Baseline Assessment, Final Assessment and Action Plans

Go to Findings of Final Assessment

All 18 districts

AFC Domains

	Outdoor Spaces & Buildings
	Transportation
	Housing
	Social Participation
	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: Vancouver Protocol (2007).

Go to Findings of Baseline Assessment

Go to Findings of Final Assessment

Central and Western (Baseline Assessment: 09/2015-02/2016)

AFC Domains

	Outdoor Spaces & Buildings 3.93
	Transportation 4.25
	Housing 3.54
	Social Participation 4.40
	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: Vancouver Protocol (2007).

view Central and Western
Baseline Assessment Report

view Central and Western
Action Plan

Go to Findings of Baseline Assessment

Central and Western (Final Assessment: 07-10/2018)

AFC Domains

	Outdoor Spaces & Buildings 4.23
	Transportation 4.41
	Housing 3.64
	Social Participation 4.44
	Respect & Social Inclusion 4.32
	Civic Participation & Employment 4.07
	Communication & Information 4.14
	Community Support & Health Services 3.88
	1	2	3	4	5 6

Less Age-friendly

Mean Scores

Mean Scores

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
• Sufficient social participation opportunities
• The addition of a bus stop allowed older people to access the park more easily
• Increase the accessibility of Grantham Hospital (e.g. minibus, bus and MTR)

Room for improvement in age-friendliness

Domains with lowest mean scores:

Community Support & Health Services

Housing

• Limited dental services covered by Elderly Health Care Voucher in the district
• Long waiting time for General Out-patient Clinic
• Lack of affordable housing due to increasingly high rent
• Unaffordable home renovation and maintenance expenses, a platform for the information of undertaking minor maintenance and renovation work is needed

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
Final Assessment Report

Go to Findings of Final Assessment

Eastern (Baseline Assessment: 04-07/2017)

AFC Domains

	Outdoor Spaces & Buildings 4.17
	Transportation 4.35
	Housing 3.78
	Social Participation 4.36
	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: Vancouver Protocol (2007).

view Eastern
Baseline Assessment Report

view Eastern
Action Plan

Go to Findings of Baseline Assessment

Eastern (Final Assessment: 01-08/2021)

AFC Domains

	Outdoor Spaces & Buildings 4.22
	Transportation 4.48
	Housing 3.88
	Social Participation 4.36
	Respect & Social Inclusion 4.10
	Civic Participation & Employment 3.82
	Communication & Information 4.11
	Community Support & Health Services 3.79
	1	2	3	4	5 6

Less Age-friendly

Mean Scores

Mean Scores

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

• New bus route increases the accessibility of hospital
• Increasing number of bus stops and mini-bus stops with age-friendly facilities, such as seats and information display screens
• Bus drivers are nice and responsible (e.g. they ensure passengers were seated before driving away)
• Availability of activities and services for older people
• Sufficient social participation opportunities

Room for improvement in age-friendliness

Domains with lowest mean scores:

Civic Participation & Employment

Community Support & Health Services

• Lack of proper job retraining and information platform
• Current insurance system does not cover employees aged over 65 years old made employer hesitate to hire older adults
• Long waiting time for specialist consultations, especially ophthalmologists
• Difficult to use General Out-patient Clinics telephone booking system

Remark

• The questions of focus group interviews were adapted from the WHO Age-Friendly Cities Project Methodology, also known as the Vancouver Protocol (2007).

Go to Findings of Final Assessment

Southern (Baseline Assessment: 04-07/2017)

AFC Domains

	Outdoor Spaces & Buildings 4.05
	Transportation 4.21
	Housing 3.73
	Social Participation 4.35
	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: Vancouver Protocol (2007).

view Southern
Baseline Assessment Report

view Southern
Action Plan

Go to Findings of Baseline Assessment

Southern (Final Assessment: 01-08/2021)

AFC Domains

	Outdoor Spaces & Buildings 4.05
	Transportation 4.26
	Housing 4.01
	Social Participation 4.50
	Respect & Social Inclusion 4.39
	Civic Participation & Employment 4.02
	Communication & Information 4.18
	Community Support & Health Services 3.91
	1	2	3	4	5 6

Less Age-friendly

Mean Scores

Mean Scores

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 activities and services for older people (e.g. health talks, exercise classes, micro-film production, smartphone training and cooking classes)
• A stable atmosphere of mutual respect and friendliness in the district

Room for improvement in age-friendliness

Domains with lowest mean scores:

Housing

Community Support & Health Services

• Unequal public housing resources allocation leading to prolonged waiting time for permanent residents
• Unaffordable home renovation and maintenance expenses, a platform for the information of undertaking minor maintenance and renovation work is needed
• Insufficient medical services (e.g. long waiting time for specialist consultations, limited medical appointments)
• Some clinics take advantage of the Elderly Health Care Voucher and charge higher prices for voucher users
• Dearth of wet markets

Remark

• The questions of focus group interviews were adapted from the WHO Age-Friendly Cities Project Methodology, also known as the Vancouver Protocol (2007).

Go to Findings of Final Assessment

Wan Chai (Baseline Assessment: 09/2015-02/2016)

AFC Domains

	Outdoor Spaces & Buildings 3.91
	Transportation 4.23
	Housing 3.58
	Social Participation 4.30
	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: Vancouver Protocol (2007).

view Wan Chai
Baseline Assessment Report

view Wan Chai
Action Plan

Go to Findings of Baseline Assessment

Wan Chai (Final Assessment: 07-10/2018)

AFC Domains

	Outdoor Spaces & Buildings 4.17
	Transportation 4.44
	Housing 3.70
	Social Participation 4.47
	Respect & Social Inclusion 4.27
	Civic Participation & Employment 4.12
	Communication & Information 4.21
	Community Support & Health Services 3.78
	1	2	3	4	5 6

Less Age-friendly

Mean Scores

Mean Scores

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
• Sufficient social participation opportunities
• Bus and tram drivers are nice to older people
• Some bus stations provide real-time bus arrival information with big enough font size, offers good accessibility for the older people

Room for improvement in age-friendliness

Domains with lowest mean scores:

Community Support & Health Services

Housing

• Long waiting time for specialist consultations, especially ophthalmologists
• Difficult to use General Out-patient Clinics telephone booking system
• Unaffordable home renovation and maintenance expenses, a platform for the information of undertaking minor maintenance and renovation work is needed
• Concerned about the building safety and environmental hygiene problems (e.g. sub-divided flats and guesthouses)

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
Final Assessment Report

Go to Findings of Final Assessment

Sha Tin (Baseline Assessment: 07-12/2015)

AFC Domains

	Outdoor Spaces & Buildings 4.27
	Transportation 4.35
	Housing 3.76
	Social Participation 4.12
	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: Vancouver Protocol (2007).

view Sha Tin
Baseline Assessment Report

view Sha Tin
Action Plan

Go to Findings of Baseline Assessment

Sha Tin (Final Assessment: 06-11/2018)

AFC Domains

	Outdoor Spaces & Buildings 4.10
	Transportation 4.28
	Housing 3.74
	Social Participation 3.97
	Respect & Social Inclusion 3.90
	Civic Participation & Employment 3.73
	Communication & Information 4.02
	Community Support & Health Services 3.47
	1	2	3	4	5 6

Less Age-friendly

Mean Scores

Mean Scores

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

Transportation

• Availability of parks, green spaces or spacious outdoor spaces for leisure, sports and social activities, such as Tolo Harbour and Ma On Shan Park
• Availability of age-friendly and barrier-free facilities in outdoor areas
• Age-friendly public transport to older people and persons with disabilities (e.g. the use of priority seats and installation of wheelchair areas, and bus drivers taking care of elderly passengers and wheelchair users)
• More bus stops had age-friendly facilities (e.g. seats and information display boards)

Room for improvement in age-friendliness

Domains with lowest mean scores:

Civic Participation & Employment

Community Support & Health Services

• Limited choices of part-time jobs or jobs with flexible working hours for older people
• Insufficient community support services in some old estates
• Long waiting time for public hospitals and clinics
• Some private doctors take advantage of the voucher scheme and charge higher prices than normal, and the amount of health care vouchers was not adequate to cover dental and general medical expenses

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
Final Assessment Report

Go to Findings of Final Assessment

Tai Po (Baseline Assessment: 07/2015-01/2016)

AFC Domains

	Outdoor Spaces & Buildings 4.08
	Transportation 4.21
	Housing 3.66
	Social Participation 4.02
	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: Vancouver Protocol (2007).

view Tai Po
Baseline Assessment Report

view Tai Po
Action Plan

Go to Findings of Baseline Assessment

Tai Po (Final Assessment: 06-11/2018)

AFC Domains

	Outdoor Spaces & Buildings 4.11
	Transportation 4.29
	Housing 3.80
	Social Participation 4.14
	Respect & Social Inclusion 3.91
	Civic Participation & Employment 3.76
	Communication & Information 4.03
	Community Support & Health Services 3.62
	1	2	3	4	5 6

Less Age-friendly

Mean Scores

Mean Scores

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

• Age-friendly public transport to older people and persons with disabilities (e.g. installation of wheelchair areas and wheelchair ramp that users could get on/off the bus more easily and bus drivers taking care of elderly passengers and wheelchair users)
• More bus stops had age-friendly facilities, such as seats and information display boards
• Availability of wide variety of social activities for older people through different channels
• Affordable community and social activities

Room for improvement in age-friendliness

Domains with lowest mean scores:

Civic Participation & Employment

Community Support & Health Services

• Limited employment opportunities for older people
• Difficult to use General Out-patient Clinics telephone booking system
• Long waiting time for public hospitals and clinics, and limited availability of specialised medical services and specialists (e.g. dental services)
• Some private doctors take advantage of the voucher scheme and charge higher prices than normal, and the amount of health care vouchers was not adequate to cover dental and general medical expenses
• Inadequate community support services such as community care and escort services for medical appointments, and restricted eligibility to obtain subsidised community support services

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
Final Assessment Report

Go to Findings of Final Assessment

Islands (Baseline Assessment: 07/2015-02/2016)

AFC Domains

	Outdoor Spaces & Buildings 3.80
	Transportation 3.89
	Housing 3.46
	Social Participation 4.14
	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: Vancouver Protocol (2007).

view Islands
Baseline Assessment Report

view Islands
Action Plan

Go to Findings of Baseline Assessment

Islands (Final Assessment: 09-11/2018)

AFC Domains

	Outdoor Spaces & Buildings 3.86
	Transportation 3.89
	Housing 3.56
	Social Participation 4.32
	Respect & Social Inclusion 4.21
	Civic Participation & Employment 3.90
	Communication & Information 4.07
	Community Support & Health Services 3.80
	1	2	3	4	5 6

Less Age-friendly

Mean Scores

Mean Scores

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

• Positive relationship with neighbours which created a strong network for mutual help, especially on small islands
• The NGOs provided a good variety of social activities and interest classes to elderly residents in the Islands District. These activities improved the quality of life for older residents and enhanced community cohesion
• Sufficient feedback mechanism in the Islands District. They shared positive experiences with the District Council as well as Rural Committee members who collected their opinions and took actions enthusiastically
• Advised to have more publicity on active ageing and age-friendliness, a rebranding senior as energetic and potential human resources to enable age friendliness

Room for improvement in age-friendliness

Domains with lowest mean scores:

Community Support & Health Services

Housing

• Advised to recruit more healthcare therapists and specialists to enhance medical service in the Islands District; banking services and variety of food choice also need to be enhance
• Riding on the strong social bonding in the Islands District, services for older residents from different ethnic groups can be enhanced
• Insufficient cemeteries and columbarium in the district
• High demand for home modification for housing to enhance age-friendliness in the districts – advised to simplify and streamline the application process and facilitate the efficiency of the application

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
Final Assessment Report

Go to Findings of Final Assessment

Tsuen Wan (Baseline Assessment: 07/2015-02/2016)

AFC Domains

	Outdoor Spaces & Buildings 4.14
	Transportation 4.32
	Housing 3.74
	Social Participation 4.36
	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: Vancouver Protocol (2007).

view Tsuen Wan
Baseline Assessment Report

view Tsuen Wan
Action Plan

Go to Findings of Baseline Assessment

Tsuen Wan (Final Assessment: 09-11/2018)

AFC Domains

	Outdoor Spaces & Buildings 4.03
	Transportation 4.29
	Housing 3.64
	Social Participation 4.26
	Respect & Social Inclusion 4.16
	Civic Participation & Employment 3.92
	Communication & Information 4.09
	Community Support & Health Services 3.57
	1	2	3	4	5 6

Less Age-friendly

Mean Scores

Mean Scores

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

• Satisfied with the accessibility and transportation network
• Government Public Transport Fare Concession Scheme for the Elderly and Eligible Persons with Disabilities. It allowed eligible people to travel around at low cost
• Bus schedules were generally reliable
• Reasonable cost of community activities. This encouraged their active participation

Room for improvement in age-friendliness

Domains with lowest mean scores:

Housing

Community Support & Health Services

• More barrier-free facilities to those private residential buildings in downtown Tsuen Wan and some older public housing blocks, And to strengthen the social support network by setting up more service centers in those areas
• Improve policies and streamline procedures for the maintenance and referral of social support services in both public housing private housing is needed
• Improve the operation of the telephone reservation system at Hospital Authority, Health Care Vouchers and green burial services
• Suggested to review the vacant markets in the districts, such as Tsuen King Circuit, Cheung Shan Estate etc. to improve land use for day care services, strengthen home care services as well as residential care services

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
Final Assessment Report

Go to Findings of Final Assessment

Kowloon City (Baseline Assessment: 10/2015-02/2016)

AFC Domains

	Outdoor Spaces & Buildings 4.01
	Transportation 4.24
	Housing 3.70
	Social Participation 4.38
	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: Vancouver Protocol (2007).

view Kowloon City
Baseline Assessment Report

view Kowloon City
Action Plan

Go to Findings of Baseline Assessment

Kowloon City (Final Assessment: 07-10/2018)

AFC Domains

	Outdoor Spaces & Buildings 4.23
	Transportation 4.33
	Housing 3.86
	Social Participation 4.47
	Respect & Social Inclusion 4.33
	Civic Participation & Employment 4.11
	Communication & Information 4.37
	Community Support & Health Services 3.92
	1	2	3	4	5 6

Less Age-friendly

Mean Scores

Mean Scores

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

Communication & Information

• A variety of social activities were available at affordable price
• Older people showed satisfaction of the variety and affordability of sport activities in the community
• More learning classes teaching older people to use smart devices were provided by elderly centres and District Councillors
• The care-on-call alarm system had been providing information and interaction to older people

Room for improvement in age-friendliness

Domains with lowest mean scores:

Housing

Community Support & Health Services

• Rent became more unaffordable in tenement house and sub-divided flat. And the environmental hygiene condition is poor
• High maintenance cost in private building. More difficult to handle maintenance issues in building without an no owner’s corporation
• Long waiting time for public healthcare services (e.g. General Out-patient, Specialist Out-patient and Accident & Emergency services)
• Insufficient provision of home care services and subvented elderly homes

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
Final Assessment Report

Go to Findings of Final Assessment

Kwun Tong (Baseline Assessment: 07/2015-02/2016)

AFC Domains

	Outdoor Spaces & Buildings 4.04
	Transportation 4.36
	Housing 4.00
	Social Participation 4.58
	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: Vancouver Protocol (2007).

view Kwun Tong
Baseline Assessment Report

view Kwun Tong
Action Plan

Go to Findings of Baseline Assessment

Kwun Tong (Final Assessment: 07-11/2018)

AFC Domains

	Outdoor Spaces & Buildings 4.19
	Transportation 4.32
	Housing 3.98
	Social Participation 4.54
	Respect & Social Inclusion 4.37
	Civic Participation & Employment 4.10
	Communication & Information 4.34
	Community Support & Health Services 3.85
	1	2	3	4	5 6

Less Age-friendly

Mean Scores

Mean Scores

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

• Diversified and affordable social activities offered by agencies
• Sufficient and affordable sport facilities and classes in the community (e.g. Ping Tin, Hill Kwong, Lai Ching and Shui Wo areas)
• More respect from younger people toward older people (e.g. offer seats)
• There were more opportunities for intergenerational interaction through home visit or social activities

Room for improvement in age-friendliness

Domains with lowest mean scores:

Housing

Community Support & Health Services

• Many old buildings were in need of maintenance, yet many older people did not have sufficient financial support and channels in home modification
• Privatisation of public market in public estates led to fewer choices of affordable products and services (e.g. older people would prefer to buy cheaper goods at Shui Wo Market which was more far away)
• Long waiting time for public healthcare services (e.g. Specialist Out-patient and Accident & Emergency services)
• Community support and residential care services (e.g. home care services and Homes for the Aged) were insufficient

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
Final Assessment Report

Go to Findings of Final Assessment

Kwai Tsing (Baseline Assessment: 04-08/2017)

AFC Domains

	Outdoor Spaces & Buildings 3.87
	Transportation 4.33
	Housing 3.89
	Social Participation 3.98
	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: Vancouver Protocol (2007).

view Kwai Tsing
Baseline Assessment Report

view Kwai Tsing
Action Plan

Go to Findings of Baseline Assessment

Kwai Tsing (Final Assessment: 05/2020-08/2021)

AFC Domains

	Outdoor Spaces & Buildings 3.98
	Transportation 4.22
	Housing 3.69
	Social Participation 3.86
	Respect & Social Inclusion 3.79
	Civic Participation & Employment 3.62
	Communication & Information 3.94
	Community Support & Health Services 3.54
	1	2	3	4	5 6

Less Age-friendly

Mean Scores

Mean Scores

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

Transportation

• Availability of parks and spacious outdoor spaces in the district
• Improved age-friendly and barrier-free facilities in the community, such as more seats, shelters, and fitness facilities in outdoor spaces, and lifts installed at the footbridges
• Increasing number of bus-stops and mini-bus stops with age-friendly facilities, such as seats and information display panels
• Friendly attitude of bus drivers towards the elderly and persons with reduced mobility, such as willing to assist them to get on and off the bus

Room for improvement in age-friendliness

Domains with lowest mean scores:

Civic Participation & Employment

Community Support & Health Services

• Limited choices of part-time jobs or jobs with flexible working hours for older people
• Long waiting times at Specialists Out-patients Clinics
• Inconvenient location of the district health centres
• Insufficient information on the community support services

Remark

• The questions of focus group interviews were adapted from the WHO Age-Friendly Cities Project Methodology, also known as the Vancouver Protocol (2007).

Go to Findings of Final Assessment

North (Baseline Assessment: 05-08/2017)

AFC Domains

	Outdoor Spaces & Buildings 4.01
	Transportation 4.24
	Housing 3.75
	Social Participation 4.03
	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: Vancouver Protocol (2007).

view North
Baseline Assessment Report

view North
Action Plan

Go to Findings of Baseline Assessment

North (Final Assessment: 05/2020-08/2021)

AFC Domains

	Outdoor Spaces & Buildings 3.99
	Transportation 4.03
	Housing 3.51
	Social Participation 3.92
	Respect & Social Inclusion 3.74
	Civic Participation & Employment 3.62
	Communication & Information 3.86
	Community Support & Health Services 3.45
	1	2	3	4	5 6

Less Age-friendly

Mean Scores

Mean Scores

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

Transportation

• Improved age-friendliness in the pedestrian walkway to Fanling MTR Station with widen footpath and shelter
• More barrier-free facilities in the community (e.g. the elevators installed at footbridges)
• Increasing number of bus-stops with age-friendly facilities (e.g. seats and information display panels)
• Improved public transport network in the district, such as more bus routes to Kowloon and Hong Kong Island

Room for improvement in age-friendliness

Domains with lowest mean scores:

Community Support & Health Services

Housing

• Insufficient public library and bank services in the district
• Lack of Specialist Out-patient Clinics in the district
• Limited support of dental care services for older people
• Complicated process to apply home maintenance services for tenants of public housing estates
• Insufficient information on home maintenance for older people living in private housing estates

Remark

• The questions of focus group interviews were adapted from the WHO Age-Friendly Cities Project Methodology, also known as the Vancouver Protocol (2007).

Go to Findings of Final Assessment

Sai Kung (Baseline Assessment: 07-09/2017)

AFC Domains

	Outdoor Spaces & Buildings 4.07
	Transportation 4.22
	Housing 3.72
	Social Participation 3.93
	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: Vancouver Protocol (2007).

view Sai Kung
Baseline Assessment Report

view Sai Kung
Action Plan

Go to Findings of Baseline Assessment

Sai Kung (Final Assessment: 05/2020-08/2021)

AFC Domains

	Outdoor Spaces & Buildings 4.12
	Transportation 4.20
	Housing 3.70
	Social Participation 3.94
	Respect & Social Inclusion 3.83
	Civic Participation & Employment 3.54
	Communication & Information 3.95
	Community Support & Health Services 3.50
	1	2	3	4	5 6

Less Age-friendly

Mean Scores

Mean Scores

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

Transportation

• Availability of parks and spacious outdoor spaces in the district
• Improved age-friendliness in hiking environment for older people, such as set up a pavilion and public toilet at Duckling Hill
• Available information on bus services by bus mobile apps
• Improved public transportation service in LOHAS Park, such as more choices of mini-bus services

Room for improvement in age-friendliness

Domains with lowest mean scores:

Civic Participation & Employment

Community Support & Health Services

• Limited employment opportunities for older people
• Difficult to use General Out-patient Clinics telephone booking system and HA GO mobile app
• Long waiting time at the Specialist Out-patient Clinics
• Some private doctors take advantage of the Elderly Health Care Voucher Scheme and charge higher prices for voucher users
• Lack of information on community support services

Remark

• The questions of focus group interviews were adapted from the WHO Age-Friendly Cities Project Methodology, also known as the Vancouver Protocol (2007).

Go to Findings of Final Assessment

Tuen Mun (Baseline Assessment: 05-09/2017)

AFC Domains

	Outdoor Spaces & Buildings 4.03
	Transportation 4.30
	Housing 3.60
	Social Participation 4.30
	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: Vancouver Protocol (2007).

view Tuen Mun
Baseline Assessment Report

view Tuen Mun
Action Plan

Go to Findings of Baseline Assessment

Tuen Mun (Final Assessment: 10/2020-08/2021)

AFC Domains

	Outdoor Spaces & Buildings 4.09
	Transportation 4.38
	Housing 3.75
	Social Participation 4.42
	Respect & Social Inclusion 4.25
	Civic Participation & Employment 4.09
	Communication & Information 4.26
	Community Support & Health Services 3.75
	1	2	3	4	5 6

Less Age-friendly

Mean Scores

Mean Scores

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

• Social welfare organizations provided high-quality activities that brought a positive impact on the well-being of participants
• Seniors enjoyed the Public Transport Fare Concession Scheme, enhanced their motivation to go out
• The public transportation system became more accessible and convenient for people at different ages to commune between the city, such as West Line, newly installed barrier-free facilities
• Close attention of bus and minibus drivers for the safety of elderly passengers, which make seniors feel cared and supportive
• Light Rail has a mobile app for residents to access updated traffic information easily

Room for improvement in age-friendliness

Domains with lowest mean scores:

Housing

Community Support & Health Services

• Insufficient and inefficient housing maintenance in both private housing and public estates. Elderly is lack of information about household maintenance or repair services
• Limited living space and unaffordable private housing for grassroot families and elderly people, wheel-chair users in particular
• Insufficient public services on healthcare and rehabilitation service, for instance the long waiting times for Accident and Emergency services and physiotherapy services in public hospital, and unaffordable private healthcare service
• Insufficient subsidized residential care homes and day care services
• Insufficient support for seniors 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).

Go to Findings of Final Assessment

Wong Tai Sin (Baseline Assessment: 04-07/2017)

AFC Domains

	Outdoor Spaces & Buildings 4.15
	Transportation 4.35
	Housing 3.92
	Social Participation 4.46
	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: Vancouver Protocol (2007).

view Wong Tai Sin
Baseline Assessment Report

view Wong Tai Sin
Action Plan

Go to Findings of Baseline Assessment

Wong Tai Sin (Final Assessment: 01-08/2021)

AFC Domains

	Outdoor Spaces & Buildings 4.09
	Transportation 4.40
	Housing 4.04
	Social Participation 4.34
	Respect & Social Inclusion 4.20
	Civic Participation & Employment 3.92
	Communication & Information 4.09
	Community Support & Health Services 3.82
	1	2	3	4	5 6

Less Age-friendly

Mean Scores

Mean Scores

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

• Extensive and convenient transportation network connecting to other districts
• A variety of social activities available for the elderly in the district

Room for improvement in age-friendliness

Domains with lowest mean scores:

Civic Participation & Employment

Community Support & Health Services

• Limited employment opportunities for older people
• Prolonged waiting time for specialist and dental services
• Overwhelming needs for A&E services in the district
• Some clinics take advantage of the Health Care Voucher and charge higher prices for voucher users

Remark

• The questions of focus group interviews were adapted from the WHO Age-Friendly Cities Project Methodology, also known as the Vancouver Protocol (2007).

Go to Findings of Final Assessment

Yuen Long (Baseline Assessment: 05-09/2017)

AFC Domains

	Outdoor Spaces & Buildings 3.82
	Transportation 3.98
	Housing 3.30
	Social Participation 4.05
	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: Vancouver Protocol (2007).

view Yuen Long
Baseline Assessment Report

view Yuen Long
Action Plan

Go to Findings of Baseline Assessment

Yuen Long (Final Assessment: 10/2020-08/2021)

AFC Domains

	Outdoor Spaces & Buildings 4.14
	Transportation 4.32
	Housing 3.75
	Social Participation 4.37
	Respect & Social Inclusion 4.24
	Civic Participation & Employment 4.10
	Communication & Information 4.21
	Community Support & Health Services 3.75
	1	2	3	4	5 6

Less Age-friendly

Mean Scores

Mean Scores

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

• Social welfare organizations conducted various activities to fulfil the need of people at different ages. Finding a centre and joining the activities are easy for the elderly residents
• Social welfare organizations provided outreach services to support the elderly living in rural areas who were lack of social services
• Well-developed public transportation system in urban areas with multiple transport options and barrier-free facilities
• The elderly residents who are 65 years or above were satisfied with the affordable public transportation fee

Room for improvement in age-friendliness

Domains with lowest mean scores:

Housing

Community Support & Health Services

• Prolonged processing time for public housing application after the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemics
• Lack of barrier-free facilities in old tenement buildings and village houses makes it difficult for the elderly and wheelchair users to go outside
• Insufficient public healthcare services
• Shortage of sub-vented residential care services and poor quality of private residential care services
• COVID-19 pandemics affect the arrangement of elderly services, such as reducing escort services, prolonged waiting time of social services application. Willingness of elderly having medical treatment also affected
• Inadequate support for older people with dementia and their families

Remark

• The questions of focus group interviews were adapted from the WHO Age-Friendly Cities Project Methodology, also known as the Vancouver Protocol (2007).

Go to Findings of Final Assessment

Sham Shui Po (Baseline Assessment: 04-09/2017)

AFC Domains

	Outdoor Spaces & Buildings 4.10
	Transportation 4.45
	Housing 3.94
	Social Participation 4.67
	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: Vancouver Protocol (2007).

view Sham Shui Po
Baseline Assessment Report

view Sham Shui Po
Action Plan