*Rufia Andisetyana Putri -  Sebelas Maret University, Surakarta, Indonesia
M Dhia Subulussalam -  Sebelas Maret University, Surakarta, Indonesia
Murtanti Jani Rahayu -  Sebelas Maret University, Surakarta, Indonesia
Amesta Kartika Ramadhani -  Sebelas Maret University, Surakarta, Indonesia
Published: 30 Apr 2016.
Open Access Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Citation Format:
Article Info
Section: Articles
Language: EN
Full Text:
Statistics: 1055 839
Problem complexity and interest diversity often cause a city not able to accommodate its population’s needs, among which are the children's needs. It has initiated the idea of the child-friendly city, which got a positive response from the Indonesian government, proven by the policy of child-friendly city/ regency. Surakarta is one of the cities having a strong commitment to being a child-friendly city; however, the implementation has not been comprehensive to the level of neighborhood unit. Elementary school is an essential social infrastructure for children that should be available at a neighborhood unit. However, problems are still there, such as the capacity of elementary schools that is below the national standard and also the children's less safety and comfort in accessing the schools. This paper assesses the suitability of elementary school as a social infrastructure in supporting a child-friendly Surakarta based on four criteria, namely, (a) the serving capacity of the education facility, (b) the safe and comfortable access, (c) the completeness of the elementary schools, and (d) the prevalent access including for disabled children. The suitability measurement was done by using scoring analysis from the results of the field observation as well as the citizens’ and the children's perceptions. The scoring results have shown that most of the elementary schools in Surakarta are still not suitable with the criteria so that they have not been able to support Surakarta as a child-friendly city.
child-friendly city; elementary school; neighborhood unit sustainability; Spatial Analyst; Surakarta

Article Metrics:

  1. Badan Standarisasi Nasional. (2004). SNI 03-1733-2004 Tentang Tata Cara Perencanaan Lingkungan Perumahan di Perkotaan. Jakarta: BSN.
  2. Biggs, S., & Carr, A. (2015). Age-and Child-Friendly Cities and the Promise of Intergenerational Space. Journal of Social Work Practice, 29(1), 99–112.
  3. BP3AKB. (2013). Profil Anak Kota Surakarta 2013. Surakarta: BP3AKB.
  4. Charles, J. R. et al. (2006). Efficacy of a child-friendly form of constraint-induced movement therapy in hemiplegic cerebral palsy: a randomized control trial. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 48(08), 635–642.
  5. De Chiara, J. et al. (1995). Time-saver standards for housing and residential development. McGraw-Hill Companies.
  6. Derr, V. et al. (2013). A City for All Citizens: Integrating Children and Youth from Marginalized Populations into City Planning. Buildings, 3(3), 482–505. http://doi.org/10.3390/buildings3030482
  7. Dinas Kependudukan dan Pencatatan Sipil Kota Surakarta. (2013). Statistik Tahun 2013 : Penduduk Menurut Karakteristik Demografi, Retrieved from http://dispendukcapil.surakarta.go.id
  8. Eisner, S. et al. (1993). The urban pattern. John Wiley & Sons.
  9. Joga, N. (2013). Gerakan Kota Hijau. Jakarta: Gramedia Pustaka Utama.
  10. Kementerian Pemberdayaan Perempuan dan Perlindungan Anak. (2011). Permen Nomor 11 Tahun 2011 tentang Kebijakan Pengembangan Kabupaten/Kota Layak Anak (KLA). Jakarta: Sekretariat Negara Republik Indonesia
  11. Kementerian Pemberdayaan Perempuan dan Perlindungan Anak. (2011). Permen Nomor 12 Tahun 2011 tentang Indikator Kabupaten/Kota Layak Anak (KLA). Jakarta: Sekretariat Negara Republik Indonesia
  12. Kyttä, M. (2004). The extent of children’s independent mobility and the number of actualized affordances as criteria for child-friendly environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(2), 179–198.
  13. Pancarrani, G., & Pigawati, B. (2014). Evaluasi Kesesuaian Lokasi dan Jangkauan Pelayanan Sekolah Menengah Umum di Kecamatan Kebakkramat Kabupaten Karanganyar. Geoplanning: Journal of Geomatics and Planning, 1(2), 65-73
  14. Perry, C. A. (1929). The Neighbourhood Unit. Neighbourhood and Community Planning. Regional Plan of New York and Its Environs, Regional Survey, 7.
  15. Prasetyo, M. I. (2013). Evaluasi Kebijakan Sidoarjo Kota Ramah Anak di Kecamatan Krembung, Kabupaten Sidoarjo. Kebijakan Dan Manajemen Publik, 1(1), 149–156.
  16. Putri, R. A. et al. (2014). Model Pemberdayaan Pengadaan Infrastruktur Sosial Berkelanjutan Skala Neighbourhood Unit Menuju Surakarta Layak Anak. Research Report. LPPM Sebelas Maret University.
  17. Reiner, T. A. (1963). The place of the ideal community in urban planning. University of Pennsylvania Press.
  18. Subulussalam, M. D. et al. (2015). Peran Pelayanan Sekolah Dasar Dalam Mendukung Kota Layak Anak di Surakarta. Arsitektura, 13(2).
  19. Woolcock, G. et al. (2010). Urban research and child-friendly cities: a new Australian outline. Children’s Geographies, 8(2), 177–192.
  20. Wridt, P. (2010). A qualitative GIS approach to mapping urban neighbourhoods with children to promote physical activity and child-friendly community planning. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 37(1), 129–147.