Smoke-Free Area Policy Implementation for the Prevention of Smoking Behavior in Elementary Schools: A Case Study of Sleman Regency

Lina Handayani; Esti Kurniasih; Tri Wahyuni Sukesi; Muchsin Maulana; Tria Nisa Novianti

doi:10.52022/jikm.v18i2.875

Lina Handayani Faculty of Public Health, Universitas Ahmad Dahlan, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Esti Kurniasih Faculty of Public Health, Universitas Ahmad Dahlan, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Tri Wahyuni Sukesi Faculty of Public Health, Universitas Ahmad Dahlan, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Muchsin Maulana Faculty of Public Health, Universitas Ahmad Dahlan, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Tria Nisa Novianti Faculty of Public Health, Universitas Ahmad Dahlan, Yogyakarta, Indonesia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.52022/jikm.v18i2.875

Keywords: Smoke-free policy, Smoke-free areas, Elementary school, Smoking prevalence, Education stakeholders

Abstract

Background: The prevalence of smoking among school-aged children in Indonesia has shown a significant and alarming increase. In response, the Sleman District Government implemented Regent Regulation No. 42 of 2012 concerning Smoke-Free Areas (Kawasan Tanpa Rokok/KTR) as a preventive measure. This study aims to evaluate the implementation of the KTR policy within elementary school environments and to identify the challenges associated with its enforcement.

Method: A qualitative research approach was employed, utilizing semi-structured interviews and direct observations. Informants included officials from the District Education Office, elementary school teachers, and parents of students. Observations were conducted to assess the availability of smoke-free signage and environmental compliance within school grounds.

Results: The findings indicate that, although the KTR regulation has been formally established and certain supporting elements, such as banners, posters, and school rules, are in place, the dissemination of information and educational efforts regarding the policy remain suboptimal, particularly at the elementary school level. Many stakeholders are aware of the regulation’s existence but lack a deep understanding of its content and objectives. Additionally, there is a lack of coordinated socialization programs and sustained educational initiatives targeting students and their families.

Conclusion: Although the regulatory framework for KTR exists, its implementation in elementary schools requires significant improvement. Strengthening cross-sector collaboration among education authorities, schools, and parents is essential. Comprehensive and age-appropriate educational programs should be integrated into school curricula to effectively prevent smoking behavior from an early age and support the long-term success of KTR policy enforcement.