Healthy Cities and Social Reality Indicators: Comparative Lessons From High Income And Lower Middle Income Economies (Indikator Bandar Sihat dan Realiti Sosial: Pengajaran Perbandingan daripada Negara Berpendapatan Tinggi dan Negara Berpendapatan Sederhana Rendah)

Muhd Abdul Hadi Johari, Zanisah Man, Mohd Yusof Hussain

Abstract


ABSTRACT


The implementation of healthy cities varies across countries, shaped by national issues unique to each context and classified according to their respective social realities. As such, the assumption that more developed countries inherently lead in development is not always applicable since each country possesses different levels of national readiness based on social conditions. This study aims to explore the differences in the implementation of global Healthy City initiatives by analyzing national factors rooted in the social realities of each country. Understanding how these social realities shape development prospects offers valuable lessons for international development efforts, including those in Malaysia. Four countries - South Korea, Nepal, China, and South Africa, were selected to represent diverse global cases of Healthy City implementation. The selection was based on geographical location, economic status, prevailing social conditions, and different approaches to healthy city development. This study employed case studies and content analysis of selected written sources, including official documents and academic journals. Data were sourced from databases such as Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar using search terms like “healthy city policy” or “healthy city implementation in [country name].” A total of 24 documents were analyzed to extract insights and processes that reflect the broader phenomenon under investigation. The analysis identified three key national factors, shaped by each country’s social realities that influence the formulation and implementation of healthy city initiatives: (1) the vulnerability and burden on the health sector, (2) political dynamics and economic resources, and (3) population characteristics and local social issues. These findings provide a reference for the more effective implementation of healthy cities tailored to the specific needs of communities within different national contexts.


Keywords: Healthy City, social reality, selected countries, differences in implementation, development lessons


ABSTRAK


Pelaksanaan bandar sihat berbeza merentasi negara, dibentuk oleh isu nasional yang unik bagi setiap konteks serta diklasifikasikan mengikut realiti sosial masing-masing. Oleh itu, anggapan bahawa negara yang lebih maju secara semula jadi mendahului dalam pembangunan tidak semestinya terpakai kerana setiap negara mempunyai tahap ketersediaan nasional yang berbeza berdasarkan keadaan sosial. Kajian ini bertujuan meneroka perbezaan dalam pelaksanaan inisiatif Bandar Sihat global dengan menganalisis faktor nasional yang berakar daripada realiti sosial setiap negara. Memahami bagaimana realiti sosial ini membentuk prospek pembangunan menawarkan pelajaran berharga bagi usaha pembangunan antarabangsa, termasuk di Malaysia. Empat negara, iaitu Korea Selatan, Nepal, China, dan Afrika Selatan dipilih untuk mewakili kes global yang pelbagai dalam pelaksanaan Bandar Sihat. Pemilihan ini dibuat berdasarkan lokasi geografi, status ekonomi, keadaan sosial semasa, serta pendekatan berbeza terhadap pembangunan bandar sihat. Kajian ini menggunakan kaedah kajian kes dan analisis kandungan terhadap sumber bertulis terpilih, termasuk dokumen rasmi dan jurnal akademik. Data diperoleh daripada pangkalan data seperti Webof Science, Scopus, dan Google Scholar menggunakan istilah carian seperti “healthy city policy” atau “healthy city implementation in [nama negara].” Sebanyak 24 dokumen dianalisis untuk mengekstrak pandangan dan proses yang mencerminkan fenomena lebih luas yang sedang dikaji. Analisis mendapati tiga faktor nasional utama, yang dibentuk oleh realiti sosial setiap negara, yang mempengaruhi pelaksanaan inisiatif bandar sihat: (1) kerentanan dan beban terhadap sektor kesihatan, (2) dinamika politik dan sumber ekonomi, dan (3) ciri populasi serta isu sosial tempatan. Dapatan ini menyediakan rujukan bagi pelaksanaan bandar sihat yang lebih berkesan, disesuaikan dengan keperluan khusus komuniti dalam konteks nasional yang berbeza.

Kata kunci: bandar sihat, realiti sosial, negara terpilih, perbandingan, pengajaran pembangunan


Keywords


Healthy City, social reality, selected countries, differences in implementation, development lessons

Full Text:

PDF

References


Acharya, K.P., Khanal, S.P., & Chhetry, D. 2022. Factors Affecting Poverty in Nepal-Binary Logistic Regression

Model Study. Pertanika Journal Social Science & Humanities 30, no. 2: 641-663.

Ashton, J., Grey, P., & Barnard, K. 1986. Healthy cities - WHO’s New Public Health Initiative. Health Promotion

International 1, no. 3: 319-324.

Ashton, J., & Seymour, H. 1988. The New Public Health: The Liverpool Experience. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Asian Development Bank (ADB). 2013. Nepal Cities: Clean And Healthy Urban Development, ADB, Philippines.

Bachani, D., Saxena, S., Amri Bakar, M., Gupta, R., Basnet, S., & Pomeroy-Stevens, A. 2022. Healthier Cities Through Systems Thinking: Practical Considerations for City Leaders. Journal of Urban Health 99: 733-737.

Bapari, M.Y., Haque, M.E., Chowdhury, M.K., & Islam, M.J. 2016. Impacts of Unplanned Urbanization on The Socio–Economic Conditions and Environment of Pabna Municipality, Bangladesh. Journal of Environment and Earth Science 6, no. 9: 105-114.

Central Bureau of Statistics. 2011. Nepal Living Standard Survey (2010/11). National Planning Commission Secretariat, Government of Nepal, Nepal.

Baokang, Y. 2021. An Overview of The Chinese Healthcare System. HepatoBiliary Surgery and Nutrition 10, no. 1: 93-95.

Becker, H.S. 1970. Sociological Work: Method and Substance. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

Congressional Research Service Report (CRSR). 2020. South Africa: Current Issues, Economy, and U.S. Relations, CRSR, Washington.

Dooris, M., & Heritage, Z. 2011. Healthy Cities: Facilitating The Active Participation and Empowerment of Local People. Journal of Urban Health 90, no. 1: 74-91.

East Asian Institute (EAI). 2021. China’s Population Census, East Asian Institute, National University of Singapore, Singapore.

Gehlot, V., Sloane, E.B. & Thalassinidis. Personal Health Technology: CPN Based Modelling of Coordinated Neighbourhood Care Environments (Hubs) and Personal Care Device Ecosystems, the working paper was presented at the Proceedings of the 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Manoa, 8 Julai 2019, p. 4165-4174.

Godfrey, R. & Julien, M. 2015. Urbanisation and health. Clinical Medicine 5, no. 2: 137-141.

Harpham, T., Burton, S., & Blue, L. 2001. Healthy City Projects in Developing Countries: The First Evaluation. Health Promotion International 16, no. 2: 111-125.

Heo, U., Jeon, H., Kim, H., & Kim, O. 2008. The Political Economy of South Korea: Economic Growth, Democratization, and Financial Crisis. Maryland Series in Contemporary Asian Studies 2, no. 1: 1-24.

Hisashi, O. 2003. Healthy Cities Project in the Western Pasific, In Healthy Cities and Urban Policy Research, edited by Takano, 21-40. London: Spon Press.

Human Science Research Council (HSRC). 2021. Adolescents Living with HIV in South Africa, HSRC, Cape Town, South Africa.

James, T.C. & Bhatnagar, A. Special Wellness Zones for Wellness Tourism: Exploring Prospects of Creating

Dedicated ISM Hubs, the working paper presented at the Forum on Indian Traditional Medicine, New Delhi, 4 Julai 2019, p. 1-7.

Kai, X., Yuheng, Y., Zhizhen, B. & Zhijun, Z. & Zhijun, Z. 2021. Development and Evaluation of Healthy Cities, the working

paper presented at the 2021 International Conference on Physics, Computing, and Mathematical, Xiamen, 29 - 30 Disember 2021, p. 1-4.

Korea Economic Institute of America (KEIA). 2015. Korea’s Economy, KEIA, USA.

Kenzer, M. (1999). Healthy Cities: A Guide to The Literature. Environment and Urbanization 11, no. 1: 201-220.

Lee, J.W. 2016. The Republic of Korea’s Economic Growth and Catch-up: Implications for the People’s Republic of China. Tokyo: Asian Development Bank Institute.

Lim Seng Boon. 2020. Membina Model Bandar Pintar Berpusatkan Rakyat di Malaysia [Developing a People-Centered Smart City Model in Malaysia]. PhD thesis. Developmental Science, Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, The National University of Malaysia.

Martinez Perez, G., Cox, V., Ellman, T., Moore, A., Patten, G., Shroufi, A., Stinson, K., Van Cutsem, V., & Ibeto, M. 2016. ‘I Know That I Do Have HIV but Nobody Saw Me’: Oral HIV Self-Testing in an Informal Settlement in South Africa. PLoS ONE 11, no. 4: 1-15.

Merriam, S.B. 1998. Qualitative Research and Case Study Application in Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Munjae, L., Sewon, P., & Kichan, Y. 2019. Does Health Promotion Program Affect Local Resident’ Emotions?. International Journal of Environment Research and Public Health 16, no. 549: 1-14.

Munjae, L., & Kichan, Y. 2020. Effects of The Health Promotion Programs on Happiness. Sustainability 12: 1-14.

Nuan-Ching, H., Hsien-Wen, K., Te-Jen, H., & Susan C. H. (2019). Do Healthy City Performance Awards Lead To Health in All Policies?. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16: 1-13.

Park, Y. 2018. Modern Korean Economy 1984-2008. Korea: The Academy of Korean Studies.

Patnaik, S., & Pandey, S.C. 2019. Case Study Research, In Methodological Issues in Management Research, edited by Subudhi, R.N., & Mishra, 163-179, Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited.

Sharma, B., & Nam E.W. 2017. A Healthy City Project: A Case Study of Wonju City, South Korea and Its Relevance to The

Cities In Nepal. Journal of Gandaki Medical College-Nepal 10, no. 1: 34-42.

Sieberhagen, C., Pienaar, J., & Els, C. 2011. Management of Employee Wellness in South Africa: Employer, Service Provider and Union Perspectives. SA Journal of Human Resource Management 9, no. 1: 1-14.

The World Bank. 2018. South Africa Economic Update, The World Bank, Washington.

The World Bank. 2022. World Bank Indicators Database: Population 2022, The World Bank, Washington.

UN. 2022. Economic and Social Council: Nepal, UN, New York.

UNAIDS. 2019. Communities At the Centre: Defending Rights Breaking Barriers Reaching People with HIV Services, UNAIDS, Geneva.

U.S Energy Information Administration. 2022. Country Analysis Executive Summary: China, U.S Energy Information Administration, Washington.

USAID. 2022. Implementation Plan: Municipal Actions for Air Quality in the Kathamandu Valley, USAID, Arlington.

Webster, P., & Sanderson, D. 2012. Healthy Cities Indicators - A Suitable Instrument to Measure Health. Journal of Urban

Health 90, no. 1: 52-61.

WHO. 2015. Healthy Cities: Good Health is Good Politics, WHO, Geneva.

WHO. 2018. Copenhagen Consensus of Mayors, WHO, Denmark.

Xin, W., Xizhuo, S., Fangfang, G., Yixiang, H., Lijin, C., Yong, Z., & Stephen, B. 2018. The Luohu Model: A Template for Integrated Urban Healthcare Systems in China. International Journal of Integrated Care 18, no. 4: 1-10.

Xuru, H., Xizhuo, S., Fangfang, G., Wenhai, L, Jinchuan, L., Hanqun, L. & Guangyu, H. 2022. A Large-Scale Screening Responding Sporadic Epidemic of COVID-19 in China by an Integrated Health-Care System. International Journal of Integrated Care 22, no. 1: 1-12.

Yin, R.K. 2008. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Zaei, M.E. 2014. Globalization of National Policy-Making: An International Perspective. Public Policy and Administration 13, no. 2: 331-340.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


 


ISSN 2289-1706 | e-ISSN : 2289-4268 

Institut Alam dan Tamadun Melayu (ATMA)
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
43600 UKM Bangi, Selangor Darul Ehsan
MALAYSIA

© Copyright UKM Press, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia