Current Status and Policy Planning for Promoting Age-Friendly Cities in Taitung County: Dialogue Between Older Adults and Service Providers

Abstract

The World Health Organization has promoted age-friendly city (AFC) projects in response to the aging population. Taiwan has also promoted AFC policies. This study was conducted in Taitung County, where 15.37% of the population is older adults in Taiwan. The aim was to understand the perceptions of older adults and service providers with regard to the current status of AFC policies to influence future policies. The participants of this study were older adults and service providers in various regions of Taitung. Quantitative questionnaires were completed by older adults and qualitative interviews were held with focus groups. The older adults were the most satisfied with the AFC domains of “respect and social inclusion” and “community and health services”, and the least satisfied with “transportation” and “civic participation and employment”. Homogeneity existed between the older adults’ satisfaction levels in different regions and the service providers’ opinions; however, there were notable differences between them. Both economic development and the ethnicity of groups in different regions are influential factors that determine the success of government policies. In promoting AFC policies, local governments should consider their applicability based on local conditions and resources to meet the needs of the aging population in rural areas.

Evaluation of an Age-Friendly City and Its Effect on Life Satisfaction: A Two-Stage Study

“…Taking into account these results, as well as those obtained in similar studies consulted [49,[56][57][58][59][60], and after reviewing various strategy plans [63,64] based on international gerontological strategies and plans, some recommendations for developing policies that foster age-friendly environments, would be: to facilitate the involvement of older people in city decision-making; promote the empowerment of older people through the promotion of autonomy; to disseminate a realistic picture of ageing people to all generations and to combat discrimination; ensuring the security and social inclusion of older people; encourage a positive transition from working life to retirement; value the transfer of care and support provided by older people; preparing homes and environments that can be enjoyed throughout life, promoting permanence in their surroundings; promote healthy ageing; incorporate lifelong learning into society; promote volunteering and social participation; and foster intergenerational solidarity.…”

“…The area rated the lowest by all the groups of elderly persons is that of civic participation and employment, as in other studies [57]. This is probably due to the lack of information that the elderly claim they receive in this respect.…”

Examining Stakeholder Perspectives: Process, Performance and Progress of the Age-Friendly Taiwan Program

“…The program should not only concentrate on the needs of the elderly population, but the program’s facilitators or promoters should also be periodically monitored by the central government on providing person-environment fit with high quality, accessible and available facilities in the community. Using a “strictly bottom-up” alternative approach in Taiwan may empower older persons to bargain for actual opportunities in cities to maintain their quality of life [18]. However, most of the elderly do not clearly perceive the AFC framework.…”

Designing Governance Structures for Performance and Accountability: Developments in Australia and Greater China

“…The transition from NPM to collaborative governance in China is changing the role of contracting non-profits in social service provision: how can non-profits be both competitive contractors and collaborators that create consensus (Jing & Hu 2017)? While the literature shows that both roles can be taken on at the same time, performance measurement of non-profits as contractors that provide social services in China does not account for collaboration and, thus, creates barriers to it, as found in Shanghai (Jing & Hu 2017), Hong Kong (Lee & Liu 2012;Liu & Chen 2015) and Taiwan (Liu, Kuo & Lin 2018). More importantly, non-profits' disproportionate dependence on government in greater China also deprives them of autonomy and constrains network building, thus reducing their governing capacity (Jing & Hu 2017).…”