ENG
Based on the findings of baseline assessment, professional support teams of four local universities have worked with District Councils concerned to develop a three-year action plan for each district.

Findings of baseline assessment

  • All 18 districts
Hong Kong
  • Central and Western
  • Wan Chai
  • Eastern
  • Southern
Kowloon
  • Yau Tsim Mong
  • Sham Shui Po
  • Kowloon City
  • Wong Tai Sin
  • Kwun Tong
New Territories
  • Kwai Tsing
  • Tsuen Wan
  • Tuen Mun
  • Yuen Long
  • North
  • Tai Po
  • Sha Tin
  • Sai Kung
  • Islands

All 18 districts

Data were collected from

questionnaires

focus group participants
As revealed by questionnaire survey results, mean scores of eight domains of age-friendly city ("AFC") are:

AFC Domains

Outdoor Spaces & Buildings

Transportation

Housing

Respect & Social Inclusion

Civic Participation & Employment

Communication & Information

Community Support & Health Services

1

2

3

4

5

6
Less
Age-friendly
Mean
Scores
More
Age-friendly
Remarks
  • Survey participants were asked to rate 53 items of eight AFC domains on a 6-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree) to indicate the extent to which they perceive age-friendly features in the district they live.
  • The higher the score, the higher the perceived level of age-friendliness on the item(s) being measured.

Key observations of focus group interviews

Strengths in age-friendliness

Domains with highest mean scores:
Outdoor Spaces & Buildings
Outdoor Spaces & Buildings

    Room for improvement in age-friendliness

    Domains with lowest mean scores:
    Outdoor Spaces & Buildings
    Outdoor Spaces & Buildings
      Remark
      • The questions of focus group interviews were adapted from the WHO Age-Friendly Cities Project Methodology, also known as the Vancouver Protocol (2007).

      view Central and Western
      Baseline Assessment Report

      view Central and Western
      Action Plan

      Central and Western

      Data were collected from

      574

      questionnaires

      37

      focus group participants
      As revealed by questionnaire survey results, mean scores of eight domains of age-friendly city ("AFC") are:

      AFC Domains

      Outdoor Spaces & Buildings

      3.93

      Transportation

      4.25

      Housing

      3.54

      Respect & Social Inclusion

      4.16

      Civic Participation & Employment

      3.87

      Communication & Information

      4.00

      Community Support & Health Services

      3.79

      1

      2

      3

      4

      5

      6
      Less
      Age-friendly
      Mean
      Scores
      More
      Age-friendly
      Remarks
      • Survey participants were asked to rate 53 items of eight AFC domains on a 6-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree) to indicate the extent to which they perceive age-friendly features in the district they live.
      • The higher the score, the higher the perceived level of age-friendliness on the item(s) being measured.

      Key observations of focus group interviews

      Strengths in age-friendliness

      Domains with highest mean scores:
      Social Participation
      Transportation
      • Availability of activities and services for older people
      • Age-friendly facilities for indoor gathering in Sai Ying Pun Community Complex at High Street
      • Spacious outdoor public spaces and parks for gathering and exercise
      • Affordable transport fare under the Government Public Transport Fare Concession Scheme for the Elderly and Eligible Persons with Disabilities enhances social participation of older people
      • Highly accessible tram service with improved entrance gate design
      • Escalators and elevators facilitate travel from sea-level streets up to the hill

      Room for improvement in age-friendliness

      Domains with lowest mean scores:
      Housing
      Community Support & Health Services
      • Unaffordable home renovation expenses
      • Uncertain compensation options for housing redevelopment
      • Lack of affordable housing due to increasingly high rent
      • Neighborhood relations not close enough
      • Lack of information about community services outside of elderly centres
      • Insufficient outreach services
      • Long waiting time for healthcare services and unfriendly General Out-patient Clinic Telephone Appointment System
      • Minimum age limit on free dental service is set too high
      • Insufficient and inaccessible burial sites
      Remark
      • The questions of focus group interviews were adapted from the WHO Age-Friendly Cities Project Methodology, also known as the Vancouver Protocol (2007).

      view Central and Western
      Baseline Assessment Report

      view Central and Western
      Action Plan

      view Sha Tin
      Baseline Assessment Report

      view Sha Tin
      Action Plan

      Sha Tin

      Data were collected from

      519

      questionnaires

      45

      focus group participants
      As revealed by questionnaire survey results, mean scores of eight domains of age-friendly city ("AFC") are:

      AFC Domains

      Outdoor Spaces & Buildings

      4.27

      Transportation

      4.35

      Housing

      3.76

      Respect & Social Inclusion

      3.88

      Civic Participation & Employment

      3.64

      Communication & Information

      3.97

      Community Support & Health Services

      3.62

      1

      2

      3

      4

      5

      6
      Less
      Age-friendly
      Mean
      Scores
      More
      Age-friendly
      Remarks
      • Survey participants were asked to rate 53 items of eight AFC domains on a 6-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree) to indicate the extent to which they perceive age-friendly features in the district they live.
      • The higher the score, the higher the perceived level of age-friendliness on the item(s) being measured.

      Key observations of focus group interviews

      Strengths in age-friendliness

      Domains with highest mean scores:
      Transportation
      Outdoor Spaces & Buildings
      • Affordable fare due to the Government Public Transport Fare Concession Scheme for the Elderly and Eligible Persons with Disabilities
      • Diverse transportation choices for older people
      • Extensive public transport network
      • Close to natural environment and parks
      • Spacious outdoor areas
      • Sufficient green spaces

      Room for improvement in age-friendliness

      Domains with lowest mean scores:
      Community Support & Health Services
      Civic Participation & Employment
      • Insufficient and inaccessible burial sites
      • Unfriendly General Out-patient Clinic Telephone Appointment System
      • Costly medical fees particularly for older people aged 60-69 who are not eligible for The Elderly Health Care Voucher Scheme
      • Delay medical treatment owing to long waiting time of government clinics
      • Limited community care services
      • Glass ceiling for elderly job seekers
      • Inability to fully utilise the experience and ability of older people in some voluntary work
      Remark
      • The questions of focus group interviews were adapted from the WHO Age-Friendly Cities Project Methodology, also known as the Vancouver Protocol (2007).

      view Sha Tin
      Baseline Assessment Report

      view Sha Tin
      Action Plan

      view Tai Po
      Baseline Assessment Report

      view Tai Po
      Action Plan

      Tai Po

      Data were collected from

      510

      questionnaires

      50

      focus group participants
      As revealed by questionnaire survey results, mean scores of eight domains of age-friendly city ("AFC") are:

      AFC Domains

      Outdoor Spaces & Buildings

      4.08

      Transportation

      4.21

      Housing

      3.66

      Respect & Social Inclusion

      3.82

      Civic Participation & Employment

      3.55

      Communication & Information

      3.92

      Community Support & Health Services

      3.54

      1

      2

      3

      4

      5

      6
      Less
      Age-friendly
      Mean
      Scores
      More
      Age-friendly
      Remarks
      • Survey participants were asked to rate 53 items of eight AFC domains on a 6-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree) to indicate the extent to which they perceive age-friendly features in the district they live.
      • The higher the score, the higher the perceived level of age-friendliness on the item(s) being measured.

      Key observations of focus group interviews

      Strengths in age-friendliness

      Domains with highest mean scores:
      Transportation
      Outdoor Spaces & Buildings
      • Affordable transportation fee due to the Government Public Transport Fare Concession Scheme for the Elderly and Eligible Persons with Disabilities
      • Close to natural environment and parks

      Room for improvement in age-friendliness

      Domains with lowest mean scores:
      Community Support & Health Services
      Civic Participation & Employment
      • Older people aged 60-69 not eligible for The Elderly Health Care Voucher Scheme
      • Limited community support and care services
      • Inability to fully utilise the experience and ability of older people in some voluntary work
      • Glass ceiling for elderly job seekers
      Remark
      • The questions of focus group interviews were adapted from the WHO Age-Friendly Cities Project Methodology, also known as the Vancouver Protocol (2007).

      view Tai Po
      Baseline Assessment Report

      view Tai Po
      Action Plan

      view Wan Chai
      Baseline Assessment Report

      view Wan Chai
      Action Plan

      Wan Chai

      Data were collected from

      502

      questionnaires

      35

      focus group participants
      As revealed by questionnaire survey results, mean scores of eight domains of age-friendly city ("AFC") are:

      AFC Domains

      Outdoor Spaces & Buildings

      3.91

      Transportation

      4.23

      Housing

      3.58

      Respect & Social Inclusion

      4.08

      Civic Participation & Employment

      3.94

      Communication & Information

      4.01

      Community Support & Health Services

      3.69

      1

      2

      3

      4

      5

      6
      Less
      Age-friendly
      Mean
      Scores
      More
      Age-friendly
      Remarks
      • Survey participants were asked to rate 53 items of eight AFC domains on a 6-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree) to indicate the extent to which they perceive age-friendly features in the district they live.
      • The higher the score, the higher the perceived level of age-friendliness on the item(s) being measured.

      Key observations of focus group interviews

      Strengths in age-friendliness

      Domains with highest mean scores:
      Social Participation
      Transportation
      • Availability of outreach services and home visits for socially isolated older people
      • Availability of volunteering opportunities for older people
      • Good facilities and settings to facilitate social participation
      • Convenient transportation offers good accessibility to many places
      • Affordable and highly accessible tram service with improved entrance gate design
      • Good road safety and maintenance

      Room for improvement in age-friendliness

      Domains with lowest mean scores:
      Housing
      Community Support & Health Services
      • Costly housing maintenance and lack of coordination among owners
      • Unaffordable property price and rent
      • Insufficient housing units that meet the needs of older people
      • Stringent eligibility criteria for applying subsidised home help services
      • Long waiting time for healthcare services
      • Insufficient and inaccessible burial sites
      Remark
      • The questions of focus group interviews were adapted from the WHO Age-Friendly Cities Project Methodology, also known as the Vancouver Protocol (2007).

      view Wan Chai
      Baseline Assessment Report

      view Wan Chai
      Action Plan

      view Islands
      Baseline Assessment Report

      view Islands
      Action Plan

      Islands

      Data were collected from

      500

      questionnaires

      40

      focus group participants
      As revealed by questionnaire survey results, mean scores of eight domains of age-friendly city ("AFC") are:

      AFC Domains

      Outdoor Spaces & Buildings

      3.80

      Transportation

      3.89

      Housing

      3.46

      Respect & Social Inclusion

      4.05

      Civic Participation & Employment

      3.77

      Communication & Information

      3.99

      Community Support & Health Services

      3.69

      1

      2

      3

      4

      5

      6
      Less
      Age-friendly
      Mean
      Scores
      More
      Age-friendly
      Remarks
      • Survey participants were asked to rate 53 items of eight AFC domains on a 6-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree) to indicate the extent to which they perceive age-friendly features in the district they live.
      • The higher the score, the higher the perceived level of age-friendliness on the item(s) being measured.

      Key observations of focus group interviews

      Strengths in age-friendliness

      Domains with highest mean scores:
      Social Participation
      Respect & Social Inclusion
      • Close and reliable neighbourhood network / clan relationship
      • A great sense of respect and social inclusion among community members
      • Social activities open for individuals or group participants
      • Affordable and clear activity fees

      Room for improvement in age-friendliness

      Domains with lowest mean scores:
      Housing
      Community Support & Health Services
      • Promote the existing maintenance services to the elderly
      • Improve General Out-patient Clinic Telephone Appointment System
      • Increase the quota of residential care and home care services
      • Improve the transportation service between Tung Chung and Princess Margaret Hospital
      • Advocate the concept of
      • Evaluate the existing services of North Lantau Hospital
      Remark
      • The questions of focus group interviews were adapted from the WHO Age-Friendly Cities Project Methodology, also known as the Vancouver Protocol (2007).

      view Islands
      Baseline Assessment Report

      view Islands
      Action Plan

      view Tsuen Wan
      Baseline Assessment Report

      Tsuen Wan

      Data were collected from

      533

      questionnaires

      37

      focus group participants
      As revealed by questionnaire survey results, mean scores of eight domains of age-friendly city ("AFC") are:

      AFC Domains

      Outdoor Spaces & Buildings

      4.14

      Transportation

      4.32

      Housing

      3.74

      Respect & Social Inclusion

      4.15

      Civic Participation & Employment

      3.86

      Communication & Information

      4.19

      Community Support & Health Services

      3.67

      1

      2

      3

      4

      5

      6
      Less
      Age-friendly
      Mean
      Scores
      More
      Age-friendly
      Remarks
      • Survey participants were asked to rate 53 items of eight AFC domains on a 6-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree) to indicate the extent to which they perceive age-friendly features in the district they live.
      • The higher the score, the higher the perceived level of age-friendliness on the item(s) being measured.

      Key observations of focus group interviews

      Strengths in age-friendliness

      Domains with highest mean scores:
      Social Participation
      Transportation
      • Comprehensive transportation network and the Government Public Transport Fare Concession Scheme for the Elderly and Eligible Persons with Disabilities provide great convenience for the elderly
      • Various transport services link up Tsuen Wan downtown to sub-communities and other districts in Hong Kong
      • Bus drivers take care of elderly passengers and wheelchair users
      • Social activities are open for individuals or group participants
      • Affordable and clear activity fees
      • A variety of activities and events provided by elderly centres are in place to cater to the interests and needs of the elderly
      • Elderly centres offer immediate support and reliable information

      Room for improvement in age-friendliness

      Domains with lowest mean scores:
      Housing
      Community Support & Health Services
      • Promote the existing maintenance services to the elderly
      • Monitor the improvement of barrier-free facilities in public housing estates and units to enhance the age-friendliness
      • Improve General Out-patient Clinic Telephone Appointment System
      • Increase the capacity of General and Specialist Out-patient services
      • Increase support for carers
      • Develop community canteens and kitchens, especially in the elderly-resided sub-communities
      • Increase the supply of graves and cremation column spaces
      Remark
      • The questions of focus group interviews were adapted from the WHO Age-Friendly Cities Project Methodology, also known as the Vancouver Protocol (2007).

      view Tsuen Wan
      Baseline Assessment Report

      view Kowloon City
      Baseline Assessment Report

      view Kowloon City
      Action Plan

      Kowloon City

      Data were collected from

      567

      questionnaires

      51

      focus group participants
      As revealed by questionnaire survey results, mean scores of eight domains of age-friendly city ("AFC") are:

      AFC Domains

      Outdoor Spaces & Buildings

      4.01

      Transportation

      4.24

      Housing

      3.70

      Respect & Social Inclusion

      4.12

      Civic Participation & Employment

      3.93

      Communication & Information

      4.06

      Community Support & Health Services

      3.79

      1

      2

      3

      4

      5

      6
      Less
      Age-friendly
      Mean
      Scores
      More
      Age-friendly
      Remarks
      • Survey participants were asked to rate 53 items of eight AFC domains on a 6-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree) to indicate the extent to which they perceive age-friendly features in the district they live.
      • The higher the score, the higher the perceived level of age-friendliness on the item(s) being measured.

      Key observations of focus group interviews

      Strengths in age-friendliness

      Domains with highest mean scores:
      Social Participation
      Transportation
      • Availability of different channels to participate in social activities
      • Affordable programme fees
      • Entitlement of the Government Public Transport Fare Concession Scheme for the Elderly and Eligible Persons with Disabilities encourages social participation for senior citizens aged 65 or above
      • Good transportation network in Hung Hom and To Kwa Wan
      • Design of some bus terminus contains age-friendly elements

      Room for improvement in age-friendliness

      Domains with lowest mean scores:
      Housing
      Community Support & Health Services
      • Poor condition for senior citizens living in old private buildings (e.g. lack of barrier-free access facilities, security and safety concern as well as high rent and utility cost)
      • Long waiting time for flats in public housing estates
      • Community support services experience difficulties in reaching out to senior citizens most in need of support
      • Long waiting time for public healthcare services
      • High fees charged by private hospitals and out-patient clinics
      Remark
      • The questions of focus group interviews were adapted from the WHO Age-Friendly Cities Project Methodology, also known as the Vancouver Protocol (2007).

      view Kowloon City
      Baseline Assessment Report

      view Kowloon City
      Action Plan

      view Kwun Tong
      Baseline Assessment Report

      view Kwun Tong
      Action Plan

      Kwun Tong

      Data were collected from

      569

      questionnaires

      52

      focus group participants
      As revealed by questionnaire survey results, mean scores of eight domains of age-friendly city ("AFC") are:

      AFC Domains

      Outdoor Spaces & Buildings

      4.04

      Transportation

      4.36

      Housing

      4.00

      Respect & Social Inclusion

      4.21

      Civic Participation & Employment

      4.01

      Communication & Information

      4.18

      Community Support & Health Services

      3.87

      1

      2

      3

      4

      5

      6
      Less
      Age-friendly
      Mean
      Scores
      More
      Age-friendly
      Remarks
      • Survey participants were asked to rate 53 items of eight AFC domains on a 6-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree) to indicate the extent to which they perceive age-friendly features in the district they live.
      • The higher the score, the higher the perceived level of age-friendliness on the item(s) being measured.

      Key observations of focus group interviews

      Strengths in age-friendliness

      Domains with highest mean scores:
      Social Participation
      Transportation
      • Availability of different channels to participate in social activities
      • Affordable programme fees
      • Entitlement of the Government Public Transport Fare Concession Scheme for the Elderly and Eligible Persons with Disabilities encourages social participation for senior citizens aged 65 or above
      • Provision of barrier-free access facilities for buses

      Room for improvement in age-friendliness

      Domains with lowest mean scores:
      Community Support & Health Services
      Housing
      • Long waiting time for public healthcare services
      • Insufficient community support services to caregivers
      • Insufficient community facilities
      • Difficulties (i.e. lack of channels to obtain information) in accessing reliable home repair and modification services for senior citizens living alone
      Remark
      • The questions of focus group interviews were adapted from the WHO Age-Friendly Cities Project Methodology, also known as the Vancouver Protocol (2007).

      view Kwun Tong
      Baseline Assessment Report

      view Kwun Tong
      Action Plan

      view Kwai Tsing
      Baseline Assessment Report

      view Kwai Tsing
      Action Plan

      Kwai Tsing

      Data were collected from

      504

      questionnaires

      38

      focus group participants
      As revealed by questionnaire survey results, mean scores of eight domains of age-friendly city ("AFC") are:

      AFC Domains

      Outdoor Spaces & Buildings

      3.87

      Transportation

      4.33

      Housing

      3.89

      Respect & Social Inclusion

      3.84

      Civic Participation & Employment

      3.54

      Communication & Information

      4.00

      Community Support & Health Services

      3.53

      1

      2

      3

      4

      5

      6
      Less
      Age-friendly
      Mean
      Scores
      More
      Age-friendly
      Remarks
      • Survey participants were asked to rate 53 items of eight AFC domains on a 6-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree) to indicate the extent to which they perceive age-friendly features in the district they live.
      • The higher the score, the higher the perceived level of age-friendliness on the item(s) being measured.

      Key observations of focus group interviews

      Strengths in age-friendliness

      Domains with highest mean scores:
      Transportation
      Communication & Information
      • Affordable fare for elderly people aged 65 or above due to the Government Public Transport Fare Concession Scheme for the Elderly and Eligible Persons with Disabilities
      • Diverse choices of public transportation
      • Wide coverage of public transportation network
      • Different channels for distribution of community information in public housing (e.g. notice boards of each housing block and offices of district councilors)
      • Efficient person-to-person communication for members of elderly centres

      Room for improvement in age-friendliness

      Domains with lowest mean scores:
      Community Support & Health Services
      Civic Participation & Employment
      • Long waiting time for private and public out-patient clinics
      • Unfriendly General Out-patient Clinic Telephone Appointment System
      • Limited community support services for older people (e.g. meal delivery and home help services)
      • Lack of flexible and appropriately paid employment opportunities for older people
      Remark
      • The questions of focus group interviews were adapted from the WHO Age-Friendly Cities Project Methodology, also known as the Vancouver Protocol (2007).

      view Kwai Tsing
      Baseline Assessment Report

      view Kwai Tsing
      Action Plan

      view North
      Baseline Assessment Report

      view North
      Action Plan

      North

      Data were collected from

      511

      questionnaires

      49

      focus group participants
      As revealed by questionnaire survey results, mean scores of eight domains of age-friendly city ("AFC") are:

      AFC Domains

      Outdoor Spaces & Buildings

      4.01

      Transportation

      4.24

      Housing

      3.75

      Respect & Social Inclusion

      3.84

      Civic Participation & Employment

      3.63

      Communication & Information

      3.93

      Community Support & Health Services

      3.56

      1

      2

      3

      4

      5

      6
      Less
      Age-friendly
      Mean
      Scores
      More
      Age-friendly
      Remarks
      • Survey participants were asked to rate 53 items of eight AFC domains on a 6-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree) to indicate the extent to which they perceive age-friendly features in the district they live.
      • The higher the score, the higher the perceived level of age-friendliness on the item(s) being measured.

      Key observations of focus group interviews

      Strengths in age-friendliness

      Domains with highest mean scores:
      Transportation
      Social Participation
      • Affordable fare for elderly people aged 65 or above due to the Government Public Transport Fare Concession Scheme for the Elderly and Eligible Persons with Disabilities
      • Wide coverage of public transportation network
      • Friendly attitude of bus drivers towards the elderly and persons with reduced mobility
      • Adequate outdoor spaces for social activities due to relatively low population density

      Room for improvement in age-friendliness

      Domains with lowest mean scores:
      Community Support & Health Services
      Civic Participation & Employment
      • Unfriendly General Out-patient Clinic Telephone Appointment System
      • Insufficient health services in remote areas
      • Lack of information of community support services for older people living in private housing
      • Lack of flexible and appropriately paid employment opportunities for older people
      Remark
      • The questions of focus group interviews were adapted from the WHO Age-Friendly Cities Project Methodology, also known as the Vancouver Protocol (2007).

      view North
      Baseline Assessment Report

      view North
      Action Plan

      view Sai Kung
      Baseline Assessment Report

      view Sai Kung
      Action Plan

      Sai Kung

      Data were collected from

      509

      questionnaires

      47

      focus group participants
      As revealed by questionnaire survey results, mean scores of eight domains of age-friendly city ("AFC") are:

      AFC Domains

      Outdoor Spaces & Buildings

      4.07

      Transportation

      4.22

      Housing

      3.72

      Respect & Social Inclusion

      3.83

      Civic Participation & Employment

      3.58

      Communication & Information

      3.94

      Community Support & Health Services

      3.42

      1

      2

      3

      4

      5

      6
      Less
      Age-friendly
      Mean
      Scores
      More
      Age-friendly
      Remarks
      • Survey participants were asked to rate 53 items of eight AFC domains on a 6-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree) to indicate the extent to which they perceive age-friendly features in the district they live.
      • The higher the score, the higher the perceived level of age-friendliness on the item(s) being measured.

      Key observations of focus group interviews

      Strengths in age-friendliness

      Domains with highest mean scores:
      Transportation
      Outdoor Spaces & Buildings
      • Affordable fare for elderly people aged 65 or above due to the Government Public Transport Fare Concession Scheme for the Elderly and Eligible Persons with Disabilities
      • Good public transportation network in urban areas
      • Spacious outdoor areas with good air quality and greening
      • Pedestrian pathways with shelters connecting to public transportation and community services
      • Adequate barrier-free facilities in buildings

      Room for improvement in age-friendliness

      Domains with lowest mean scores:
      Community Support & Health Services
      Civic Participation & Employment
      • Long waiting time for public out-patient clinics
      • Insufficient health services and community care services in less accessible areas
      • Lack of flexible and appropriately paid employment opportunities for older people
      • Lack of volunteering opportunities for older people living in private housing areas lacking community centers
      Remark
      • The questions of focus group interviews were adapted from the WHO Age-Friendly Cities Project Methodology, also known as the Vancouver Protocol (2007).

      view Sai Kung
      Baseline Assessment Report

      view Sai Kung
      Action Plan

      view Eastern
      Baseline Assessment Report

      view Eastern
      Action Plan

      Eastern

      Data were collected from

      591

      questionnaires

      34

      focus group participants
      As revealed by questionnaire survey results, mean scores of eight domains of age-friendly city ("AFC") are:

      AFC Domains

      Outdoor Spaces & Buildings

      4.17

      Transportation

      4.35

      Housing

      3.78

      Respect & Social Inclusion

      4.11

      Civic Participation & Employment

      4.01

      Communication & Information

      4.07

      Community Support & Health Services

      3.73

      1

      2

      3

      4

      5

      6
      Less
      Age-friendly
      Mean
      Scores
      More
      Age-friendly
      Remarks
      • Survey participants were asked to rate 53 items of eight AFC domains on a 6-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree) to indicate the extent to which they perceive age-friendly features in the district they live.
      • The higher the score, the higher the perceived level of age-friendliness on the item(s) being measured.

      Key observations of focus group interviews

      Strengths in age-friendliness

      Domains with highest mean scores:
      Social Participation
      Transportation
      • Sufficient and good variety of social activities
      • Good availability of venues to conduct different social activities
      • Diverse public transportation choices available for older people
      • Wheelchair ramps on buses and friendly attitude of bus drivers
      • Affordable fare under the Government Public Transport Fare Concession Scheme for the Elderly and Eligible Persons with Disabilities enables older people to travel longer distance for leisure

      Room for improvement in age-friendliness

      Domains with lowest mean scores:
      Community Support & Health Services
      Housing
      • Lack of public dental services in the district while private dental services are unaffordable
      • Long waiting time for the general out-patient clinics and unfriendly General Out-patient Clinic Telephone Appointment System
      • Some private doctors take advantage of the Elderly Health Care Voucher and charge higher prices for voucher users
      • Lack of channels for older people to obtain the information of home maintenance and modification services
      • Poor living condition for older people residing in old private buildings or sub-divided flats (e.g. hygienic and safety concerns and dearth of lift)
      Remark
      • The questions of focus group interviews were adapted from the WHO Age-Friendly Cities Project Methodology, also known as the Vancouver Protocol (2007).

      view Eastern
      Baseline Assessment Report

      view Eastern
      Action Plan

      view Southern
      Baseline Assessment Report

      view Southern
      Action Plan

      Southern

      Data were collected from

      710

      questionnaires

      40

      focus group participants
      As revealed by questionnaire survey results, mean scores of eight domains of age-friendly city ("AFC") are:

      AFC Domains

      Outdoor Spaces & Buildings

      4.05

      Transportation

      4.21

      Housing

      3.73

      Respect & Social Inclusion

      4.15

      Civic Participation & Employment

      4.00

      Communication & Information

      4.01

      Community Support & Health Services

      3.73

      1

      2

      3

      4

      5

      6
      Less
      Age-friendly
      Mean
      Scores
      More
      Age-friendly
      Remarks
      • Survey participants were asked to rate 53 items of eight AFC domains on a 6-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree) to indicate the extent to which they perceive age-friendly features in the district they live.
      • The higher the score, the higher the perceived level of age-friendliness on the item(s) being measured.

      Key observations of focus group interviews

      Strengths in age-friendliness

      Domains with highest mean scores:
      Social Participation
      Transportation
      • Wide range of activities available for older people in the district to enhance their social participation
      • Enhanced mobility of older people due to the opening of MTR South Island Line
      • Convenient transportation available in the district

      Room for improvement in age-friendliness

      Domains with lowest mean scores:
      Housing
      Community Support & Health Services
      • Many steep slope and stairs and inadequate barrier-free facilities in some housing estates
      • Contention between owners under the Tenants Purchase Scheme and tenants of public housing over the repair and maintenance issues within the estate areas
      • Long waiting time for the general out-patient clinics and unfriendly General Out-patient Clinic Telephone Appointment System
      • Limited choices of medical care services for older people living in Stanley and Shek O
      • Dearth of public dental services in the district while private dental services are unaffordable
      • Insufficient community facilities and services in the district (e.g. elderly residential care services and markets in the Stanley and Shek O area, banking services in Wah Fu Estate and Lei Tung Estate)
      Remark
      • The questions of focus group interviews were adapted from the WHO Age-Friendly Cities Project Methodology, also known as the Vancouver Protocol (2007).

      view Southern
      Baseline Assessment Report

      view Southern
      Action Plan

      view Tuen Mun
      Baseline Assessment Report

      view Tuen Mun
      Action Plan

      Tuen Mun

      Data were collected from

      531

      questionnaires

      35

      focus group participants
      As revealed by questionnaire survey results, mean scores of eight domains of age-friendly city ("AFC") are:

      AFC Domains

      Outdoor Spaces & Buildings

      4.03

      Transportation

      4.30

      Housing

      3.60

      Respect & Social Inclusion

      4.12

      Civic Participation & Employment

      3.83

      Communication & Information

      4.02

      Community Support & Health Services

      3.50

      1

      2

      3

      4

      5

      6
      Less
      Age-friendly
      Mean
      Scores
      More
      Age-friendly
      Remarks
      • Survey participants were asked to rate 53 items of eight AFC domains on a 6-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree) to indicate the extent to which they perceive age-friendly features in the district they live.
      • The higher the score, the higher the perceived level of age-friendliness on the item(s) being measured.

      Key observations of focus group interviews

      Strengths in age-friendliness

      Domains with highest mean scores:
      Transportation
      Social Participation
      • Affordable fare for elderly people aged 65 or above due to the Government Public Transport Fare Concession Scheme for the Elderly and Eligible Persons with Disabilities
      • Good connection of Light Rail linking residential areas with commercial / public services with the provision of wheelchair accessible facilities
      • Wide variety of activities are available for all ages in urban areas of the district while carers are welcome to join some of the activities to accompany older people
      • Sufficient facilities and venues in the district for leisure and cultural activities
      • Activity fees are clear without additional or hidden charges

      Room for improvement in age-friendliness

      Domains with lowest mean scores:
      Community Support & Health Services
      Housing
      • Long waiting time for general out-patient services and specialist services of public hospitals
      • Shortage of manpower adversely affects the quality of medical services and residential care services for the elderly
      • Unfriendly General Out-patient Clinic Telephone Appointment System
      • Insufficient community support and health services (e.g. outreach services in rural areas, public hospital services and elderly day care services within the district)
      • Limited transportation connecting to community support and health services (e.g. no point-to-point bus services reaching Tuen Mun Hospital)
      • Lack of clear and standardised medical charges by private medical service providers
      • Outdated designs of old housing estates which cannot cater for the needs of residents (e.g. narrow doors for wheelchair users, difficulties in carrying out home renovation work due to the location of water pipes)
      • Need for reviewing the eligibility criteria to apply for public rental housing
      • Unaffordable property prices and costly home maintenance
      Remark
      • The questions of focus group interviews were adapted from the WHO Age-Friendly Cities Project Methodology, also known as the Vancouver Protocol (2007).

      view Tuen Mun
      Baseline Assessment Report

      view Tuen Mun
      Action Plan

      view Wong Tai Sin
      Baseline Assessment Report

      view Wong Tai Sin
      Action Plan

      Wong Tai Sin

      Data were collected from

      576

      questionnaires

      32

      focus group participants
      As revealed by questionnaire survey results, mean scores of eight domains of age-friendly city ("AFC") are:

      AFC Domains

      Outdoor Spaces & Buildings

      4.15

      Transportation

      4.35

      Housing

      3.92

      Respect & Social Inclusion

      4.30

      Civic Participation & Employment

      4.03

      Communication & Information

      4.16

      Community Support & Health Services

      3.76

      1

      2

      3

      4

      5

      6
      Less
      Age-friendly
      Mean
      Scores
      More
      Age-friendly
      Remarks
      • Survey participants were asked to rate 53 items of eight AFC domains on a 6-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree) to indicate the extent to which they perceive age-friendly features in the district they live.
      • The higher the score, the higher the perceived level of age-friendliness on the item(s) being measured.

      Key observations of focus group interviews

      Strengths in age-friendliness

      Domains with highest mean scores:
      Social Participation
      Transportation
      • Sufficient and good variety of social activities available in the district
      • Convenient and extensive transportation system connecting to other districts

      Room for improvement in age-friendliness

      Domains with lowest mean scores:
      Community Support & Health Services
      Housing
      • Lack of Accident & Emergency services in the hospitals in the district
      • Long waiting time for the general out-patient clinics and unfriendly General Out-patient Clinic Telephone Appointment System
      • Elderly residents do not know how to use the Elderly Health Care Voucher
      • Some private doctors take advantage of the Elderly Health Care Voucher and charge higher prices for voucher users
      • Inadequate banking services in the district
      • Lack of adequate barrier-free facilities in some housing estates
      • Lack of assistance for elderly households to carry out home modification and maintenance work, and problems such as water leakages often occur
      Remark
      • The questions of focus group interviews were adapted from the WHO Age-Friendly Cities Project Methodology, also known as the Vancouver Protocol (2007).

      view Wong Tai Sin
      Baseline Assessment Report

      view Wong Tai Sin
      Action Plan

      view Yuen Long
      Baseline Assessment Report

      view Yuen Long
      Action Plan

      Yuen Long

      Data were collected from

      546

      questionnaires

      38

      focus group participants
      As revealed by questionnaire survey results, mean scores of eight domains of age-friendly city ("AFC") are:

      AFC Domains

      Outdoor Spaces & Buildings

      3.82

      Transportation

      3.98

      Housing

      3.30

      Respect & Social Inclusion

      3.95

      Civic Participation & Employment

      3.62

      Communication & Information

      3.81

      Community Support & Health Services

      3.28

      1

      2

      3

      4

      5

      6
      Less
      Age-friendly
      Mean
      Scores
      More
      Age-friendly
      Remarks
      • Survey participants were asked to rate 53 items of eight AFC domains on a 6-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree) to indicate the extent to which they perceive age-friendly features in the district they live.
      • The higher the score, the higher the perceived level of age-friendliness on the item(s) being measured.

      Key observations of focus group interviews

      Strengths in age-friendliness

      Domains with highest mean scores:
      Social Participation
      Transportation
      • Affordable fare for elderly people aged 65 or above due to the Government Public Transport Fare Concession Scheme for the Elderly and Eligible Persons with Disabilities
      • Improved transportation facilities and services by some bus companies (e.g. installation of display panels at bus stops and helpful attitude of bus drivers)
      • Comprehensive transportation services in urban areas of the district
      • Wide variety of activities are available for all ages in urban areas of the district while the facilities and venues for leisure and cultural activities are sufficient
      • Affordable activities available for the elderly
      • Older people have the opportunities of organising activities with young people, thereby increasing their life satisfaction

      Room for improvement in age-friendliness

      Domains with lowest mean scores:
      Community Support & Health Services
      Housing
      • Insufficient private clinic services at night in the district
      • Long waiting time for public hospital services
      • Unfriendly General Out-patient Clinic Telephone Appointment System
      • Poor service quality of private residential care services for the elderly with unreasonable and unclear charges
      • Long waiting time for publicly-subsidised residential care services for the elderly
      • Lack of mental support services for carers
      • Insufficient transportation connecting to community support and health services (e.g. Tin Shui Wai Hospital)
      • Limited services provided by Tin Shui Wai Hospital, causing inconvenience to patients in transferring between hospitals
      • Unaffordable property prices and costly home maintenance
      • Lack of information about the application for Building Maintenance Grant Scheme for Elderly Owners
      • Lack of lifts in some tenement buildings adversely affects the daily living and social participation of elderly residents
      • Poor management of public rental housing causing unsafe living conditions
      Remark
      • The questions of focus group interviews were adapted from the WHO Age-Friendly Cities Project Methodology, also known as the Vancouver Protocol (2007).

      view Yuen Long
      Baseline Assessment Report

      view Yuen Long
      Action Plan

      view Sham Shui Po
      Baseline Assessment Report

      view Sham Shui Po
      Action Plan

      Sham Shui Po

      Data were collected from

      513

      questionnaires

      41

      focus group participants
      As revealed by questionnaire survey results, mean scores of eight domains of age-friendly city ("AFC") are:

      AFC Domains

      Outdoor Spaces & Buildings

      4.10

      Transportation

      4.45

      Housing

      3.94

      Respect & Social Inclusion

      4.56

      Civic Participation & Employment

      4.36

      Communication & Information

      4.41

      Community Support & Health Services

      3.95

      1

      2

      3

      4

      5

      6
      Less
      Age-friendly
      Mean
      Scores
      More
      Age-friendly
      Remarks
      • Survey participants were asked to rate 53 items of eight AFC domains on a 6-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree) to indicate the extent to which they perceive age-friendly features in the district they live.
      • The higher the score, the higher the perceived level of age-friendliness on the item(s) being measured.

      Key observations of focus group interviews

      Strengths in age-friendliness

      Domains with highest mean scores:
      Social Participation
      Respect & Social Inclusion
      • Availability of different channels to participate in social activities
      • Affordable programme fees
      • Community members show courtesy to older people
      • Rich community resources (e.g. small shops and wet markets) provide affordable daily goods and services
      • Age-friendly services are available in the community (e.g. discounts for older people)

      Room for improvement in age-friendliness

      Domains with lowest mean scores:
      Housing
      Community Support & Health Services
      • Poor condition for older people living in tenement houses or sub-divided flats (e.g. lack of barrier-free access facilities, and security and safety concern)
      • Inadequate channels provided for older people living in non-public housing to obtain the information of housing repair and maintenance services available in the community
      • Room for improving the environmental hygiene in public housing
      • Long waiting time for public healthcare services
      • Older people with lower mobility encounter difficulties in accessing medical services (e.g. inadequate Rehabus service, hilly and inconvenient location of public clinics)
      • Insufficient provision of community support services for the needy elderly (e.g. outreach services to singleton/hidden elderly)
      • Some older people are concerned about the sufficiency of community support services in redeveloped areas (e.g. So Uk Estate)
      Remark
      • The questions of focus group interviews were adapted from the WHO Age-Friendly Cities Project Methodology, also known as the Vancouver Protocol (2007).

      view Sham Shui Po
      Baseline Assessment Report

      view Sham Shui Po
      Action Plan

      view Yau Tsim Mong
      Baseline Assessment Report

      view Yau Tsim Mong
      Action Plan

      Yau Tsim Mong

      Data were collected from

      520

      questionnaires

      38

      focus group participants
      As revealed by questionnaire survey results, mean scores of eight domains of age-friendly city ("AFC") are:

      AFC Domains

      Outdoor Spaces & Buildings

      4.10

      Transportation

      4.44

      Housing

      3.66

      Respect & Social Inclusion

      4.50

      Civic Participation & Employment

      4.33

      Communication & Information

      4.39

      Community Support & Health Services

      3.89

      1

      2

      3

      4

      5

      6
      Less
      Age-friendly
      Mean
      Scores
      More
      Age-friendly
      Remarks
      • Survey participants were asked to rate 53 items of eight AFC domains on a 6-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree) to indicate the extent to which they perceive age-friendly features in the district they live.
      • The higher the score, the higher the perceived level of age-friendliness on the item(s) being measured.

      Key observations of focus group interviews

      Strengths in age-friendliness

      Domains with highest mean scores:
      Social Participation
      Respect & Social Inclusion
      • Availability of different channels to participate in social activities
      • Affordable programme fees
      • Community members show courtesy to older people
      • Age-friendly services are available in the community (e.g. discounts and priority seats for older people)

      Room for improvement in age-friendliness

      Domains with lowest mean scores:
      Housing
      Community Support & Health Services
      • Poor living condition for older people residing in tenement houses or sub-divided flats (e.g. lack of barrier-free access facilities and security and safety concern)
      • Inadequate channels for older people to obtain the information of housing repair and maintenance services available in the community
      • Long waiting time for public healthcare services
      • Poor transportation connecting to medical services (e.g. inadequate Rehabus service, lack of point-to-point transport connection)
      • Insufficient provision of community support services for the needy elderly (e.g. outreach services to singleton/hidden elderly)
      • Insufficient amount of the Elderly Health Care Voucher
      Remark
      • The questions of focus group interviews were adapted from the WHO Age-Friendly Cities Project Methodology, also known as the Vancouver Protocol (2007).

      view Yau Tsim Mong
      Baseline Assessment Report

      view Yau Tsim Mong
      Action Plan

      Initiated and funded by:

      image

      Project partners:

      • The Chinese University of Hong Kong
      • The University of Hong Kong
      • Lingnan University
      • The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
      • Jockey Club Institute of Ageing
      • Sau Po Centre on Ageing
      • Asia-Pacific Institute of Ageing Studies
      • Institute of Active Ageing
      • image
      • image
      • image
      • image
      • image
      • image
      • image
      • image