International Journal of

ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES

EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN: 2313-626X

Frequency: 12

line decor
  
line decor

 Volume 13, Issue 6 (June 2026), Pages: 1-10

----------------------------------------------

 Original Research Paper

Beyond policy domains: Reframing age-friendly urban villages as aspirational–relational configurations of ageing-in-place

 Author(s): 

Danang Febriyantoko 1, *, Riza Septriani Dewi 1, Dewi Cahyani Puspitasari 2

 Affiliation(s):

1Department of Interior Design, Institut Seni Indonesia Yogyakarta, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
2Department of Sociology, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia

 Full text

    Full Text - PDF

 * Corresponding Author. 

   Corresponding author's ORCID profile:  https://orcid.org/0009-0008-1544-2721

 Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

 
https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2026.06.001

 Abstract

This study aims to identify priorities for strengthening elderly-friendly villages within the framework of Integrated Elderly Services (LLT) through cross-domain synthesis and evidence-based prototype outputs. A design-based case study was conducted in the Purbayan cluster, Yogyakarta City, involving 40 participants from several villages. Data were collected through structured narrative responses on elderly activities, challenges, and priority improvement ideas, and analyzed using thematic coding and theme coverage calculations as indicators of signal strength. The findings show that existing programs, such as senior citizen schools, integrated health service posts, and social-religious activities, do not automatically ensure stable participation due to three cross-domain barriers: (1) accessibility and mobility safety, including route connectivity, lighting, rest areas, and surface safety; (2) readability of information and structured communication, including public schedules, reminder systems, and elderly-friendly materials; and (3) resource resilience and governance, including minimum funding, cadre development, and updated target databases. Based on these findings, the study developed a place-based intervention prototype by optimizing Bumen Park RTHP as an elderly center and community activity hub using a flexible local “celebration tent” concept. The study contributes a practical framework for elderly-friendly villages and offers a replicable model to strengthen LLT implementation across subdistricts.

 © 2026 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords

Elderly-friendly villages, Integrated elderly services, Elderly accessibility, Elderly centers, Public space design

 Article history

Received 19 January 2026, Received in revised form 22 May 2026, Accepted 28 May 2026

 Funding

This research was funded by the Indonesian government through the regular fundamental research grant program of the BIMA research program. 

 Acknowledgment

No Acknowledgment. 

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Ethical considerations

All participants were informed about the objectives of the study prior to data collection. Participation was voluntary, and informed consent was obtained from all respondents involved in interviews and questionnaire-based data collection. The identities and responses of participants were treated confidentially and used exclusively for academic research purposes. 

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

 Citation:

Febriyantoko D, Dewi RS, and Puspitasari DC (2026). Beyond policy domains: Reframing age-friendly urban villages as aspirational–relational configurations of ageing-in-place. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 13(6): 1-10

  Permanent Link to this page

---------------------------------------------- 

 References (24)

  1. Braun V and Clarke V (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2): 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa   [Google Scholar]
  2. Brown T (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6): 84-92.   [Google Scholar]
  3. Brown T (2009). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. HarperCollins, New York, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  4. Chung S, Kim M, Auh EY, and Park NS (2021). WHO’s global age-friendly cities guide: Its implications of a discussion on social exclusion among older adults. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(15): 8027. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18158027   [Google Scholar] PMid:34360319 PMCid:PMC8345595
  5. Gehl J (2010). Cities for people. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.   [Google Scholar]
  6. Grover S, Sandhu P, Nijjar GS et al. (2023). Older adults and social prescribing experience, outcomes, and processes: A meta-aggregation systematic review. Public Health, 218: 197-207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2023.02.016   [Google Scholar] PMid:37060740
  7. Hoadley C and Campos FC (2022). Design-based research: What it is and why it matters to studying online learning. Educational Psychologist, 57(3): 207-220. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2022.2079128   [Google Scholar]
  8. Hong A, Welch-Stockton J, Kim JY, Canham SL, Greer V, and Sorweid M (2023). Age-friendly community interventions for health and social outcomes: A scoping review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(3): 2554. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20032554   [Google Scholar] PMid:36767920 PMCid:PMC9915867
  9. Klinenberg E (2018). Palaces for the people: How social infrastructure can help fight inequality, polarization, and the decline of civic life. Crown, New York, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  10. Kyaw MY, Aung MN, Koyanagi Y, Moolphate S, Aung TNN, Ma HKC, Lee H, Nam HK, Nam EW, and Yuasa M (2024). Sociodigital determinants of eHealth literacy and related impact on health outcomes and eHealth use in Korean older adults: Community-based cross-sectional survey. JMIR Aging, 7(1): e56061. https://doi.org/10.2196/56061   [Google Scholar] PMid:39140239 PMCid:PMC11336493
  11. Lawton MP and Nahemow L (1973). Ecology and the aging process. In: Eisdorfer L and Lawton MP (Eds.), The psychology of adult development and aging: 619–674. American Psychological Association, Washington, D.C., USA. https://doi.org/10.1037/10044-020   [Google Scholar]
  12. Lincoln YS and Guba EG (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications, Beverly Hills, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  13. Lynch K (1960). The image of the city. MIT Press, Cambridge, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  14. McGowan VJ, Buckner S, Mead R, McGill E, Ronzi S, Beyer F, and Bambra C (2021). Examining the effectiveness of place-based interventions to improve public health and reduce health inequalities: An umbrella review. BMC Public Health, 21: 1888. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-11852-z   [Google Scholar] PMid:34666742 PMCid:PMC8524206
  15. Percival A, Newton C, Mulligan K, Petrella RJ, and Ashe MC (2022). Systematic review of social prescribing and older adults: Where to from here? Family Medicine and Community Health, 10: e001829. https://doi.org/10.1136/fmch-2022-001829   [Google Scholar] PMid:36207017 PMCid:PMC9557282
  16. Steinfeld E and Maisel J (2012). Universal design: Creating inclusive environments. Wiley, Hoboken, USA.  [Google Scholar]
  17. Torku A, Chan APC, and Yung EHK (2021). Age-friendly cities and communities: A review and future directions. Ageing & Society, 41(10): 2242-2279. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X20000239   [Google Scholar]
  18. van Hoof J and Marston HR (2021). Age-friendly cities and communities: State of the art and future perspectives. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(4): 1644. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18041644   [Google Scholar] PMid:33572181 PMCid:PMC7914698
  19. WHO (2007). Global age-friendly cities: A guide. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.   [Google Scholar]
  20. WHO (2015). World report on ageing and health. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.   [Google Scholar]
  21. WHO (2019). Integrated care for older people (ICOPE): Guidance for person-centred assessment and pathways in primary care. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.   [Google Scholar]
  22. WHO (2020). Decade of healthy ageing: Baseline report. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.  [Google Scholar]
  23. Xiang L, Shen GQ, Tan Y, and Liu X (2021). Emerging evolution trends of studies on age-friendly cities and communities: A scientometric review. Ageing & Society, 41(12): 2814-2844. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X20000562   [Google Scholar]
  24. Yin RK (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. 6th Edition, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, USA.   [Google Scholar]