categories

Index 2013 Minimum index of

2030

A minimum of 15 years of progress

Minimal Progress per

year

1. Building and Open Space 35.2 75.0 39.8 2.7

2. Transportation 40.1 75.0 34.9 2.3

3. Housing 31.3 75.0 43.7 2.9

4. Social Participation 55.6 75.0 19.4 1.3

5. Respect and Inclusion / Social Engagement 48.7 75.0 26.3 1.8

6. Civil Participation and Employment 16.9 75.0 58.1 3.9

7. Communication and Information 52.2 75.0 22.8 1.5

8. Community Support and Health Services 53.8 75.0 21.2 1.4

Total 42.9 75.0 32.1 2.1

Table 8. Overview of Progress 15 Years Ahead

2013 2018 2023 2028 2030

1. Building and Open Space Orange Orange Yellow Yellow Green

2. Transportation Orange Orange Yellow Yellow Green

3. Housing Orange Orange Yellow Yellow Green

4. Social Participation Yellow Yellow Yellow Yellow Green

5. Respect and Social Inclusion Orange Yellow Yellow Yellow Green

6. Civil Participation and Employment Red Orange Orange Yellow Green

7. Communication and Information Yellow Yellow Yellow Yellow Green

8. Community Support and Health Services Yellow Yellow Yellow Yellow Green

Total Orange Orange Yellow Yellow Green

5.3.Recomended Strategy towards Age Friendly City 2030

It is recommended that the result of Age Friendly City indicators could be used as a strategy towards achieving age friendly city in 2030 Used descriptive indicators to start working on easy indicators, low scores and involve all stakeholders. Some example, traffic law prioritizing pedestrian will involve all community members without any cost, the private sector could participate by making dedicated customer service for the elderly (such as: a separate queue and waiting place for elderly in the bank etc).

The second recommendation is to make a commitment to make age friendly city as an advocacy. This is not only to be done at the national level but also at the provincial level as well as at the city level, then spread it to the lower administrative unit.

The results of this research has been diseminated to the city and provincial governments since May 2013 and will continue until December this year to convey the results to the national level. The response of the government have been very encouraging; they are very welcome and agrreed to the recomendation suggested and will follow up with real actions using the results of this study as a reference for city planning formulation to Start with indicators which has low score and do not require a lot of fund. They are also planning to integrate with other programs that are complementary programs such as child-friendly city, welfare city, and inclusive city. Even a number heads of city government want to achieve it by 2030 as Payakumbuh and Denpasar,

CONCLUSION

The assesment of Indonesian fourteen cities indicated that their level of achievment to meet the criteria of elderly friendly city is less than 43%.The leading dimensions of age friendly city in Indonesia are Social Participation, Community Support and Health Services as well as communications and information which reach more than 52%. The small town is more advanced in fulfilling the criteria of age friendly city. Strategy towards age friendly city in 2030 can begin by fixing the low achievement indicators which does not require a lot of money and involve all stakeholders. The study provide assessment data, planning and recommendations towards age friendly city in 2030. Yet above all the commitment from the city government and other stakeholders to be able to reach age-friendly city by 2030 is necessary.

REFERENCES

http://www.antarabali.com . 2013. Bali Road Map to Age friendly City.

http://padangekspres.co.id. Being KRL 2013.Payakumbuh Recommendations to WHO. http://padangekspres.co.id/?news=berita&id=43462

http://padang-today.com. Being KRL 2013.Payakumbuh Recommendations to WHO. http://padang-today.com/?mod=berita&today=detil&id=44462

http://upt.denpasarkota.go.id . 2013. Survey Meter Pilot Project Make Denpasar age Friendly City. http://upt.denpasarkota.go.id/main.php?act=news&kd=8965

www.denpasarkota.go.id. 2013.Survey Meter Pilot Project Make Denpasar Elderly Friendly City.

http://humasdepok.blogspot.com . Will 2013.Depok Planned Elderly Friendly Cities Next Year. http://humasdepok.blogspot.com/2013/06/depok-akan-canangkan-kota-ramah-lansia.html

www.balikpapan.go.id. 2013.Balikpapan Towards Sustainable Cities

APPENDIX DETAIL RESULTS ON INDICATORS BY DIMENSION

Appendix 1. Building and Open SpaceIndicators

% Category

Color

Direct

Green open space withsufficient seating, well maintained and safe. 39.1 Orange

Road for pedestrian (sidewalk) well maintained, free of obstructions and reserved for pedestrians.

27.7 Orange

Anti-skid pavement (not slick), wide enough for a wheelchair and are flush with the road surface.

19.9 Red

Place for pedestrians crossing number is sufficient, safe for people with disabilities and has anti skid marks (not slippery / if slick markgiven ).

24.9 Red

Light crossroads allow enough time for the elderly cross the street and have a visual and audio alert.

36.0 Orange

The public services are planted in areas adjacent to the dwelling elderly and easily accessible.

61.1 Yellow

There is a dedicated customer service for the elderly (such as: a separate queue and place for elderly).

12.6 Red

Most of the buildings have a clear sign either outside or inside the room, has a toilet and adequate seating.

58.0 Yellow

Most of the building is easily accessible and has a staircase and floor ramps with anti-slip grip / non-skid.

45.0 Orange

Public restrooms are clean, well maintained, easily accessible with a variety of abilities, well designed and placed in the location which is easily accessible.

30.5 Orange

Indirect

Public places clean and comfortable. 47.7 Orange

Traffic rules obeyed by motorists prioritizing pedestrians. 30.9 Orange

Bike path separated from the sidewalk and the road to the other hikers. 11.2 Red

Public security in all open spaces are supported by good street lighting and police patrols. 42.7 Orange

Public security in all open spaces supported legal compliance and public support for personal safety.

41.5 Orange

Appendix 2.TransportationIndicators

% Category

Color

Direct

Public transport has a clear standard fare and the price is affordable for the elderly.

75.7 Green

Common vehicles are clean, well maintained, easily accessible (foundation can be derived, low stairs, seat width).

39.7 Orange

Crowded public transportation is not available and priority seating for the elderly. 21.1 Red

Special transportation available for the disabled. 1.6 Red

Information about routes, itineraries and other specific information available for users of transport, especially the elderly.

37.9 Orange

Taxi fares affordable with discounts or subsidies for low-income elderly. 7.1 Red

Taxi drivers behave polite and always helpful. 66.0 Yellow

Parking and areas to drop off passengers for the elderly and persons with disabilities are available in this city.

2.3 Red

Indirect

Public transportation is available and reliable including evenings, weekends and holidays.

49.1 Orange

Public transport can reach all places, as well as info and type of the vehicle clear. 63.6 Yellow

Transport routes linked to a variety of other transportation options. 70.3 Yellow

Driver of public transport vehicles dismiss predetermined place and close to the sidewalk in order to facilitate passengers up and down.

30.9 Orange

Public vehicle driver always waiting for passengers to sit down first before running the vehicle.

56.6 Yellow

Bus terminal and bus stop location that is convenient, accessible, safe and clean. 42.1 Orange

Bus terminals and bus stops has adequate lighting, clear sign location, seating and adequate shelter.

44.4 Orange

Voluntary transport services available as public transport are limited. 8.7 Red

Roads are well maintained, enclosed sewers and street lighting sufficient. 38.1 Orange

Settings traffic well ordered. 48.1 Orange

Road free of obstacles that could obstruct the driver's view. 59.9 Yellow

Signs traffic signs at road junction located at the right place and clearly visible. 71.0 Yellow

Driver education and refresher course is recommended for all vehicle drivers. 15.1 Red

Parking areas to drop off passengers and the coast was clear, the numbers are sufficient and comfortable.

32.6 Orange

Appendix 3.Housing Indicators

% Color category

Direct Houses are sufficient, affordable for the elderly, located in a convenient place, near the place and other community services.

18.2 Red

There is enough space to allow senior citizens to move freely in the house. 45.9 Orange Customized home for the elderly, ground flat, wide entrance for wheelchairs, as well as a bathroom, toilet and kitchen has a design that is appropriate for the elderly.

19.4 Red

Options for modifying equipment available and affordable homes with developers who can understand the needs of the elderly.

19.3 Red

Appropriate option and affordable homes are available for the elderly, including the frail elderly and disabled in their location.

9.9 Red

Indirect Home maintenance and other support services sufficient and the cost is quite affordable. 34.8 Orange House is built with good construction, providing a comfortable and safe from weather disturbances.

56.7 Yellow

House contract / lease available with a clean home, well maintained and safe . 46.2 Orange

Appendix 4. Social ParticipationIndicators

% Color category

Direct Activities and events held at the appropriate time for the elderly. 70.6 Yellow Activities and events can be attended by the elderly either alone or accompanied by another person.

73.8 Yellow

Activities and events are well communicated to the elderly, including information about activities, affordability and transportation options.

52.3 Yellow

Various types of activities on offer to attract the interest of many among the elderly. 43.5 Orange Advocated community participation activities all ages and cultural backgrounds. 59.1 Yellow Meeting, including the elderly, took place in several locations in the community such as recreation centers, libraries, community centers in disadvantaged areas, parks and gardens.

35.8 Yellow

Consistent outreach activities (provide personalized invitations, personal visits or phone) to involve the elderly to protect them from the isolation of the community.

52.2 Yellow

Promote the use of community facilities with a variety of ages and sustain interaction between user groups.

49.4 Orange

Indirect Place for events and activities located in a convenient location, accessible, sufficient lighting, and easy to reach by public transport.

68.7 Yellow

Activities and entertainment events affordable, no additional or hidden costs for participants.

51.1 Yellow

Appendix 5. Respect and SocialInclusion Indicators

% Color category

Direct

Public services, voluntary, and commercial services are always talking to the elderly on a regular basis about how to serve them better.

42.9 Orange

Employees who are ready to help mannered and trained. 57.0 Orange

The seniors included in the media (newspapers / tv / radio) and positively portrayed without specific stereotypes (eg stereotypes: the sickly, stingy, a burden, too slow, senile, etc.).

32.8 Orange

Environment, community activities attract people of all ages through the accommodation needs and desires appropriate age levels.

48.2 Orange

Elderly included as part of the family in community activities. 69.4 Yellow

School provides an opportunity to learn about the elderly and the elderly involve in school activities.

9.2 Red

Contribution elderly both in the past and in the present well rewarded. 68.7 Yellow

The poor elderly have access to public services, voluntary, and private services. 54.1 Yellow

Indirect

Services and products are available in various types. 56.0 Yellow

Appendix 6. Civil Participation and Employment Indicators

% Color category

Direct

There is an option for seniors to participate as volunteers with training, recognition, guidance and compensation costs.

22.4 Red

Improved quality of elderly workers. 16.2 Red

There are a variety of employment opportunities for the elderly that is flexible and good income.

14.2 Red

There are policies and regulations to prevent discrimination on the basis of age in hiring, promotion and training for workers.

12.5 Red

Workplace tailored to meet the needs of disabled people (with disabilities). 8.1 Red

There is support for self-employment and entrepreneurial opportunities for the elderly.

21.1 Red

Training opportunities provided to the elderly after retirement. 16.1 Red

Decision-making bodies in the government sector, private, voluntary participation and membership of the elderly.

24.9 Red

Appendix 7. Communication and Information Indicators

% Category

Color

Direct

An universal system of basic information in the form of written and electronic media and telephone to reach all people, including the elderly.

76.8 Green

Information elderly and special shows are available on a regular basis. 16.0 Red

Available oral communication media that can be accessed by elderly. 37.1 Orange

Public and commercial services provide friendly service and providing services to individuals (which if requested).

42.8 Orange

Print information including official forms, text television and visual display with large letters and the main ideas are shown by title and clear sentences.

54.1 Yellow

Print and oral communication using simple and common words, and sentences to the point.

66.6 Yellow

Answering services provide instructions slowly and clearly and tell listeners how to repeat the message every time.

62.0 Yellow

Electronic equipment such as telephone, radio, television and the bank machine or the ticket has large buttons and letters.

64.2 Yellow

Indirect

Dissemination of information available on a regular basis, extensive, reliable, coordinated and lack of access to centralized information.

56.3 Yellow

People at risk of social isolation of individuals obtaining reliable information. 41.7 Orange

Computers and Internet services are widely available and can be accessed cheaply in places - public (government offices, recreation and libraries).

61.2 Yellow

Appendix 8. Community Support and Health ServicesIndicators

% Color

category Direct

Health care and community support for the promotion, maintenance and restoration of health of the elderly is adequate.

63.1 Yellow

Services including home health care, personal and home services for the elderly available. 31.5 Orange

Residential service facilities such as retirement homes and homes located close to residential areas and services so that residents remain integrated in society.

29.3 Orange

Health facilities are built in accordance with the safety standards and can be easily accessible for the elderly and people with disabilities.

64.9 Yellow

Information about health services and social services available clearly and accessible to the elderly.

62.1 Yellow

Honor service officer, helped, trained in serving the elderly. 66.3 Yellow

Poor elderly is also able access health services and social services facilities. 64.2 Yellow

Volunteers of all ages are encouraged and supported to assist the elderly. 34.0 Orange

Available enough burial land and accessible . 58.7 Yellow

Emergency planning takes into account the capacity / incapacity of the elderly. 29.9 Orange

Indirect Mealth care facilities and social services are scattered in the city, easily accessible, and at any time can be achieved by various transport modes.

76.8 Green

Services are provided in a coordinated manner through a simple administrative process. 64.5 Yellow