KAJIAN KOTA SEMARANG MENUJU KOTA RAMAH LANSIA

Evi Widowati, Fafurida Fafurida, Galuh Nita Prameswari

Abstract

This research aims to describe the peoples opinion especially elderly towards WHO indicator for an elderly friendly city. The other purposes is giving a recommendation for local government to achieve a goal “elderly friendly city in 2030”. Therefore, the government could arrange a policy and programs to achieve that purpose. The recommendation obtained from KRL indicator description who never been seen before by the government. The research methods is quantitative descriptive with primary data base and purpossive sampling method. The research result show the first indicator of open space and building belongs to the category "very convenience and convenience" with the percentage is 27% which means included in the range of 25% -49% that is "orange". The second indicator is transportation of 22% which means below the range value <25%, it is belongs to "red". Third indicator is Housing, which is the percentage value is 30%. It is belongs to 25% -49%. that is "orange". Fourth indicator is Social Participation at 10% which means below 25% that is "red". Fifth indicator is reverence and inclusion / social involvement. Which the percentage is 11% and below the <25% is "red". Sixth indicator is civil participation and employment of 25%, which means it falls within the 25% -49% range of "orange". Seventh indicator is communication and information equal to 15% which means to enter in range value <25% that is "red". Eighth indicator is "community support and health services" of 18% which means it is included in the <25% value range that is "red". The description of Semarang City assessment of 8 indicators of elderly friendly city in accordance with WHO standards are 8 indicators / dimensions containing 95 variables are 5 indicators, namely the indicator 2,4,5,7 and 8 entered in "red" category that is 62,5% and entered in the category of "orange" ie indicators 1, 3 and 6 that is 37. 5%. 

Full Text:

PDF

References

Badan Pusat Statistik. (beberapa tahun terbitan). Penduduk Menurut Kelompok Umur dan Jenis Kelamin 2010. www.bps.go.id/aboutus.php?sp=1.

Fraenkel, J. R dan Wallen, N.E. (1993).

How to Design and Evaluate Research In Education. 2nd. Ed. New York: Mc. Graw-Hill inc.

https://www.kompasiana.com/elisakara moy/mewujudkan-ruang-publik- kota-yang-ramah- lansia_560a2b362d7a617f12ab52 e0

http://www.who.int/ageing/projects/age _friendly_cities/en/.

Istiana, H. (2015). Kajian tentang Kota Ramah Lanjut Usia. Jurnal Kesehatan. Yogyakarta: Badan Pendidikan dan Penelitian

Kajian Kota Semarang Menuju Kota Ramah Lansia

Kesejahteraan Sosial Balai Besar Penelitian dan Pengembangan Pelayanan Kesejahteraan Sosial (B2P3KS).

Notoadmojo, S. (2007). Metodologi Penelitian Kesehatan. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.

Peraturan Menteri Sosial Republik Indonesia Nomor 4 Tahun 2017 Tentang Pedoman Pengembangan Kawasan Ramah Lansia.

Rosidawati. (2011). Mengenal Usia Lanjut. Jakarta: Salemba Medika.

Stanley. (2010). Buku Ajar Keperawatan Gerontik Edisi 2. Jakarta: EGC.

Survey METER dan CAS UI.(2013) Satu Langkah Menuju Impian Lanjut Usia Kota Ramah Lanjut Usia 2030 Kota Malang.

Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia No 13 Tahun 1998 tentang Kesejahteraan Lanjut Usia.

World Health Organization. (2007). Global Age-friendly Cities: A Guide. United Nation.

WHO. (2007). Checklist of essential features of age-friendly cities. WHO/FCH/ ALC/2007. 1

http://www.erabaru.net/2017/03/15/wh o-mengeluarkan-kriteria-baru- kelompok-usia/.

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.