The Corellation of Social Environment and Quality of Life People

Living at Coastal Areas in Surabaya

Meiana Harfika, Lela Nurlela, Mahesta Ratna Dewi

STIKES Hang Tuah Surabaya, Indonesia

Keywords: Social Environment, Coastal People, Quality of Life.

Abstract: The social environment is the whole of human interaction are influenced by cultural, economic, and social

psychology. A good social environment will create a good level of harmony between communities, but if the

social environment is bad then there will be many problems and conflicts in the community. The purpose of

this research was to analyse the relationship of social environment condition to quality of life in coastal

society. This research design was observational research design with independent variable that was social

environment condition and dependent variable was quality of life in society. Samples taken with simple

random sampling technique obtained 36 respondents that were the adult age (35-45 years). Quality of life of

the community using WHOQOL-BREF. Data analyse was using Spearman's rho. The results showed that

from 36 respondents have low quality of life (55.6%) and good life quality (44.4%). Spearman's rho test shows

that there is correlation between social environment condition with quality of life of society p=0.001 (α =0.05).

The implications of this study will be more perfect if accompanied by health counselling about the importance

of knowing the surrounding community so, it is expected to be directly applicable in life.

1 BACKGROUND

Social environment is the entire interaction between

humans that is influenced by cultural factors,

economy and social psychology. A good social

environment will create a good level of harmony

between communities, but if the social environment

is bad there will be many problems and conflicts

among the people. The social condition of the

workers coupled with the economic level of the

people who tend to be below the poverty line will

further aggravate the situation.

According to data from the Central Bureau of

Statistics (BPS) year (2009) in Fargomeli, (2014),

noted that the number of poor people in Indonesia

reached 32.59 million people and 63.47% of whom

are people living in coastal and rural areas.

In general, people living in coastal areas live by

relying on the wealth of the sea and the majority are

below the poverty line. This can be illustrated from

the environmental conditions that are far from the

urban community.

In terms of social interaction, fishing communities

generally have a very deep interaction pattern, the

pattern of interaction can be seen from the

relationship of cooperation in carrying out activities,

carrying out joint contacts between fishermen with

fishermen and other communities, they have a clear

purpose in implementing his business and carried out

with a permanent system, in accordance with the

culture of the fishing community.

Various programs that have been proclaimed by

the government to improve the sense of kinship

between communities such as mutual cooperation. In

fact the interest of the community is very lacking in

these activities so that the goal to be achieved

becomes more difficult to be realized. Therefore, the

need for awareness from within the individual to

make themselves as part of the community and

mobilize themselves to participate in socializing with

avoid all kinds of problems or social conflict.

The purpose of this research was to analyze the

correlation of physical and social environment

condition to quality of life in coastal community in

RT.03 RW.03 Kedung Cowek Sub-District, Bulak

Surabaya District.

Harﬁka, M., Nurlela, L. and Dewi, M.

The Corellation of Social Environment and Quality of Life People Living At Coastal Areas In Surabaya.

DOI: 10.5220/0008328705670570

In Proceedings of the 9th International Nursing Conference (INC 2018), pages 567-570

ISBN: 978-989-758-336-0

567

2 METHODS

2.1 Study Design, Population and

Sampling

The method used in this research was cross sectional.

The sample was coastal community of middle age

(36-45 years old) in RT.03 RW.03 Kedung Cowek of

Bulak Surabaya 36 respondents from population 40

peoples. The sampling technique was Simple

Random Sampling that was method of selecting

respondents by random method.

2.2 Measures

For Social Environment Conditiont the instrument

used was questionnaire with Likert scale.

Questionnaires were prepared by researchers of 20

questions. In question includes both positive and

negative statements about the social interactions

experienced by respondents during life in society.

The instrument uses standard WHO measuring

instruments to measure quality of life with

WHOQOL-BREF. In it there are 26 questions with

divided into 4 (four) domains and if in the value can

be high then the level of quality of life can also be

said high.

2.3 Data Analysis

In this research type of data analysis used is Spearman

Rho at 95% confidence level with significance value

α=0.05. Knowledge and confidence before to after

treatment in each group); Researchers determined by

the degree of significance at p<0.05. End of life care

preferences was obtained through structured

interviews and described the results section.

3 RESULTS

Table 1 showed that the woman respondents had

larger number than man and all of the respondents had

35-45 years old. Still there were respondents who had

no formal education about 13.9% and the most were

elementary school education with occupancy as

housewives.

Result showed that from 36 respondents, there are

20 respondents (55.6%) have low quality of life and

16 respondents (44.4%) have good quality of life.

Respondents with poor quality of life who have social

environment condition (social interaction) are not

good as much as 16 respondents (44,4%).

Table 1: Demographics data.

Category

Frequency

Sex

Man

19.4

Woman

80.6

Age (years old)

21-34

35-45

100

46-60

Education

Uneducated

13.9

Elementary school

55.6

Junior high school

19.4

Senior high school

11.1

Bachelor

Occupancy

Unemployment

Housewife

Entrepreneurs

5.6

Fisherman

19.4

Income (Rp)/month

< 1 million

8.3

1-2 million

55.6

>2 million

19.4

3-4 million

13.9

>4 million

2.8

Marital status

Married

100

Unmarried

Table 2: Distribution of respondents based on the

relationship of social environment conditions (social

interaction) to the quality of life of the community.

Variable

Quality of Life

Total

Social

Environ

ment

Less

Good

Poor

44,4

13,9

100

Enough

8,3

13,9

100

Good

2,8

16,7

100

Total

55,6

44,4

100

Statistical Test Value Spearman’s rho 𝐩= 0,001

Respondents with poor quality of life who have

social environment condition (social interaction) is

good enough as many as 3 respondents (8.3%).

Respondents with poor quality of life but had good

social interaction as much as 1 respondent (2.8%).

Then the respondents with good quality of life but

the social interaction was less good as much as 5

respondents (13.9%). Respondents with good quality

of life with social condition (social interaction) were

good enough 5 respondents (13.9%) and respondents

INC 2018 - The 9th International Nursing Conference: Nurses at The Forefront Transforming Care, Science and Research

568

with good quality of life and have good social

environment (social interaction) were 6 responden

(16.7) %) (table 2).

4 DISCUSSION

4.1 Social Environment Condition

The social environment in this study was to focus on

social interaction. Where, social interaction can be

interpreted as dynamic social relationships. Social

relationships can be a relationship between

individuals with one another, between groups of one

with another group or between groups with

individuals (Fitriyah, 2014).

From the result of the research in RT.03 RW.03

Kedung Cowek Subdistrict, Bulak Surabaya, most of

respondent have social environment condition (social

interaction) which is not good, that is 21 respondents

(58.3%). This is due to various factors such as

imitation, suggestion, identification and sympathy.

Imitation factors are factors that can encourage a

person to comply with applicable rules and values.

Factor suggestion is a factor that gives a view or

attitude that comes from him, which then received by

the other party.

Identification factors can be interpreted as factors

that have tendencies or desires in a person to be the

same as the other party. Next is the sympathy factor

that can also affect the process of social interaction,

where the sympathy factor is a process whereby a

person feels interested in the other party.

Not only the four factors above, the researchers

added the state of the economy and the level of

knowledge became the cause of the lack of social

interaction among people because they prefer to make

money (work) than just sitting and socializing.

4.2 Quality of Life in Coastal

Communities

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines

Quality of Life (QoL) as the individual's perception

of his position in life, in the context of culture and

values, according to where the individual lives, in

relation to life goals, expectations, standards and

worries (Bahasuan, 2016).

Based on the result of the research in RT.03

RW.03 Kedung Cowek, Bulak, Surabaya, it is known

that majority of respondents have the lowest quality

of life that is 20 respondents (55.6%) while the

quality of life is good 16 respondent (44.4%).

According to research conducted by Pratiwi

(2015), argues that there are several factors that can

affect the quality of life of a person, among others;

good social relationships with family, friends, and

neighbors, standards of hope in life, involvement in

social activities and charitable activities, hobby and

fun activities, good health and functional ability, good

home and environment and feelings of security, trust

or self-worth positive, psychological and emotional

well-being, sufficient income, easy access to

transportation and social services and feelings of

respect and respect for others. One of the factors

above is sufficient income is the cause of the

declining quality of life in the community.

From the results of research in RT.03 RW.03

Kedung Cowek, Bulak, Surabaya, most of the

respondents have quality of life that I have. This is

due to individual dissatisfaction with the life that is

lived at this time which of course is related to the level

of income is less so that the fulfilment of the needs do

not run optimally.

4.3 Relationship of Social Environment

Condition (Social Interaction) to

Quality of Life in Coastal

Communities

Based on Spearman's Rho test, the value of p=0.001

(α<0.05) means that there is a statistically significant

relationship between social environment condition

(social interaction) and the quality of life of the

community in RT.03 RW.03 Kedung Cowek, Bulak,

Surabaya which then can be interpreted that the

condition of the social environment (social

interaction) can affect the quality of life of the

community. Nominal correlation between the two

variables above reach 0.001 means there is a

relationship between social environment conditions

(social interaction) with quality of life in coastal

communities.

This study was supported by research conducted

by Fargomeli (2014), states that in social interaction

there are factors that influence the interaction that is.

The social situation (The nature of the social

situation) provides a form of behavior toward the

individual in the situation. The power of group norms

(The norms of prevailing in any given social group)

very influential on the occurrence of social interaction

between individuals. Personality Objectives (Their

own personality trends) the existence of personality

goals owned by each individual so as to affect his

behavior

Researchers assume that social environmental

conditions have an influence on the quality of life of

The Corellation of Social Environment and Quality of Life People Living At Coastal Areas In Surabaya

569

the community. This can be illustrated from the social

environment of the community, especially in coastal

communities, mostly focused more on doing work

when compared to gathering with the surrounding

community. Conditions like this will have an indirect

impact such as a lack of concern among members of

the community, the help - a helping attitude that is

increasingly disappearing and not know each other

among the community.

There were reinforced by a study conducted by

Nofitri (2009) which states that the objective

component of quality of life does not directly affect

the quality of life itself but is mediated by individual

perceptions. Quality of life is the interaction between

comprehension / subjective components and

components of interest in certain aspects of life, with

some factors of living conditions that can affect or not

depend on the individual's perception of various

living conditions.

Nofitri (2009) says that when the need for close

relationships with others is fulfilled, whether through

mutually friendly relationships or through marriage,

humans will have a higher quality of life both

physically and emotionally.

5 CONCLUSIONS

This research was conducted to find out the

correlation of social environment condition to quality

of life in coastal community in RT.03 RW.03 Kedung

Cowek sub-district, Bulak district of Surabaya.

REFERENCES

Bahasuan, H. H. (2016). Gambaran Quality of Life (QoL)

Pada Anggota Sanggar Yoga di Surabaya.

Fargomeli, F. (2014). Interaksi Kelompok Nelayan Dalam

Meningkatkan Taraf Hidup Di Desa Tewil Kecamatan

Sangaji Kabupaten Maba Halmahera Timur. Acta

Diurna, III.

Fitriyah. (2014). Pengantar Psikologi umum. Jakarta:

Pustaka Raya.

Nofitri. (2009). Gambaran Kualitas Hidup. FPSi

Universitas Indonesia. diunduh pada tanggal 08 Mei

2017 pukul 08.00 WIB.

Pratiwi, Y. (2015). Pengaruh Dukungan Sosial Terhadap

Kualitas Hidup Lanjut Usia di Pusat Santunan Keluarga

(Pusaka) Kecamatan Pancoran Jakarta Selatan.

Potter & Perry. (2010). Fundamental Keperawatan.

Singapore: Elsevier.

WHO. (1996). WHOQOL-BREF Introduction,

Administration, Scoring and Generic Version of The

Assassement. Switzerland : Programme on Mental

Health World Health Organization. diunduh pada

tanggal 14 Februari 2017 pukul 10.29 WIB.

WHO. (1998). Programme On Mental Health. Switzerland:

Division Of Mental Health and Prevention of Substance

Abuse. diunduh pada tanggal 16 Januari 2017 pukul

09.16 WIB.

WHO. (2007). .Health in the Green Economy. Geneva:

World Health Organization. diunduh tanggal 17 Januari

2017 jam 14.43 WIB.

WHO. (2012). Programme On Mental Health. Switzerland:

Division Of Mental Health and Prevention of Substance

Abuse. diunduh pada tanggal 17 Januari 2017 jam

14.40 WIB.

INC 2018 - The 9th International Nursing Conference: Nurses at The Forefront Transforming Care, Science and Research

570