COST ANALYSIS FOR REDUCING TRAFFIC JAM IN CAMPUS...
Transcript of COST ANALYSIS FOR REDUCING TRAFFIC JAM IN CAMPUS...
COST ANALYSIS FOR REDUCING TRAFFIC JAM IN CAMPUS
(Study Case: UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta)
Submitted by:
Kurniaddin Mahmud
108081100002
DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT
INTERNATIONAL-CLASS PROGRAM
FACULTY OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS
STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY SYARIF HIDAYATULLAH JAKARTA
2013 AD/1434 AH
i
Bachelor thesis under the title
COST ANALYSIS FOR REDUCING TRAFFIC JAM IN CAMPUS
(Study Case: UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta)
arranged as one of requirements to attain bachelor degree in Faculty of Economics
and Business, State Islamic University Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta.
Submitted by
Kurniaddin Mahmud
NIM: 108081100002
is approved by Department of Management, International Class Program, Faculty
of Economics and Business, UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta under the
supervisory of:
Supervisor I
Prof. Dr. Margareth Gfrerer
Supervisor II
Amalia, SE, MSM
ID. 197408212009012005
DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT
INTERNATIONAL CLASS PROGRAM
FACULTY OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS
STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY SYARIF HIDAYATULLAH JAKARTA
2013 AD/1434 AH
ii
CERTIFICATION OF COMPREHENSIVE EXAM SHEET
On this day, Friday, March 23, 2012, a Comprehensive Examination has been
conducted to student:
1. Name : Kurniaddin Mahmud
2. Student Number : 108081100002
3. Department : Management (International Program)
4. Thesis Title : ―COST ANALYSIS FOR REDUCING
TRAFFIC JAM IN CAMPUS (Case Study: UIN Syarif Hidayatullah
Jakarta)‖
By considering the evaluation result of the student during examination, it is
decided that the student has passed the Comprehensive Examination and is given
opportunity to work for thesis as one of requirements for acquiring the Bachelor
of Economics title from the Department of Management, Faculty of Economics
and Business, Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University Jakarta.
Jakarta, March 23, 2012
Prof. Dr. Abdul Hamid, MS
ID. 19570617198503.1.002
(_________________________)
Examiner I
Arief Mufraini, Lc., M.Si.
ID. 19770122200312.1.000
(__________________________)
Examiner II
Dr. Yahya Hamja, MM
ID. 194906021978031001
(___________________________)
Examiner III
iii
CERTIFICATION OF THESIS DEFENCE EXAM SHEET
On this day, Thursday, June 27, 2013, a Thesis Defense Examination has been
conducted to student:
1. Name : Kurniaddin Mahmud
2. Student Number : 108081100002
3. Department : Management (International Program)
4. Thesis Title : ―COST ANALYSIS FOR REDUCING
TRAFFIC JAM IN CAMPUS (Case Study: UIN Syarif Hidayatullah
Jakarta)‖
By considering the evaluation result of the student during examination, it is
decided that the student has passed the Thesis Defence Examination and the thesis
is accepted as one of requirements for acquiring the Bachelor of Economics title
from the Department of Management, Faculty of Economics and Business, Syarif
Hidayatullah State Islamic University Jakarta.
Jakarta, June 27, 2013
Leis Suzanawaty, SE, M.Si.
ID. 197208092005012004
(_________________________)
Chairman
Dr. Ahmad Dumyathi Bashori, MA
ID. 19700106200312001
(__________________________)
Secretary
Cut Erika A.F., SE, MBA
(___________________________)
Expert Examiner
Prof. Dr. Margareth Gfrerer
(_________________________)
Supervisor I
A m a l i a, S E, MSM
ID. 197408212009012005
(_________________________)
Supervisor II
iv
STATEMENT OF THESIS ORIGINALITY
This is to state that, on behalf of myself:
NAME : KURNIADDIN MAHMUD
ID NUMBER : 108081100002
FACULTY : Economics and Business (FEB)
MAJOR : Management (International Program)
I hereby declare that, in writing this thesis, I:
1. Did not use other people’s ideas, unless by such a development and am
responsible for it.
2. Did not infringe upon anyone’s copyright.
3. Did not derive other people’s work, unless by attaching the original
resource or under the permission of the author.
4. Did not manipulate and fake the data.
5. Am the sole author of this thesis and that no part of this thesis has
been published or submitted for publication.
I certify that if at a later date there is any claim from other party on my work, and
it has been proven by accountable evidence, found that i have infringed the
statement above, I would not mind of being sanctioned under the rules running in
the Faculty of Economics and Business UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta.
Accordingly, this statement was sincerely made.
Jakarta, February 12, 2013
Author
Kurniaddin Mahmud
v
CURRICULUM VITAE
Name : Kurniaddin Mahmud
Place, date of birth : Purworejo, 2nd
January 1990
Address : Jalan Gunung Rinjani Raya Blok GA 9 No. 5 Villa
Tangerang Indah, Gebang Raya, Periuk, Kota Tangerang
15132 – Banten
E-mail : [email protected],
Facebook & Twitter : Caesar Asadullah
Cell phone : 0813 9901 3625
Educational Background:
1. TK Islam Baidaul Ahkam, year 1995-1996, Kel. Gebang Raya, Kec.
Jatiuwung, Kodya Tangerang
2. SDN Gebang Raya I, year 1996-2002, Kel. Gebang Raya, Kec. Periuk,
Kota Tangerang
3. Ma‘had (MTs & MA) Darul Arqam Muhammadiyah Daerah Garut, year
2002-2008, Desa Cimaragas, Kec. Cilawu, Kab. Garut
4. UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta, International Class Program, Faculty of
Economics and Business, year 2008-now
Informal Courses:
1. Practical English Centre (PEC), year 2001-2002
2. Arabic Course, Language Center Ma‘had Darul Arqam Muhammadiyah
Daerah Garut, year 2002-2003
3. English Course, Language Center Ma‘had Darul Arqam Muhammadiyah
Daerah Garut, year 2003-2004
4. Computer Course (Microsoft Office), Laboratorium Komputer Ma‘had
Darul Arqam Muhammadiyah Daerah Garut, year 2003-2004
5. In-Service Training by PUSKADIABUMA in cooperation with Denmark
Embassy, Ponpes Cipasung, Tasikmalaya, year 2007
6. Campus of Marketing Club (CMC), MarkPlus, year 2011-2012
vi
Organizational Experiences:
1. Staff of LPKWU (Lembaga Peningkatan Kewirausahaan) Pimpinan
Ranting Ikatan Remaja Muhammadiyah Darul Arqam Garut, year 2002-
2003
2. Staff of KPSDM (Kaderisasi Pengembangan Sumber Daya Manusia)
Pimpinan Ranting Ikatan Remaja Muhammadiyah Darul Arqam Garut,
year 2003-2004
3. Staff of KPSDM (Kaderisasi Pengembangan Sumber Daya Manusia)
Pimpinan Ranting Ikatan Remaja Muhammadiyah Darul Arqam Garut,
year 2004-2005
4. Staff of KPSDM (Kaderisasi Pengembangan Sumber Daya Manusia)
Pimpinan Ranting Ikatan Remaja Muhammadiyah Darul Arqam Putra
Garut, year 2005-2006
5. Chief of Korps Muballigh Remaja Pimpinan Ranting Ikatan Remaja
Muhammadiyah Darul Arqam Putra Garut, year 2005-2006
6. Chairman of Pimpinan Ranting Ikatan Remaja Muhammadiyah Darul
Arqam Putra Garut, year 2006-2007
7. General Treasurer of Asrama Mahasiswa UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta,
year 2008-2009
8. Chief of Bidang Pengkaderan dan Organisasi Pimpinan Komisariat
Ekonomi dan Ilmu Sosial IMM (Ikatan Mahasiswa Muhammadiyah)
Cabang Ciputat, year 2009-2010
9. Chief of Bidang Organisasi Pimpinan Komisariat Ekonomi dan Ilmu
Sosial IMM (Ikatan Mahasiswa Muhammadiyah) Cabang Ciputat, year
2010-2011
10. Staff of LSO Bahasa BEM Jurusan Manajemen FEB (Faculty of
Economics and Business) UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta, year 2010-
2011
11. Presidium III Himpunan Mahasiswa Program Kelas Internasional FEB
UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta, year 2008
12. PISCOM (Piety Student Community), year 2011-2012.
Other experiences:
1. Teaching-team of TPA Al-Istiqomah, Villa Tangerang Indah, Kota
Tangerang
2. Marketing team of Koperasi Lestari Handy Craft, Cempaka Putih, Ciputat
Timur, Tangerang Selatan, July 2011-July 2012.
vii
3. Ambassador of GRLI (Globally Responsible Leadership Initiative), PA-
CSR, year 2011
4. Speaker in Seminar Kewirausahaan organized by KKN (Kuliah Kerja
Nyata) group of students of UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta, Kec.
Cibadak, Sukabumi, year 2011
5. Pencak Silat Athlete Delegation from Perguruan Sinar Pusaka Putra Garut,
Kejuaran PPSI Kabupaten Garut, year 2008
6. Athlete Delegation from Tapak Suci Putera Muhammadiyah Daerah Garut
for Kejuaraan Wilayah Tapak Suci Putera Muhammadiyah year 2008 in
Bekasi, Jawa Barat.
7. Committee chief of Green Campus UIN Jakarta 2012 event, March-May
2012.
8. Teacher and headmaster of PKBM Lestari, Kampung Utan, Ciputat,
Tangerang Selatan, January-July 2012.
9. Staff of TITA (Turkish-Indonesian Trade Association), March 2013.
viii
ABSTRACT
The campus of UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta is frequented by thousands of
people comprising students, lecturers, and others every day. Many of them arrive
at the campus by motorcycle. Paths at the campus are jammed by motorcycles.
Emergency cars could hardly pass. The space for pedestrian is limited. The air and
noise impact the people in campus.
This study has been initiated to find out the needs that the campus could become
more environmental friendly. The objective of this research is to contribute to the
Green Campus program by considering the possibility of initiating ‗Bike-in-
University‘ and vegetation program.
This research analyzes the preconditions of the implementation of the Green
Campus program by targeting the students and their mobility behaviors to and
from the campus, from economics perspective.
This research was firstly presuming that the reasons why students prefer to choose
motorcycle or cars instead of bicycle or walking on foot are relating to economic
aspects, the distance, the duration of the travel, and the status or lifestyle.
Finally, as the expected result, this projected program may effectively reduces the
traffic jam, as well as reduces pollution, inside the university area by moving the
parking area into special parking building outside the campus, or/and building
dormitories for the students currently using motorcycle to Campus, and may
implies to long term benefit for the university and also the academic community
in the campus.
Keywords: traffic jam, parking building, dormitories, costs.
ix
ABSTRAK
Kampus UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta sering dikunjungi oleh ribuan orang
yang terdiri dari mahasiswa, dosen, dan lain-lain setiap hari. Banyak dari mereka
datang ke kampus dengan sepeda motor. Ruas jalan yang ada di dalam kampus
penuh sesak oleh sepeda motor. Mobil yang sedang terburu-buru hampir tidak
bisa melintas. Ruang untuk pejalan kaki terbatas. Kondisi udara dan kebisingan
mempengaruhi orang-orang di kampus.
Studi ini dilakukan untuk mengetahui pentingnya kampus menjadi lebih ramah
lingkungan. Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk memberikan kontribusi bagi
program Green Campus dengan mempertimbangkan kemungkinan untuk
mengadakan sepeda kampus dan program penghijauan.
Penelitian ini menganalisis prakondisi pelaksanaan program Green Campus
dengan menargetkan mahasiswa dan perilaku mobilitas mereka ke dan dari
kampus, dari perspektif ekonomi.
Penelitian ini pertama sekali menganggap bahwa alasan mengapa mahasissiswa
lebih suka memilih sepeda motor atau mobil, ketimbang sepeda atau berjalan
kaki, adalah berkaitan dengan aspek ekonomi, jarak, lama perjalanan, dan status
atau gaya hidup.
Akhirnya, sebagai hasil yang diharapkan, program ini diproyeksikan secara
efektif dapat mengurangi kemacetan, juga polusi, di dalam area universitas
dengan memindahkan tempat parkir ke gedung parkir khusus di luar kampus,
atau/dan membangun asrama bagi para mahasiswa yang menggunakan sepeda
motor ke kampus, dan diharapkan pula dapat berimplikasi pada manfaat jangka
panjang bagi universitas dan juga komunitas akademis di kampus.
Kata kunci: kemacetan, gedung parkir, asrama, biaya.
x
FOREWORDS
All praise be to Allah, The Most Glorious and The Most Mercifull, after passing
long time period by hard work and support of almost all people around the author,
this thesis is finally finished.
This research try to identify the mapping of transportation modality of UIN
Jakarta‘s students and its economics impacts. Hopefully, it could contribute to the
development of the Campus in the future.
The author is very gratefull to parties as the following, including those who are
not mentioned person per person. The author thanks to:
1. Allah SWT, who always makes the author enjoys the activities, meet the
author with kind people, and make all the ways easy to pass. Alhamdu lillaahi
Rabbi Al-‗Aalamiin. All praise be to Him, The Essence.
2. Rasulullah SAW who always inspires the author with his entire example.
3. Lovely parents who never stop to pray for the author‘s success; ustadzs and
ustadzahs, teachers, and lecturers who had supplied the author by all
beneficial knowledge for worldly life and hereafter.
4. The supervisors: Prof. Dr. Margareth Maria Anna Gfrerer (Mom Margareth),
Ibu Amalia, SE, MSM (Bu Amel), who have been patient in guiding the
author in the work for this thesis.
5. Technical Coordinator of International Class Program, Pak Arief Mufraini;
also his secretary, Ustadz Ahmad Dumyati Bashori; the very kind staff, Bang
Sugih Waluya R.
6. Stijn Van Mol, Fauziyah Hasanah, Rabiatul Aulia, Asrina, and all the Green
Campus Team who have made a lot of impressive things along this research.
7. Rindana Intan Emelia, who had helped a lot in disseminating the
questionnaire online.
xi
8. LDK Syahid who had provided support and link to disseminate the
questionnaire.
9. Abiler in EDUCARE, Dhersane Pepaya and PISCOM, dhersane‘s imam,
Uray Noviandy Taslim, and other jama‘ats of dhersane Pepaya: Al Akhzar,
Faza, Aa Sulaiman, and especially M. Irhamni Abdul Latief who had
delivered help in disseminating the questionnaires.
10. Classmates (batchmates: Fitoy, Gugun, Afiew, Rian, Eko, Mia, Sita, Vivin,
Berly, Angga, Royan, Abhi, Rizky, Shinta, Farah, Lucky, Novita), seniors,
juniors and all the students of International Program who have prayed for the
finishing of this thesis.
11. All people who supported the author by all facilities, who cannot be
mentioned one by one, by the author.
The author realized that there must be any imperfection within this research, due
to the limitation of the author, eihter in the term of knowledge or ability.
Therefore, it is an honor for the author to have any suggestion from anyone to do
such improvement and development. Expectedly, there would be any further
research in the same field to develop related theme.
Jakarta, February 11, 2013
Kurniaddin Mahmud
xii
TABLE OF CONTENT
Cover
Thesis Approval Sheet .................................................................................. i
Certification of Comprehensive Exam Sheet ............................................. ii
Certification of Thesis Defence Exam Sheet ............................................... iii
Statement of Thesis Originality ................................................................... iv
Curriculum Vitae .......................................................................................... v
Abstract .. ....................................................................................................... viii
Abstrak ........................................................................................................... ix
Forewords ....................................................................................................... x
Table of Content ............................................................................................ xii
List of Table ................................................................................................... xv
List of Figure ................................................................................................. xx
List of Appendix ............................................................................................ xxii
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ............................................................ 1
A. Background .............................................................................. 1
B. Research Question ................................................................... 7
C. Research Objective and Research Benefit ............................... 7
1. Research Objective ........................................................... 7
2. Research Benefit ............................................................... 8
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................ 9
A. Theories Related ..................................................................... 9
1. Costs ................................................................................... 9
2. Benefit ................................................................................. 11
3. Cost-Benefit Analysis ......................................................... 13
4. Green Campus ..................................................................... 15
B. Previous Research ................................................................... 18
C. Logical Framework ................................................................. 19
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................. 21
xiii
A. Scope of Research ................................................................... 21
B. Sampling Method .................................................................... 22
1. Population ........................................................................... 22
2. Sample ................................................................................ 23
3. Sample Size ........................................................................ 24
C. Data Collection Technique ...................................................... 25
D. Data Analysis Technique ........................................................ 28
1. Data Reduction ................................................................... 28
2. Data Display ....................................................................... 29
3. Conclusion Drawing ........................................................... 29
E. Research Instrument ................................................................ 31
F. Operational Variable ............................................................... 33
CHAPTER IV FINDING AND ANALYSIS ......................................... 37
A. Finding ..................................................................................... 37
B. Analysis ................................................................................... 46
1. Motorcycle .......................................................................... 51
2. Public Transportation .......................................................... 52
3. Bicycle ................................................................................ 53
4. On Foot ............................................................................... 58
5. Car ....................................................................................... 59
6. Other ................................................................................... 61
7. Maintenance ........................................................................ 65
C. Evaluation and Interpretation .................................................. 79
1. Recapitulation of Time Consumed and Cost Spent by
Respondents ........................................................................ 79
2. Total Cost and Total Time Spent during the 4 Years of Study 80
3. Opportunity Lost of Respondents ....................................... 81
D. Suggested Alternative Solution ................................................ 82
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATION ........................... 100
A. Conclusion ............................................................................... 100
xiv
B. Implication ................................................................................ 102
C. Recommendation ..................................................................... 104
REFERENCES .............................................................................................. 106
APPENDICES ............................................................................................... 113
xv
LIST OF TABLE
Number Description Page
Table 2.1 Previous Research Conducted in UIN Syarif
Hidayatullah Jakarta‘s Campus 18
Table 3.1 Comparison of Probability Sampling and
Non-probability Sampling 23
Table 3.2 Determination of Sample Size from a Certain
Population with Standard Error of 1%, 5%, and 10% 24
Table 3.3 Measurement Levels 27
Table 3.4 The variables, subvariables, and indicators of green
campus according to Dr. Arif Zulkifli Nasution 33
Table 3.5 The variables, subvariables, and indicators of green
campus (UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta case) 35
Table 4.1 Transportation Choice of Respondents 37
Table 4.2 Reason of Respondents in Choosing Their Means of
Transport 37
Table 4.3 Willingness of Respondents to Take Public
Transportation if Public Transportation is Cheaper 38
Table 4.4 Willingness of Respondents to Take Public
Transportation if Public Transportation is Faster 38
Table 4.5 Respondents Maintenance on Their Means of Transport 39
Table 4.5a1 Vehicle Component Maintained by Respondents 39
Table 4.5b1 Respondents Reason of Maintaining Their Vehicles 39
Table 4.5c1 Respondents‘ Transportation Cost per Year 40
Table 4.5a2 Reason for Not Maintaining 40
Table 4.6 Refueling Habit of Respondents 40
Table 4.7 Distance to Campus Beaten by Respondents 41
xvi
Table 4.8 Respondents‘ Travel Time to Campus, Including
Traffic Jam 41
Table 4.9 Respondents‘ Travel Time to Campus, Ignoring
Traffic Jam 42
Table 4.10 Respondents‘ Attendance Frequency to Campus 42
Table 4.11 Motorcycle Ownership of Respondents‘ Family 42
Table 4.12 Car Ownership of Respondents‘ Family 43
Table 4.13 Respondents Opinion on Biking (Transporting by Bike)
to Campus 43
Table 4.14 Respondents Opinion on Biking at (inside) Campus 43
Table 4.15 Respondents‘ Transportation Cost per Week 44
Table 4.16 Respondents Opinion on Car-Free Campus 44
Table 4.17 Respondents Opinion on Motorcycle-Free Campus 45
Table 4.18 Respondents Opinion on New Garden Provision in
Campus 45
Table 4.19 Respondents Opinion on Provision of More Vegetation
in Campus 45
Table 4.20 Transportation-Modality Mapping 46
Table 4.21 The Dominant Reason of Respondents in Choosing
Means of Transport 47
Table 4.22 Reasons Mapping on Transportation Choice 47
Table 4.23 Reason of Motorcycle Users 51
Table 4.24 Respondents Reason of Using Public Transportation 52
Table 4.25 Respondents Reason of Using Bicycle 53
Table 4.26 Comparison between Motorcycle Speed and Bicycle
Speed 54
Table 4.27 The Speed of Car and Public Transportation 55
Table 4.28 Speed of Walking ―on Foot‖ and ―Other‖ Transportation
Means 56
xvii
Table 4.29 Recapitulation of Relative Speed 57
Table 4.30 Recapitulation of Relative Speed, Sequenced from the
Fastest to the Slowest 57
Table 4.31 Respondents Reason of Walking on Foot 58
Table 4.32 Average Distance Taken by Each Transportation Means 59
Table 4.33 Respondents Reason of Using Their Car 59
Table 4.34 Recapitulation of Relative Speed, Sequenced from
the Fastest to the Slowest 60
Table 4.35 Reason of Those Taking Other Transportation Means 61
Table 4.36 Description of Those Taking Other Transportation 61
Table 4.37 Transportation Cost per Week of Those Taking
Other Transportation 63
Table 4.38 Willingness to Take Public Transportation 63
Table 4.39 Comparison between Tendency Take Public
Transportation if It is Cheaper and if It is Faster 64
Table 4.40 Specific Overview of Respondents Who Maintains
and Don‘t Maintain Their Vehicles 65
Table 4.41 Average Annual Maintenance Cost 66
Table 4.42 Average Distance Taken by Respondents 66
Table 4.43 Respondents‘ Average Travel Time if Traffic-Jam
Time is Included 66
Table 4.44 Respondents‘ Average Travel Time, Including & Ignoring
Traffic-Jam Time, and Average Time Spent Amid Traffic
Jam 67
Table 4.45 Average of Respondents‘ Attendance Frequency to
Campus 67
Table 4.46 Time-Consumed Comparison between Motorcycle
and Car in Reaching The Campus 69
Table 4.47 Respondents Family Ownership of Motorcycle and Car 71
xviii
Table 4.48 Comparison of Respondents Opinion on Bike to and on
Bike at Campus 71
Table 4.49 Respondents‘ Weighted Average Transportation Cost
per Week 72
Table 4.50 Detail Elaboration of Each Level of Weekly
Transportation Cost 73
Table 4.51 Detail Elaboration of Each Level of Weekly
Transportation Cost, by Ignoring Those Walking 74
Table 4.52 Weighted Average Transportation Cost, Ignoring
Those Walking 75
Table 4.53 Weighted Average Transportation Cost, Ignoring Those
Walking and Those Using Bicycle 75
Table 4.54 Summary of Average Costs and Average Time
Spent by Respondents 79
Table 4.55 Estimated Maintenance, Transportation, Parking Costs
Spent by Motorcycle Users 81
Table 4.56 Estimated Maintenance, Transportation, Parking Costs
Spent by Car Users 81
Table 4.57 Growth of UIN Jakarta‘s Graduates 84
Table 4.58 UIN Jakarta‘s Graduates Growth 85
Table 4.59 UIN Jakarta‘s Graduates Descriptive Statistic Summary,
by MS Excel 85
Table 4.60 Forecasted Growth of Graduates from 2013 to 2017 86
Table 4.61 Forecasted Transportation Modality of UIN Jakarta‘s
Students in the Highest, Base, and Lowest Possible Case 88
Table 4.62 Type of Vehicle and Parking Space Unit 90
Table 4.63 Forecasted Operational Cost of Parking Building 91
Table 4.64 BI Rate (Based on decision of board meeting), 5th
July
xix
2005 to 7th
March 2013 92
Table 4.65 Payback Period and Discounted Payback Period
of Parking Building 94
Table 4.66 Forecasted Operational Cost of Dormitories 96
Table 4.67 Payback Period and Discounted Payback Period
of Dormitories 97
xx
LIST OF FIGURE
Number Description Page
Figure 1.1 Banner of Bike@Campus ITB 3
Figure 1.2 Announcement Displayed in Bike Shelter of IPB 5
Figure 1.3 Procedures of Bike Borrowing in IPB 5
Figure 1.4 Borrowing Form of IPB‘s Bikes 6
Figure 1.5 Returning Form of IPB‘s Bikes 6
Figure 2.1 Logical Framework 19
Figure 3.1 Illustration of Data Analysis Comprising Data
Reduction, Data Display, and Conclusion Drawing 30
Figure 4.1 Trend of Transportation Choice 46
Figure 4.2 Reasons Function to Transportation Means 49
Figure 4.3 Transportation Means Function to Reasons 50
Figure 4.4 Respondents Reasons of Choosing Motorcycle 51
Figure 4.5 Respondent Reason of Using Pablic Transportation 52
Figure 4.6 Respondents Reason of Using Bicycle to Campus 53
Figure 4.7 Respondents Reason of Walking on Foot to Campus 58
Figure 4.8 Respondents Reason of Using Car to Campus 59
Figure 4.9 Comparison between Tendency to Take Public
Transportation if It is Cheaper and if It is Faster 64
Figure 4.10 Motorcycle Ownership of Respondents Family 68
Figure 4.11 Car Ownership of Respondents Family 69
Figure 4.12 Respondents Family Ownership of Motorcycle and
Car, In Comparison 71
Figure 4.13 Comparison of Respondents Opinion on Bike to and on
Bike at Campus 72
Figure 4.14 Comparison of Respondents Opinion on
Car-Free UIN and Motorcycle-Free UIN 76
xxi
Figure 4.15 Respondents‘ Opinion on New Gardens Provision in
UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta‘s Campus 77
Figure 4.16 Respondents‘ Opinion on More Vegetations Provision in
UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta‘s Campus 78
Figure 4.17 Parking Cost in UIN Jakarta 80
Figure 4.18 Growth of UIN Jakarta‘s Graduates 85
Figure 4.19 The Rough Forecast on the Growth of Total Students in
Few Years Later 87
Figure 4.20 Parking Tariff in UIN Jakarta 92
xxii
LIST OF APPENDIX
Number Description Page
Appendix 1: Questionnaire Structure 113
Appendix 2: Result of Questionnaire Dissemination
(Absolute and Relative Number), TOTAL 116
Appendix 3: Result of Questionnaire Dissemination
(Absolute and Relative Number), Motorcycle 120
Appendix 4: Result of Questionnaire Dissemination
(Absolute and Relative Number), Public Transportation 124
Appendix 5: Result of Questionnaire Dissemination
(Absolute and Relative Number), Bicycle 128
Appendix 6: Result of Questionnaire Dissemination
(Absolute and Relative Number), On Foot 132
Appendix 7: Result of Questionnaire Dissemination
(Absolute and Relative Number), Car 136
Appendix 8: Result of Questionnaire Dissemination
(Absolute and Relative Number), Other 140
Appendix 9: Grand Mapping 144
Appendix 10: Observation Photos 152
Appendix 11: Chi Square Table 157
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A. Background
Year by year, the number of students of State Islamic University (UIN)
Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta increases. Based on UIN Syarif Hidayatullah
Jakarta‘s website, www.uinjkt.ac.id, accessed on 26th
March, 2012,
nowadays, the number of students of UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta has
reached 23,000 and in average, there is an annual increase of around 4,000
students.
This increase factually implies to the increase of the number of motorized
vehicles coming in to and out from the campus of UIN Syarif Hidayatullah
Jakarta. While, the volume of vehicles brought by the students to the campus
gets denser every year, and impacts the paths inside the campus I. Parking
areas are extended to the paths, dominantly by motorcycle. Dr. Lily Surayya
Eka Putri, M.Env.Stud., et. al. (2011: 32) within Strategi Pengembangan UIN
Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta Menuju Eco-Campus revealed, in 2007, total
amount of motorcycles (plus cars) coming into campus I UIN Syarif
Hidayatullah Jakarta is only 1152. Meanwhile, a very surprising number is
there in 2011, when the total amount of motorcycles (plus cars) entering the
campus I is 3552, which means an increase of 220%.
Due to this phenomenon, a cost-benefit analysis will evaluate the
economic facts towards university and the students.
2
In preparing the needs-analysis and the following research for the UIN
Jakarta‘s Campus, the campuses of University of Indonesia, Agricultural
Institute of Bogor, and Technology Institute of Bandung were visited.
The field observation at the Campus of University of Indonesia (UI) was
scheduled for Friday, 10th
February 2012.
The implementation of bike-in-campus in UI is well managed. Students
are using the bicycle to reach the different faculties and other buildings in the
Campus area. It seems the success of the implementation of bike-in-campus is
because of the infrastructure:
1) The spacious area and a bit turned from the main street impacts the
roadway inside the university is much more quite of cars, motorcycle, and
other vehicles.
2) Special lane for bike is available in some areas inside the Campus, and
even for some places without any bike lane, because the street is quiet and
very few cars and motorcycles passing, the bikers can pass the street easily
to reach the destination place.
3) Because the area of the university is very much huge, and taking much
more minutes to walk, so then the huge number of students who‘s not
having their own vehicles are very much supported with the existence of
bikes in campus.
The field observation at the Bandung Institute of Technology (ITB), which
was scheduled for Wednesday, 15th
February 2012.
3
This university started Bike@Campus program on July 10, 2010 with 20
bikes. An upgrading to 90 bikes followed during July to August 2010. In the
period of September to December 2010 the program was in the phase of
stabilization and consolidation.
Figure 1.1
Banner of Bike@Campus ITB
Source: researcher‘s photo collection, captured from the banner
displayed in ITB (Bandung Institute of Technology)
At the campus, interviews with some students were conducted. The
following points were highlighted:
1) The number of bikes supplied is less than the amount needed, so it doesn‘t
fit with the demand at the Campus. As a result, most students choose
walking to reach their faculties or other buildings.
2) Some bikes are locked and not useful for students. Walking, as students
are saying, is no matter for them because the area of the university is not
that spacious so they can reach their destination buildings in not more than
4
5 to 10 minutes from the gate. Besides, walking is much simpler than
using a bike for such short distances because there are only two bike
shelters inside the university. The time students could save when taking a
bicycle is minimal.
3) Due to the fact that most students prefer walking, only a small number of
bikes is used. However, the usage is usually only for carrying heavier
stuffs, not for daily transport inside the Campus. Some students have
admitted to use the bike only for having fun in the break time.
The field observation at the Bogor Institute of Agriculture (IPB) was
scheduled on Monday, 20th
February 2012.
In IPB, the officers/keepers of the bike shelter were interviewed. The
shelter keepers explained that bikes at the premises of the Campus were
launched four years ago, in cooperation with BNI (Bank Nasional Indonesia).
BNI supplied 300 bikes and the university itself supplied another 200 bikes
and later another 500 bikes, which means there are 1,000 bikes available in
total, distributed into nine shelters that are also built by the sponsor of BNI.
Each shelter is managed by two officers/keepers.
The procedures of borrowing and returning back the bikes are well
administered. By filling ID number and other identity on the blank form, the
student can take a bike to ride and return it to the next shelter available. The
shelters open at 8.00 a.m. to 3.30 p.m.
5
Figure 1.2
Announcement Displayed in Bike Shelter of IPB
Source: researcher‘s photo collection, captured from the announcement
displayed in a bike shelter, in IPB (Bogor Institute of Agriculture)
Figure 1.3
Procedures of Bike Borrowing in IPB
Source: researcher‘s photo collection, captured from the
announcement displayed in a bike shelter, in IPB
(Bogor Institute of Agriculture)
6
Figure 1.4
Borrowing Form of IPB’s Bikes
Source: researcher‘s photo collection, captured from the announcement displayed in a bike
shelter, in IPB (Bogor Institute of Agriculture)
Figure 1.5
Returning Form of IPB’s Bikes
Source: researcher‘s photo collection, captured from the announcement
displayed in a bike shelter, in IPB (Bogor Institute of Agriculture)
The insight to the UI, ITB, and IPB campus biking allows comparing with
the situation at UIN and leads to the following prerequisites:
Spacious area
Appropriate ratio of bike-to-student (enough supply of bike, that meet the
need of students)
7
Due to that, now then researcher tries to identify the possibility to reduce
traffic jam in UIN and identify the costs students of UIN should pay with the
current condition (time costs and monetary costs).
B. Research Question
This research follows the concept of a descriptive study that is question
related to independent variable, either only one single variable or more, in
which the researcher is neither comparing the variable to other samples, nor
researching for the correlation of the variable with another variable (Sugiyono,
2012: 35).
The question is:
What are the economic implications (transportation costs) for individual
student while reducing the traffic jam at Campus, and what is a possible
solution?
C. Research Objectives and Research Benefits
1. Research Objectives
a. To examine the possibilities at the UIN premises to become a Green
Campus, at least reducing the traffic jam in the Campus.
b. To know the trend of transportation modality of UIN Jakarta‘s
students
c. To know the cost(s) for individual student while reducing the traffic
at Campus
8
d. To propose the Campus management a benefitting solution for
students and campus, in terms of transportation, and, especially,
economic condition.
2. Research Benefits
a. Benefits for the researcher
1) This research could become a scientific writing work in economic
field, related to the one of issues in UIN Syarif Hidayatullah
Jakarta.
2) This research could become the learning process in term of theories
application in the field.
b. Benefit for the campus
1) This research could become a recommendation for the university
management to develop a modern and cost efficient Campus
mobility system.
2) To enrich the literature collection with a case study on a Campus
breakthrough.
c. Benefits for students
1) To elaborate the baseline for the continuous research on the
economic-of-traffic issues at the Campus.
2) To add the references in the campus concerning economics.
9
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
A. Theories Related
1. Costs
Referring to Lewin (1982: 218-219), the term ―cost‖ applied by most
economists refers to what is often loosely called ―opportunity cost‖.
Peter Lewin, as as an Assistant Professor of Economics and Political
Economy at The University of Texas at Dallas, within Journal ―Pollution
Externalities: Social Cost and Strict Liability‖, Cato Journal, Vol. 2, No. 1
(Spring 1982), also explained, that:
―Opportunity cost correctly understood refers to the individual
decision-making process. In making a rational choice at a point of
time, the individual must weigh the perceived alternatives. The
cost of choosing any alternative is related to the opportunities
sacrificed by forgoing all the others and may be expressed as the
utility forgone on the next best alternative. From this point of view,
three propositions about cost follow. 1] Cost is borne exclusively
by the decision-maker. Obviously, one person‘s decision may
influence the costs borne by another but, if understood correctly,
any cost must attach to an individual out of choice. 2] Cost is
inherently subjective. First, it is expressed in utility terms making
it non comparable across individuals if adherence to an ordinal
10
utility concept is to be maintained. Second, cost implies subjective
expectations. It refers to the perceived alternatives; it relates to an
imagined future. The alternatives at any point of time exist only in
the mind of the decision maker, and although there may be some
degree of consensus concerning hypothetical imagined future
prospects, there almost certainly will remain a divergence of
expectations. Thus, costs cannot be measured by an outside
observer. 3] Cost is unrealizable. Once a choice is taken, the
hypothetical imagined future evolves with time into the actual
future and the displaced alternatives cease to exist.‖
Victoria Transport Policy Institute (2011), throughout its release
within Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis II – Air Pollution Costs
in www.vtpi.org/tca/tca0510.pdf, explained that,
―Air pollution cost refers to motor vehicle air pollutant
damages, including human health, ecological, and aesthetic
degradation.
Vehicle air pollution costs vary depending on vehicle, fuel, and
travel condition. Larger, older and diesel vehicles, and those with
ineffective emission controls have higher emission costs.
Air pollution emissions are an external cost, and therefore
inequitable and inefficient. Lower-income people tend to have
relatively high emission vehicles, so emission fees or restrictions
tend to be regressive, but many lower-income people experience
heavy exposure to air pollutants, and so benefit from emission
reduction strategies.‖
11
Thus, according to such statements revealed above, the cost, especially
within this research, is subjective, depends to the interest of the decision-maker,
and in this research it tends to be much perceived as ―opportunity cost‖.
2. Benefit
According to http://www.thefreedictionary.com/benefit, benefit could
means: good, use, help, profit, gain, advantage, favour, reward, utility, merit,
boon, mileage, advantage, interest, aid, gain, favour, assistance, betterment.
Besides, benefit also defined as:
a. welfare
b. goodness, good - that which is pleasing or valuable or useful
c. advantage, reward - benefit resulting from some event or action
Khusnul Khotimah, et. al., (2002:24, 26) stated that the objective of
conducting a project is to gain benefit by spend the budget as efficient and
effective as possible. Benefit of a project comprises direct benefit, indirect
benefit, and intangible benefit.
Furthermore, the benefit of project can be classified as follow (Khusnul
Khotimah, et. al.,2002: 35-37)
Benefit of a project comprises:
a. Direct benefit,
b. Indirect benefit, and
c. Intangible benefit.
12
(1) Direct benefit could be in the form of:
a. Output-value improvement, that could because of
1) Physical-product improvement
2) Product quality improvement
3) Change in time and location
4) Change in the shape (grading and processing)
b. Cost decrease, that could be:
1) Benefit of mechanism, that could cause a decrease of product
unit cost.
2) Decrease in transportation cost
3) Decrease or avoidance of disadvantages
(2) Indirect benefit or secondary benefit of a project is benefit/advantage
exists or gained outside the project due to the implementation of a
project. There are three kinds of indirect/secondary benefit, that are:
a. Benefit induced by the existence of project that is usually
known as ―multiplier effect‖ of a project.
b. Benefit caused by economic of scale.
c. Benefit induced by dynamic secondary effects, such as a
change in productivity of manpower, caused by improvement
of health and education.
(3) Intangible benefit, that is difficult to count in monetary value, such as:
a. Environmental improvement;
13
b. Improvement of view by the existence of beautiful gardens;
c. Improvement of income distribution;
d. National integration;
e. National defense improvement, and so forth.
3. Cost Benefit Analysis
According to Aula Ahmad Hafidh (2010), cost-benefit analysis ―is
applied for environmental issues, such as pollution, related to both
monetary and nonmonetary, cost and benefit. It is then linked to
externality. The monetary value within cost-benefit analysis reflects
individual‘s or public‘s preference, which is expressed in ―willingness to
pay‖.‖
Ahmad Hafidh (2010) also elaborated that,
―cost-benefit analysis is used to evaluate the consumption of
economic resource to be efficient, without considering the
distribution, economic stability, etc.‖
Textually, based on Ahmad Hafidh (2010), cost-benefit analysis
evaluates loss or gain of a program, plan, or project, by considering the
costs to expend and the benefit to yield.
- Feasibility Study
Khusnul Khotimah et al. (2002) elaborated that,
―Project is a series of planned-activities with such inputs, to
gain benefit or return in the future. Before implementing the
14
project, doing an evaluation or analysis is an obligation.
Analysis or evaluation is an assessment to consider and to
compare the benefit(s) and the cost(s) of the project. This
evaluation or analysis can be used as a planning tool within
decision-making process, whether the project is applicable or
not, beneficial or not, either for the project-owner‘s interest or
the parties getting involved within the project. The evalution of
project is identical to the feasibility study.‖
Under Jordan (2002),
―A feasibility study is an abbreviated form of systems analysis
that is intended to determine whether a system project should
be pursued, which be accomplished with personal interviews
and record search. The type of feasibility that has always been
of most importance to management has been ―economic
feasibility‖—the ability of a system to pay for itself in
monetary terms.‖
Rajan, et al. (2006: 6) elaborated that, cost-benefit analysis is process
of comparing benefits (often measured in savings or increased profits) with
costs associated with a proposed change within an organization.
James K. Hammitt and Lisa A. Robinson (2011), elaborated that,
benefit-cost analysis is rooted in neoclassical welfare economics, which, in
its most simplified form, assumes that individuals act rationally and are
15
primarily motivated by self-interest, making decisions that maximize their
welfare. Benefit-cost analysis often involves valuing nonmarket outcomes
such as reductions in health and environmental risks. Benefit-cost analysis
traditionally uses exponential discounting to reflect time preferences.
Benefit-cost analysis can be best viewed as a pragmatic framework for
collecting, organizing, and evaluating relevant information.
Van Derbeck (2010: 532) explained that, cost-benefit decision is a
decision as to whether the benefit received from pursuing a certain course
of action exceeds the costs of action.
Under Richard N. Langlois (1982), cost-benefit techniques operate by
disassembling the effects of a ‗‗social decision‘‘ into its component parts,
ascertaining the benefit or cost of each part, and then totaling up the
results. This procedure obscures and does violence to the very complex
and not fully measurable web of social valuation that actually underlies the
problem. In particular, the cost-benefit technique is ad hoc and ahistorical;
it is concerned only with the goal of maximization, relegating all else —
including human rights — to the derivative status of means toward that
end.
4. Green Campus
Balsas (2003) within Panitat (2012) revealed that, university area or
campus is a unique place where people from different backgrounds,
incomes, and attitudes gather for studying, working, and relaxing. In terms
16
of planning, as explained by Toor and Havlick (2004) within Panitat
(2012), campus has a mixed use of educational area, recreational area,
residential area, and commercial area which facilitate short distance
walking in particularly the movement from routine area to gathering places
such as library, canteen, sport complex, and lecture hall.
Concerning the Green Campus, as accessed at
http://www.neiwpcc.org/neiwpcc_docs/greenbk.pdf, a collaborative effort
by US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 1, the New
England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission and
Environmental Training Center (NEIWPCC/NEIETC), and the Northeast
Partnership for Environmental Technology Education (NEPETE) within
―Greening the Campus: Where Practice and Education Go Hand in
Hand”, elaborated as follow.
―In addition to being learning centers, college and university
campuses are self-contained communities that are supported by
vast systems of institutional and operational functions.
A Green Campus is one that carries out these functions
according to a system-wide culture of environmental
sustainability, balancing function and design with existing and
foreseen resources.
A Green Campus is a place where environmentally responsible
practice and education go hand in hand and where
environmentally responsible tenets are borne out by example.
The Green Campus institution is a laboratory of self scrutiny,
experimentation, and application. At its best, it is a model
17
environmental community where operational functions,
business practices, academic programs, and people are
interlinked, providing educational and practical value to the
institution, the region, and the world.‖
According to Dr. Arif Zulkifli Nasution, an environmentalist, in his
writing, http://bangazul.blogspot.com/2012/09/green-campus.html, Green
Campus is system of educational approaches, community-service research,
and environment-friendly location, involving campus civitas in
environment activity, which has to imply positively to the environment,
economics, and social. Green Campus is fusion concept of environment
and campus world.
18
B. Previous Research
Table 2.1
Previous Research Conducted in
UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta’s Campus
Researcher Research Title Research Objective Result of Research
Centre for Environmental
Studies of UIN Syarif
Hidayatullah Jakarta,
comprising:
Dr. Lily Surayya Eka Putri,
M. Env. Stud., M. Sungaidi,
M. Ag., Kristyanto, M.Sc.,
Dini Fardila, M.Si.,
Dasumiati, M.SI.
Strategi Pengembangan
UIN Syarif Hidayatullah
Jakarta Menuju Eco-
Campus
To depict the picture,
evaluate, and provide
recommendation for UIN
Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta
to become ideal eco-campus
1. The green area in UIN Syarif Hidayatullah
Jakarta is still under the ideal number.
2. Parking space in UIN Syarif Hidayatullah
Jakarta is going to be narrower year by year.
3. The increase of motor vehicle in UIN Syarif
Hidayatullah Jakarta from 2007 to 2011 is
220%.
Stijn Van Mol (Magister
Thesis)
Analysis of motorcycle
technical conditions
towards a sustainable
campus
To evaluate the possibilities
to reduce the number of
motorcycles and the
emissions at Campus
A Green Campus is identified by three main
principles: high energy-efficient buildings,
campus master planning & target setting and
the integration of facilities,
research and education
Stijn Van Mol and
Kurniaddin Mahmud
Needs Analysis of UIN
Jakarta‟s Green Campus
To map and classify the
modality and mobility of
UIN‘s students to the
Campus.
Majority respondents are using motorcycle to
transport to the Campus.
18
C. Logical Framework
Figure 2.1
Logical Framework
20 19
Results/Output
s
Overall Objective
Specific Objective
Reducing Traffic
Jam in Campus
Searching for
Solution of The
Traffic Jam in
The Campus
Analysis
Behaviors
Trends
Motorcycles (and cars)
Bulk in Campus
Transportation
Modality of UIN
Jakarta‘s Students
The growth of motorcycles
and cars volume in UIN
Jakarta‘s Campus I
Green Campus
Program
Activities
Observing State of The Art
at Other Universities
Survey and Database
Analyzing
Evaluating Costs & Time
Suggesting Solution
Transportation Modality of UIN Jakarta‘s Students
Transport Behavior of UIN Jakarta‘s Students
Literature Review
Structured Interview
Internet Study
University of Indonesia
Bandung Institute of Technology
Bogor Institute of Agriculture
Parking Building Dormitories
21
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
A. Scope of Research
1. Research Location
Location of research is in campus I UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta.
2. Time of Research
Time of research is during February, March, and April 2012.
3. Field Research
Field research is conducted in order to obtain primary data directly from
students at UIN Jakarta.
a. Observations
Observations have been conducted to see the implementation of the
different Bike in Campus programs, at UI, IPB, and ITB, as
benchmarks to analyze the supporting factors and threatening factors
toward the Bike in Campus program at those universities. But, this
observation is not the core research, unless merely an unspecified
descriptive observation (see Sugiyono, 2012: 230), as a complement
toward the core research.
b. Interviews
Interviews have been conducted toward few students, staffs, and
employees at UI, IPB, and ITB, to collect data about the Bike in
22
Campus programs at their campus and to learn about supporting and
threatening factors.
c. Questionnaire
In this research, around 1,000 questionnaires are disseminated
randomly among students of UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta, to see
the trends and tendency of the students at the Campus, in the term of
the choice of transportation means, reasons, where they refuel and
maintain their vehicles, their transportation and maintenance cost, and
their opinion on green campus. Some sheets of the questionnaires are
disseminated online via internet, but mostly are disseminated offline
toward the students.
B. Sampling Method
1. Population
Population is the location of generalization comprising object and
subject with certain quality and characteristics determined by the
researcher to be learnt and then concluded (Sugiyono, 2012: 80). The
population of this research are all the students of UIN Jakarta, campus I
and campus II, which are entirely amounted 23,000. This data is derived
from www.uinjkt.ac.id, accessed on March 26, 2012.
23
2. Sample
Sample is part of the amount and characteristics owned by the
population (Sugiyono, 2012: 81).
The withdrawal of sample within this research is done with
nonprobability sampling. Nonprobability sampling is a sampling technique
that does not give equal opportunity for each element or members of the
population to be selected as sample. (Sugiyono, 2012: 301).
Table 3.1
Comparison of Probability Sampling and Non-probability Sampling
Consideration Sampling Design
Probability Non-probability
Cost
Accuracy
Time
Acceptability of result
Generalization ability
More expensive
More accurate
Longer period
Universally accepted
Well
More inexpensive
Less accurate
Shorter period
Rationally accepted
Poor
Source: Kuncoro, Mudrajad, Ph.D. Metode Riset untuk Bisnis & Ekonomi.
Jakarta: Erlangga, 2003, p. 111.
Specifically, the nonprobability sampling used within this research is
convenience sampling which refers to the collection of information from
members of the population who are conveniently available to provide it
(Uma Sekaran, 2009: 276).
Convenience sampling is the procedure to obtain sample unit
according to the desire of the researcher. In general, researchers use this
method to obtain a list of questions in large and complete quickly and
efficient (Mudrajad Kuncoro, 2009: 138).
24
Convenience sampling is most often used during the exploratory
phase of a research project and is perhaps the best way of getting some
basic information quickly and efficiently (Uma Sekaran, 2009: 276).
3. Sample Size
The sample size of this research is determined in accordance with the
table of sample size determination revealed by Sugiyono (2012: 87).
Within this research, standard error of 1% is used, meaning that the
confidence level is 99%. This satandard error is chosen as an effort to
minimize a nonrepresentativeness within the sample witdrawn. The
following table is the developed from Isaac and Michael formula is below:
S =
Table 3.2
Determination of Sample Size from a Certain Population
with Standard Error of 1%, 5%, and 10%
N S
N S
N S
1% 5% 10% 1% 5% 10% 1% 5% 10%
10 10 10 10 280 197 155 138 2800 537 310 247
15 15 14 14 290 202 158 140 3000 543 312 248
20 19 19 19 300 207 161 143 3500 558 317 251
25 24 23 23 320 216 167 147 4000 569 320 254
30 29 28 27 340 225 172 151 4500 578 323 255
35 33 32 31 360 234 177 155 5000 586 326 257
40 38 36 35 380 242 182 158 6000 598 329 259
45 42 40 39 400 250 186 162 7000 606 332 261
50 47 44 42 420 257 191 165 8000 613 334 263
55 51 48 46 440 265 195 168 9000 618 335 263
60 55 51 49 460 272 198 171 10000 622 336 263
65 59 55 53 480 279 202 173 15000 635 340 266
70 63 58 56 500 285 205 176 20000 642 342 267
75 67 62 59 550 301 213 182 30000 649 344 268
Where:
S = sample size
2 = Chi square. See Appendix 11
N = population
P = probability of accuracy (0.5)
Q = probability of error (0.5)
d = difference between expected sample and actual sample
25
N S
N S
N S
1% 5% 10% 1% 5% 10% 1% 5% 10%
80 71 65 62 600 315 221 187 40000 653 345 269
85 75 68 65 650 329 227 191 50000 655 346 269
90 79 72 68 700 341 233 195 75000 658 346 270
95 83 75 71 750 352 238 199 100000 659 347 270
100 87 78 73 800 363 243 202 150000 661 347 270
110 94 84 78 850 373 247 205 200000 661 347 270
120 102 89 83 900 382 251 208 250000 662 348 270
130 109 95 88 950 391 255 211 300000 662 348 270
140 116 100 92 1000 399 258 213 350000 662 348 270
150 122 105 97 1100 414 265 217 400000 662 348 270
160 129 110 101 1200 427 270 221 450000 663 348 270
170 135 114 105 1300 440 275 224 500000 663 348 270
180 142 119 108 1400 450 279 227 550000 663 348 270
190 148 123 112 1500 460 283 229 600000 663 348 270
200 154 127 115 1600 469 286 232 650000 663 348 270
210 160 131 118 1700 477 289 234 700000 663 348 270
220 165 135 122 1800 485 292 235 750000 663 348 270
230 171 139 125 1900 492 294 237 800000 663 348 271
240 176 142 127 2000 498 297 238 850000 663 348 271
250 182 146 130 2200 510 301 241 900000 663 348 271
260 187 149 133 2400 520 304 243 950000 663 348 271
270 192 152 135 2600 529 307 245 1000000 663 348 271
664 349 272
Source: Sugiyono, 2012: 87, tabel 5.1 penentuan jumlah sampel dari populasi
tertentu dengan taraf kesalahan 1%, 5%, dan 10%.
The table above requires 642 samples for 20,000 population and 649
samples for 30,000 population. Even, for unlimited population, there are only
664 samples required. In this research, due to the population of 23,000, so
then the sample size required is between 642 and 649, to stay in standard error
of 1%. Therefore, the questionnaires are disseminated to 1,000 respondents,
while the returned questionnaires are only 891.
C. Data Collection Technique
Due to the fact that this research is a descriptive research, therefore the
data is typically collected through a questionnaire survey, interviews,
observation, or some combination of these methods (Sugiyono, 1992: 225).
26
Survey is general category which comprises questionnaires and interviews as
specific methodologies used to conduct survey research. Surveys may be, and
usually, are sample surveys. In a sample survey, the researcher infers
information about a population of interest based on the responses of a sample
drawn from the population; preferably, is a random sample (Diehl and Gay,
1992: 238).
27
Below are levels of measurement
Table 3.3
Measurement Levels Tingkat
(Level)
Deskripsi (Description) Dasar operasi empiris (Basic
of empirical operation)
Jenis penggunaan (Type of
usage)
Jenis statistic (Statistic type)
Deskriptif
(Descriptive)
Inferensi
(Inference)
Nominal
Penggunaan angka untuk mengidentifikasi
objek, individu, kejadian, atau kelompok
(Using number to identify object,
individual, phenomenon, or group)
Penentuan persamaan atau
ketidaksamaan (Determination
of equality or inequality)
Klasifikasi (Classification) Percentage Nonparame
tric
Ordinal
Selain untuk identifikasi, angka, memberi
informasi tentang jumlah karakteristik yang
dimiliki suatu kejadian, objek, dan lain-lain
secara relative. (Beside to identify number,
to deliver information on the amount of
characteristics of a phenomenon, object, etc,
relatively)
Penentuan lebih besar atau
lebih kecil (Determination of
―more than‖ or ―less than‖)
Ranking/scoring Median (means and
variance)
Nonparame
tric
/parametric
Interval
Memiliki semua sifat-sifat skala nominal
dan ordinal serta interval antara dua dua
titik yang sama (Characterized by all
characteristics of nominal, ordinal, and
interval, between the same two points)
Penentuan persamaan interval
(Determination of interval
equality)
Ukuran yang lebih disukai
untuk konsep/konstruksi yang
kompleks. (Preferred
measurement for complex
concept/construction)
Rata-rata variance
(Means variance) Parametric
Rasio
(Ratio)
Menggabungkan semua sifat-sifat skala
nominal, ordinal, dan interval, serta
memasukkan titik nol (Combining all
characteristics of nominal, ordinal, interval,
and recognizing point 0)
Penentuan persamaan rasio
(Determination of ratio
equality)
Bila tersedia instrument yang
tepat (If appropriate
instrument is available)
Rata-rata
geometrik/rata-rata
harmonic
(Geometric/harmonic
means)
Parametric
Source: table of four levels of measurement, within Kuncoro, Mudrajad, Ph.D. Metode Riset untuk Bisnis & Ekonomi. Jakarta:
Erlangga, 2003, p. 153.
28
D. Data Analysis Technique
Susan Stainback in Sugiyono (2012: 243), explained that, ―There are no
guidelines in qualitative research for determining how much data and data
analysis are necessary to support an assertion, conclusion, and theory‖.
Regarding the analysis of qualitative data, Bogdan in Sugiyono (2012:
244) revealed that, ―Data analysis is the process of systematically searching
and arranging the interview transcripts, field notes, and other materials that
you accumulate to increase your own understanding of them and to enable you
to present what you have discovered to others‖.
Spradley in Sugiyono (2012: 244) elaborated that, ―Analysis of any kind
involves a way of thinking. It refers to the systematic examination of
something to determine its parts, the relation among parts, and the relationship
to the whole. Analysis is a search for patterns‖.
Data analysis within this research is inductive, that is an analysis based on
data obtained.
According to Miles and Huberman, in Sugiyono (2012: 246), activities
within data analysis comprise data reduction, data display, and conclusion
drawing.
1. Data Reduction
Reducing data means summarizing, choosing fundamental things,
focusing on important points, searching for the patterns and categorizing.
29
2. Data Display
The display of data shows the previous development of data and allows
an analysis of the data, which subsequently leads to a forecast of the future
development.
Miles and Huberman in Sugiyono (2012: 249) suggested using
graphic, matrix, network, and chart, beside narrative text, in order to
display data.
3. Conclusion Drawing
Qualitative research describes new findings, which have not been
analyzed before. The finding could be a description of an object that was
unclear before then become clear after investigation and analysis, and
could also be a causal relationship, interactive, hypothesis, or theory.
Below is the illustration of data reduction, data display, and conclusion
drawing, as derived, referring, and reconstructed from Sugiyono (2012: 248)
30
Figure 3.1
Illustration of Data Analysis Comprising Data Reduction,
Data Display, and Conclusion Drawing
Source: Illustration of data reduction, data display, and verification
(Sugiyono, 2012: 248)
R23r7tgbofgi noCJHSBFDUIFYEIFBERF
8i7463y5ijuniuhbHGBHJiuh9t8
yu43rtik;/jco;l;sdcmldjmj
,.m7&*&^%^**&%$$*jhbdfwebuuughj
JFHGJHBCSWDWCFKJBVDFVJNuygtd37
867t4230okvfvb*&^*(&^*(jknm,vljknk
vndfjhHUGBHJ*(&*(OUINKJBHNBuvgb
hjuytUHGBJVH78698uhijmvdfvdf/.,’;l[p
lp[kophuogYFUVJHkjhuki65i9823749o5
8ithjkn.,m9875234jnHGBSCJDHVNKIUH
YIUHiuhyiog9875230’[lo]p[\i
Fieldnotes
Data Reduction
Choosing the important data and categorizing
EJHCVSAFHJCVJHKCBHSFGIDUFGPUIETYRFJDHSBCJSBYUTJWEHCBJHGXJCHFVJHVJHCGVDCYTFRKEFJHSMKJHJGJHG
Jhfgsdcsjhgbhjb hjgfuyguhygbgpoihckshftwedqtresjhgvcsfkjnnpihiufdsgchjgvhgfgtyfuysdhgbhjtriutfsjdhgjhgasfddfpouiewrut
578564387895642398708697843214651243247543534987987897
Data Display: Displaying data in patterns
123456789
ABCDEGHJKLMNPQRSTUV defhjklmnopqrst
Conclusion
31
E. Research Instrument
There are two factors determining the quality of research results, those are,
quality of research instrument and quality of data collection.
Sugiyono (2012: 222) revealed that, within qualitative research, the
instrument is the researcher himself. Thus, the researcher as the research
instrument also must be validated how far he or she is ready to conduct the
research, academically and logistically. Validation is done by the researcher
himself, by evaluating the preparation of qualitative method, theory
comprehension, knowledge about research object, and the logistics.
Qualitative researcher as the human instrument, as insisted by Sugiyono
(2012), functions to determine research focus, to select the informants as data
resources, to collect data, to assess the data quality, to analyze the data, to
interpret the data, and to draw the conclusion of the findings.
In viewing the reality, according to Sugiyono (2012), qualitative research
assumes that reality is holistic, dynamic, and inseparable into variables.
Hence, within qualitative research, the researcher is the key instrument.
Lincoln and Guba in Sugiyono (2012) wrote,
―The instrument of choice in naturalistic inquiry is the human. We
shall see that other forms of instrumentation may be used in later
phases of the inquiry, but the human is the initial and continuing
mainstay. But if the human instrument has been used extensively in
earlier stages of inquiry, so that an instrument can be constructed that
is grounded in the data that the human instrument has product‖.
32
Under Nasution (1988) in Sugiyono (2012: 224), there are seven
characteristics of the researcher as research instrument, as the following:
1. Researcher as an instrument is sensitive and can react to any stimulus
from the environment that must be assessed meaningful or not for the
research.
2. Researcher as an instrument can adapt to all aspects of the
circumstances and may collect a variety of data at once.
3. Each situation is a whole. There is no instrument in the form of tests or
questionnaires that can capture the whole situation, except human.
4. A situation involving human interaction cannot be understood by mere
knowledge. To understand, we have to frequently feel it, into it, based
on our knowledge.
5. Researcher as instrument can quickly analyze the data obtained.
Researcher can interpret and make a hypothesis immediately to
determine the direction of observation, to test the hypotheses that arise
immediately.
6. Only human beings as instruments that can draw conclusions based on
data collected at one time and used immediately as a reversal to obtain
confirmation, alteration, or repair.
7. In the study using a test or quantitative questionnaire the preferred is
response that can be quantified in order to be processed statistically,
while deviating from it was ignored. With the human as instrument, in
qualitative research, a strange response, which deviates, is even given
33
attention. Another response than others, even to the contrary is used to
enhance the level of trust and the level of understanding of the aspects
studied.
As an auxiliary instrument, a structured interview consisting of
questions arrangement is set, as the following.
F. Operational Variables
The variables, subvariables, and indicators of green campus according to
the writing of Dr. Arif Zulkifli Nasution, an environmentalist, in his writing,
http://bangazul.blogspot.com/2012/09/green-campus.html, are as the following.
Table 3.4
The variables, subvariables, and indicators of green campus
according to Dr. Arif Zulkifli Nasution
No. Variable Sub variable Indicator Researchable Criteria
1. Green
Building
Building
materials Not containing B3
Containing
reusable element
Local material
resource
Waste of B3 in the
building
Recyclable building
materials
Supply chain system of
building management
Waste
management Water
Waste
Water recirculation
Sorting and utilizing
the waste
Environment-
friendly
media-
promotion-
tools
Reusable material Promotion tools, such as
leaflet, brochure,
billboard, and banner
made from recyclable
materials
Free of air
pollution and
noise
Possession of big
shading trees
Possession of big shading
trees
2. Green
Place
One Stop
Service (Otto,
2005)
Healthiness
Food
Library
Supporting
facilities for
All facilities are
integrated in one local
area
34
No. Variable Sub variable Indicator Researchable Criteria
learning and
teching
Green Open
Space Composition of
built-area in
compare to open
area
Possessing of
green open space
Built-area : open area =
70 : 30
Green open space,
minimally, is 30%
Water
reservoir Infiltration wells
Biopori holes
Green roof
Infiltration wells to
absorb rainwater
Optimal biopori hole to
absorp rainwater
Green roof used as
media of water
infiltration
Reducing the
use of motor
vehicle
Bike path
Sidewalk
Bike paths along the
street in the campus
Sidewalks along the
street in the campus
Easy access of
public
transportation
Bus/angkot
Electric train
Busway
Optimal time to reach any
public transportation
facilities
3. Green
Behavior
Environment
knowledge Environment
information
Persuasion to
environment
behavior
Media to socialize
environment
Persuading the civitas
of campus to bike to
campus or use the
public transportation,
natural-resource-saving
behavior, and love the
environment
Environment-
friendly
behavior
Efficient
transportation
Efficient electricity
Efficient water
Efficient energy
Efficient paper
Usage of local material
Optimum exposure and
power-efficient
electronic equipment
Reducing abstraction of
groundwater.
Using the abstraction of
groundwater
Social
responsibility
Exposure
empowerment Environment education to
the society
―Save Our Planet‖ exhibition
Source: http://bangazul.blogspot.com/2012/09/green-campus.html
35
However, within this research, we limit as the following
Table 3.5
The variables, subvariables, and indicators of green campus
(UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta case)
No. Variable Sub variable Indicator Question
1. Green
Building
Free of air
pollution and
noise
Possession of
big shading
trees
18. What is your opinion on making
new garden or green area in the
campus?
19. What is your opinion on adding
more green vegetations in the campus
area?
2. Green
Place
Reducing the
use of motor
vehicle
Bike path
13. What do you think of biking to
campus?
14. What do you think of biking
inside campus? (Only for the usage
inside the campus)
16. What do you think if there is no
car permitted to enter in the campus,
but special parking building is
provided outside the campus?
17. What do you think if there is no
motorcycle permitted to enter in the
campus, but special parking building
is provided outside the campus?
Easy access of
public
transportation
Bus/angkot
7. What‘s your daily distance from
your accommodation to UIN?
8. How much time do you spend in
traffic on your ride to UIN? (Back
and forth are summed)
9. How much time do you spend in
traffic on your ride to UIN, if there is
no daily traffic jam? (Back and forth
are summed)
10. During lecturing period, how
many times in a week do you go to
UIN?
36
No. Variable Sub variable Indicator Question
3. Green
Behavior
Environment-
friendly
behavior
Efficient
transportation
1) What do you usually chose as
your means of transportation to
UIN, mostly?
2) What is the reason for your
transportation choice?
3) Would you prefer the public
transportation, if it is cheaper than
private vehicle?
4) Would you prefer the public
transportation, if it is faster than
private vehicle?
5) Do you often maintain your
vehicle, especially motorcycle?
5a1) What is maintained?
5b1) If yes, why?
5c1) How much is spent for
maintenance work a year?
5a2) If no, why not?
6) Where do you refuel?
11) Does your family have a
motorcycle?
12) Does your family have a car?
15) How much is your weekly
transportation costs to campus?
37
CHAPTER IV
FINDING AND ANALYSIS
A. Findings
In the following are the findings from the questionnaires disseminated
in campus I UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta (UIN). Around 3.87% of
UIN‘s students participated in fulfilling the structured interview.
Question 1: Apakah alat transportasi yang paling sering Anda
gunakan untuk datang ke kampus?(What do you usually chose as your
means of transportation to UIN, mostly?)
Table 4.1
Transportation Choice of Respondents
No. 1 Transportation choice From 891 respondents 100.0%
a) motorcycle 380 42.6%
b) public transportation 248 27.8%
c) bicycle 18 2.0%
d) on foot 224 25.1%
e) car 16 1.8%
f) other 5 0.6% Source: survey data processed
Question 2: Apa alasan Anda memilih alat transportasi tersebut?
(What is the reason for your transportation choice?)
Table 4.2
Reason of Respondents in Choosing Their Means of Transport
No. 2 Reason From 891 respondents 100.0%
a) fast 246 27.6%
b) cheap 117 13.1%
c) usual 390 43.8%
d) hot 12 1.3%
e) proud 20 2.2%
f) avoid traffic jam 99 11.1%
38
No. 2 Reason From 891 respondents 100.0%
Unanswered 7 0.8% Source: survey data processed
Question 3: Apakah Anda akan lebih memilih transportasi umum, jika
itu akan lebih murah dari kendaraan pribadi? (Would you prefer the
public transportation, if it is cheaper than private vehicle?)
Table 4.3
Willingness of Respondents to Take Public Transportation
if Public Transportation is Cheaper
No. 3 Cheaper public transport From 891 respondents 100.0%
a) yes 331 37.1%
b) no, motorcycle 260 29.2%
c) no, car 32 3.6%
d) maybe 247 27.7%
unanswered 21 2.4% Source: survey data processed
Question 4: Apakah Anda akan lebih memilih transportasi umum, jika
itu akan lebih cepat dari kendaraan pribadi? (Would you be prefer to
choose public transportation, if it is faster than private vehicle?)
Table 4.4
Willingness of Respondents to Take Public Transportation
if Public Transportation is Faster
No. 4 Faster public transport From 891 respondents 100.0%
a) yes 415 46.6%
b) no, motorcycle 187 21.0%
c) no, car 36 4.0%
d) maybe 226 25.4%
Unanswered 27 3.0% Source: survey data processed
Question 5: Apakah Anda suka membawa kendaraan Anda, terutama
sepeda motor, ke bengkel? (Do you often maintain your vehicle, especially
motorcycle?)
39
Table 4.5
Respondents Maintenance on Their Means of Transport
No. 5 Maintenance From 891 respondents 100.0%
a) Maintaining the vehicle 444 49.8%
b) not maintaining the vehicle 396 44.4%
unanswered 51 5.7% Source: survey data processed
Question 5a1: Jika ya, apa yang Anda perbaiki? (If yes, which part do
you maintain?)
Table 4.5a1
Vehicle Component Maintained by Respondents
a1 What is maintained? From 891 respondents 100.0%
a) lights 22 2.5%
b) brakes 75 8.4%
c) filters 22 2.5%
d) spark-plug 15 1.7%
e) all 343 38.5%
unanswered 414 46.5% Source: survey data processed
Question 5b1: Jika ya, kenapa? (If yes, why?)
Table 4.5b1
Respondents Reason of Maintaining Their Vehicles
b1 Why do students
maintain their
motorcycles? From 891 respondents 100.0%
a) safety 129 14.5%
b) extending using 33 3.7%
c) good condition 292 32.8%
d) quality exhaust 14 1.6%
unanswered 423 47.5% Source: survey data processed
Question 5c1: Jika ya, berapa banyak yang Anda keluarkan untuk
pemeliharaan dalam setahun? (If yes, how much do you spend annually
for maintenance?)
40
Table 4.5c1
Respondents’ Transportation Cost per Year
c1 How much is spent for
maintenance work a year? From 891 respondents 100.0%
a) Rp 20.000 - Rp 50.000 34 3.8%
b) Rp 50.000 - Rp 100.000 105 11.8%
c) Rp 100.000 - Rp 200.000 102 11.4%
d) >Rp 200.000 233 26.2%
unanswered 417 46.8% Source: survey data processed
Question 5a2: Jika tidak, kenapa? (If no, why not?)
Table 4.5a2
Reason for Not Maintaining
a2 Why students do not
maintain their
motorbikes? From 891 respondents 100.0%
a) not necessary 113 12.7%
b) expensive 56 6.3%
c) never thought about 129 14.5%
unanswered 593 66.6% Source: survey data processed
Question 6: Dimana Anda mengisi bahan bakar? (Where do you
refuel?)
Table 4.6
Refueling Habit of Respondents
No. 6 Where do students
refuel their vehicles? From 891 respondents 100.0%
a) always at official 486 54.5%
b) mostly at official 152 17.1%
c) sometimes(off., street) 90 10.1%
d) mostly streetsellers 15 1.7%
unanswered 148 16.6% Source: survey data processed
Question 7: Berapa jarak harian yang Anda tempuh untuk sampai ke
UIN? (What‘s your daily distance from your accommodation to UIN?)
41
Table 4.7
Distance to Campus Beaten by Respondents
No. 7 Distance from
home to the Campus From 891 respondents 100.0%
a) <1km 202 22.7%
b) 1km-3km 136 15.3%
c) 3km-5km 85 9.5%
d) 5-10km 172 19.3%
e) >10km 286 32.1%
unanswered 10 1.1% Source: survey data processed
Question 8: Berapa lama waktu yang Anda habiskan dalam perjalanan
dari dan menuju UIN? (Perjalanan pulang-pergi dijumlahkan) [How
much time do you spend in traffic on your ride to UIN? (Back and forth
are summed)]
Table 4.8
Respondents’ Travel Time to Campus, Including Traffic Jam
No. 8 Time with traffic jam From 891 respondents 100.0%
a) 5-30 min 318 35.7%
b) 30min- 1h 248 27.8%
c) 1-2h 176 19.8%
d) 2-4h 108 12.1%
e) >4h 34 3.8%
unanswered 7 0.8% Source: survey data processed
Question 9: Berapa lama waktu yang Anda habiskan dalam perjalanan
dari dan menuju UIN, jika tidak ada kemacetan? (Perjalanan pulang-
pergi dijumlahkan) [How much time do you spend in traffic on your ride
to UIN, if there is no daily traffic jam? (Back and forth are summed)]
42
Table 4.9
Respondents’ Travel Time to Campus, Ignoring Traffic Jam
No. 9 Time without traffic jam From 891 respondents 100.0%
a) 5-30 min 392 44.0%
b) 30min- 1h 239 26.8%
c) 1-2h 173 19.4%
d) 2-4h 62 7.0%
e) >4h 7 0.8%
unanswered 18 2.0% Source: survey data processed
Question 10: Berapa kali dalam seminggu Anda pergi ke kampus UIN,
selama periode aktif kuliah? (During lecturing period, how many times in
a week do you go to UIN?)
Table 4.10
Respondents’ Attendance Frequency to Campus
No. 10 How often do
students come to UIN From 891 respondents 100.0%
a) once 11 1.2%
b) twice 25 2.8%
c) 3 times 50 5.6%
d) 4 times 334 37.5%
e) 5 times or more 466 52.3%
unanswered 5 0.6% Source: survey data processed
Question 11: Apakah keluarga Anda memiliki sepeda motor? (Does
your family have a motorcycle?)
Table 4.11
Motorcycle Ownership of Respondents’ Family
No. 11 Does the family own a
motorcycle? From 891 respondents 100.0%
a) yes 657 73.7%
b) no 64 7.2%
c) more than one 166 18.6%
unanswered 4 0.4% Source: survey data processed
43
Question 12: Apakah keluarga Anda memiliki mobil? (Does your
family have a car?)
Table 4.12
Car Ownership of Respondents’ Family
No. 12 Does the family
own a car? From 891 respondents 100.0%
a) yes 358 40.2%
b) no 485 54.4%
c) more than one 42 4.7%
unanswered 6 0.7% Source: survey data processed
Question 13: Apa pendapat Anda tentang bersepeda ke kampus?
(What do you think of biking to campus?)
Table 4.13
Respondents Opinion on Biking (Transporting by Bike) to Campus
No. 13 Opinion on biking to UIN From 891 respondents 100.0%
a) I like the idea 511 57.4%
b) very likely 70 7.9%
c) unlikely 120 13.5%
d) not thinkable 97 10.9%
e) other 89 10.0%
unanswered 4 0.4% Source: survey data processed
Question 14: Apa pendapat Anda tentang pengadaan sepeda kampus?
(Untuk penggunaan di dalam kampus) [What do you think of biking inside
campus? (Only for the usage inside the campus)]
Table 4.14
Respondents Opinion on Biking at (inside) Campus
No. 14 Opinion on biking at UIN From 891 respondents 100.0%
a) I like the idea 533 59.8%
b) very likely 217 24.4%
c) unlikely 46 5.2%
d) not thinkable 55 6.2%
e) other 33 3.7%
44
No. 14 Opinion on biking at UIN From 891 respondents 100.0%
unanswered 7 0.8% Source: survey data processed
Question 15: Berapa biaya transportasi yang Anda keluarkan dalam
seminggu? (How much is your weekly transportation costs to campus?)
Table 4.15
Respondents’ Transportation Cost per Week
No. 15 Transportation costs per
week to come to the Campus From 891 respondents 100.0%
a) Rp 0 - Rp 5.000 132 14.8%
b) Rp 5.000 - Rp 20.000 177 19.9%
c) Rp 20.000 - Rp 50.000 294 33.0%
d) Rp 50.000 - Rp 100.000 187 21.0%
e) >Rp 100.000 91 10.2%
unanswered 10 1.1% Source: survey data processed
Question 16: Apa pendapat Anda jika mobil tidak diperkenankan
masuk kampus, tetapi disediakan bangunan khusus parkir di luar area
kampus? (What do you think if there is no car permitted to enter in the
campus, but special parking building is provided outside the campus?)
Table 4.16
Respondents Opinion on Car-Free Campus
No. 16 Car-free in UIN From 891 respondents 100.0%
a) it should be 149 16.7%
b) good idea 332 37.3%
c) unlikely 227 25.5%
d) not thinkable 131 14.7%
e) other 48 5.4%
unanswered 4 0.4% Source: survey data processed
Question 17: Apa pendapat Anda jika sepeda motor tidak
diperkenankan masuk kampus, tetapi disediakan bangunan khusus parkir
di luar area kampus? (What do you think if there is no motorcycle
45
permitted to enter in the campus, but special parking building is provided
outside the campus?)
Table 4.17
Respondents Opinion on Motorcycle-Free Campus
No. 17 Motorcycle-free in UIN From 891 respondents 100.0%
a) it should be 90 10.1%
b) good idea 256 28.7%
c) unlikely 399 44.8%
d) not thinkable 103 11.6%
e) other 38 4.3%
unanswered 5 0.6% Source: survey data processed
Question 18: Apa pendapat Anda jika di kampus dibuat kebun, taman,
atau area hijau? (What is your opinion on making new garden or green
area in the campus?)
Table 4.18
Respondents Opinion on New Garden Provision in Campus
No. 18 New gardens From 891 respondents 100.0%
a) it should be 580 65.1%
b) good idea 249 27.9%
c) looks impossible 20 2.2%
d) not thinkable 17 1.9%
e) other 19 2.1%
unanswered 6 0.7% Source: survey data processed
Question 19: Apa pendapat Anda tentang penambahan vegetasi
tanaman hijau di area kampus? (What is your opinion on adding more
green vegetations in the campus area?)
Table 4.19
Respondents Opinion on Provision of More Vegetation in Campus
No. 19 More vegetation From 891 respondents 100.0%
a) beautiful 371 41.6%
b) reducing co2 452 50.7%
c) looks impossible 18 2.0%
46
No. 19 More vegetation From 891 respondents 100.0%
d) not thinkable 17 1.9%
e) other 27 3.0%
unanswered 6 0.7% Source: survey data processed
B. Analysis
The analysis is not using and describing all components of data, rather
only focusing on the quantified data only.
ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS
Table 4.20
Transportation-Modality Mapping
No. 1 Transportation choice 100.0%
a) motorcycle 42.6%
b) public transportation 27.8%
c) bicycle 2.0%
d) on foot 25.1%
e) car 1.8%
f) other 0.6% Source: survey data analysed
From the transportation modality mapped above, it can be figured out
as the following.
Figure 4.1
Trend of Transportation Choice
Source: survey data analysed
Motorcycle, 42.6%
Public transportation, 27.8%
Bicycle, 2%
On foot, 25.1%
Car, 1.8%
Other, 0.6%
47
Table 4.21
The Dominant Reason of Respondents in Choosing Means of Transport
No. 2 Reason 100.0%
a) fast 27.6% 2nd
rank
b) cheap 13.1% 3rd
rank
c) usual 43.8% 1st rank
d) hot 1.3%
e) proud 2.2%
f) avoid traffic jam 11.1%
not identified 0.8% Source: survey data analysed
The three ranks show the reasons why respondents choose their
transportation means. The highest rank ―usual‖ is considered that
respondents actually choose the transportation means as the way it is. The
next most frequent answers are considered as ―fast‖ and ―cheap‖, in which
―fast‖ is more preferable than ―cheap‖.
The description above is more detail elaborated in specifications such
as the following:
Table 4.22
Reasons Mapping on Transportation Choice
REASON 100.00% Transportation Means % of total Rank
FAST
2nd
rank 27.60%
a) motorcycle 21.32% 1st rank
b) public transportation 2.13% 3rd
rank
c) bicycle 0.56%
d) on foot 2.58% 2nd
rank
e) car 0.56%
f) other 0.45%
Elaboration:
Those who said ―fast‖ as their reason, mostly, are the motorcycle users in the first rank, those
walking in the second rank, and those using public transportation in the third rank. Meanwhile,
the question is then, how could walking be faster than using public transportation? What makes
walking faster than using public transportation? It will be elaborated later, in the interpretation
and evaluation.
CHEAP
3rd
rank 13.10%
a) motorcycle 3.59% 2nd
rank
b) public transportation 6.85% 1st rank
c) bicycle 0.45%
48
REASON 100.00% Transportation Means % of total Rank
CHEAP
3rd
rank 13.10%
d) on foot 2.24% 3rd
rank
e) car -
f) other -
Elaboration:
Those who said ―cheap‖ as their reason, mostly, are the users of public transportation in the first
rank, the motorcycle users in the second rank, and those walking in the third rank. The question
is, what means-of-transport could be more-economic than the use of motorcycle? It will be
elaborated later, in the interpretation and evaluation.
USUAL
1st rank
43.80%
a) motorcycle 6.51% 3rd
rank
b) public transportation 17.73% 2nd
rank
c) bicycle 0.45%
d) on foot 18.30% 1st rank
e) car 0.67%
f) other 0.11%
Elaboration:
Those who said ―usual‖ as their reason, mostly, are those walking in the first rank, the users of
public transportation in the second rank, and the motorcycle users in the third rank. ―Usual‖
indicates that the respondents have been using their current transportation means for long time,
and therefore it has become their usual means of transport. Under author‘s subjective
perspective, ―usual‖ doesn‘t reflect the real reason, but rather only a current condition of the
respondents, that they are ―usual‖ to do so. Hence, it is necessary to elaborate what are the
reasons for 18.30% of the respondents to walk, what makes 17.73% of the respondents use
public transportation, and what makes 6.51% of the respondents use motorcycle.
FEELING HOT 1.30%
a) motorcycle 0.11%
b) public transportation 0.34% Dominant
c) bicycle 0.22%
d) on foot 0.34% Dominant
e) car 0.34% Dominant
f) other -
Elaboration:
Feeling ―hot‖ leads 0.34% respondents to use public transportation and also leads other 0.34%
respondents to use car as transportation means. But, surprisingly, another 0.34% respondents
choose to walk on foot when they feel hot.
PROUD 2.20%
a) motorcycle 1.46% 1st rank
b) public transportation -
c) bicycle 0.34% 2nd
rank
d) on foot 0.22% 3
rd rank
e) car 0.22%
f) other -
Elaboration:
Those who said ―proud‖ as their reason, mostly, are the motorcycle users in the first rank, the
bicycle users in the second rank, and the car users in the third rank. Unlike the other, 0.22%
respondents proud to walk on foot.
AVOID
TRAFFIC JAM 11.10%
a) motorcycle 9.65% 1st rank
b) public transportation 0.56% 3rd
rank
c) bicycle -
49
REASON 100.00% Transportation Means % of total Rank
AVOID
TRAFFIC JAM 11.10%
d) on foot 0.90% 2nd
rank
e) car -
f) other -
Elaboration:
To avoid traffic jam, the most favorite transportation means chosen by respondents are
motorcycles. Then, in the second rank is walking. On what distance could walking be
considered more effective to avoid traffic jam, than using public transportation? It will be
evaluated in the interpretation and evaluation.
UNANSWERED 0.80%
a) motorcycle -
b) public transportation 0.22% 2nd
rank
c) bicycle -
d) on foot 0.56% 1st rank
e) car -
f) other -
Source: survey data analysed
From the table above, it can then be projected in the figure as follow.
Figure 4.2
Reasons Function to Transportation Means
Source: survey data analysed
The figure above projects the reasons ―fast‖, ―cheap‖, ―usual‖, and ―avoid
traffic jam‖, as dominant reasons for the respondents in choosing their
50
transportation means in comparison to ―feeling hot‖ and ―proud‖. However, the
reason ―usual‖ is ignored because it does not represent the true reason.
The figure reflects that reasons such as ―fast‖, ―proud‖, and ―avoid traffic
jam‖, are dominated by motorcycle drivers. In other words, the reasons why
respondents choose motorcycle are dominantly because, as data obtained, three
things:
1) Respondents need ―fast‖ transportation means to reach the Campus.
2) Respondents feel ―proud‖ of their motorcycle. It indicates that respondents
consider a status as the reason to bring their motorcycle to the Campus.
3) Respondents need a transportation solution to the Campus that is able to
―avoid traffic jam‖. It could indicates that any traffic congestions
happened (in any certain distance) between their home toward the
Campus.
Furthermore, if the axes X and Y of the Figure 4.3 are switched one to the
other, that is, function of trasnportation means to the reasons, it can be reflected as
follow.
Figure 4.3
Transportation Means Function to Reasons
Source: survey data analysed
51
The figure above shows that the majority of the respondents use
―motorcycle‖, ―public transportation‖, and walking ―on foot‖, to reach the
Campus. While, the minority of them use ―bicycle‖, ―car‖ (their own car),
and ―other‖ transportation means.
The figure above could also partially be explained per transportation
means as the following.
1. Motorcycle
Table 4.23
Reason of Motorcycle Users
Reason for Using Motorcycle 42.6% respondents
a) fast 21.32%
b) cheap 3.59%
c) usual 6.51%
d) hot 0.11%
e) proud 1.46%
f) avoid traffic jam 9.65% Source: survey data analysed
The table above then can be projected as the following.
Figure 4.4
Respondents Reasons of Choosing Motorcycle
Source: survey data analysed
52
The motorcycle users, mostly, said that ―motorcycle‖ is ―fast‖ and is
used to ―avoid traffic jam‖.
2. Public Transportation
Table 4.24
Respondents Reason of Using Public Transportation
Reason for Public Transportation 248 27.8% respondents
a) fast 19 2.13%
b) cheap 61 6.85%
c) usual 158 17.73%
d) hot 3 0.34%
e) proud 0 0
f) avoid traffic jam 5 0.56%
unanswered 2 0.22% Source: survey data analysed
Table above is projected as the following figure.
Figure 4.5
Respondent Reason of Using Pablic Transportation
Source: survey data analysed
53
The figure above reflects that the use of public transportation is most
frequently considered as ―usual‖, but later on it will be ignored because it
does not represent the real reason. Therefore, ―cheap‖ is the dominant
reason of why respondents use public transportation as their means of
transport, to reach the Campus.
No one of the respondents said that feeling ―proud‖ is their reason to
use public transportation. They choose public transportation because it is
―cheap‖, not because they are ―proud‖ of using public transportation.
3. Bicycle
Table 4.25
Respondents Reason of Using Bicycle
Reason for Bicycle 18 2.0%
a) fast 5 0.56%
b) cheap 4 0.45%
c) usual 4 0.45%
d) hot 2 0.22%
e) proud 3 0.34%
f) avoid traffic jam 0 0 Source: survey data analysed
The table above can be depicted as the following figure.
Figure 4.6
Respondents Reason of Using Bicycle to Campus
Source: survey data analysed
54
The figure above shows that the most dominant reason why
respondents use bicycle to reach the campus is because it is ―fast‖. But
then, how does it differ from the ―fast‖-ness of motorcycle?
Tables below will elaborate such analysis toward it.
Table 4.26
Comparison between Motorcycle Speed and Bicycle Speed
Motorcycle: 380
respondents Bicycle: 18 respondents
No. 7 Distance xi fib fibxi fim fimxi
a) <1km 1 km 30 30 5 5
b) 1km-3km 2 km 40 80 3 6
c) 3km-5km 4 km 36 144 6 24
d) 5-10km 7.5 km 96 720 3 22.5
e) >10km 10 km 175 1,750 1 10
unanswered 3 (ignored) 0
Total 377 2,724 18 67.5
Average distance 2,724/377 = 7.23 km 67.5/18 = 3.75 km
No. 8 Time with traffic jam xi fib fibxi fim fimxi
a) 5-30 min 17.5 minutes 92 1,610 5 87.5
b) 30min- 1h 45 minutes 144 6,480 5 225
c) 1-2h 90 minutes 98 8,820 4 360
d) 2-4h 180 minutes 33 5,940 4 720
e) >4h 240 minutes 13 3,120 0 0
Total 380 25,970 18 1,392.5
Average travel time, including
traffic jam
25,970/380
= 68.34
minutes = 1
hour 8.34
minutes
6,612.5/18
= 77.36
minutes = 1
hour 17.36
minutes
Relative speed
7.23 km /
68.34
minutes
= 0.106 km
per minute =
6.3 km per
hour
3.75 km /
77.36
minutes
= 0.048 km
per minute =
2.9 km per
hour
No. 9 Time without traffic jam xi fib fibxi fim fimxi
a) 5-30 min 17.5 minutes 140 2,450 9 157.5
b) 30min- 1h 45 minutes 145 6,525 3 135
c) 1-2h 90 minutes 72 6,480 6 540
d) 2-4h 180 minutes 20 3,600 0 0
e) >4h 240 minutes 2 480 0 0
unanswered 1 (ignored) 0
Total 379 19,535 18 832.5
55
No. 9 Time without traffic jam xi fib fibxi fim fimxi
Average travel time, without
traffic jam
19,535/379
= 51.54
minutes 832.5/18
= 46
minutes
Relative speed
7.23 km /
51.54
minutes
= 0.140 km
per minute =
8.4 km per
hour
3.75 km /
46 minutes
= 0.081 km
per minute =
4.9 km per
hour
Source: survey data analysed
Table 4.27
The Speed of Car and Public Transportation
Car: 16
respondents
Public Transportation:
248 respondents
No. 7 Distance xi fic ficxi fip fipxi
a) <1km 1 km 0 0 13 13
b) 1km-3km 2 km 4 8 47 94
c) 3km-5km 4 km 2 8 25 100
d) 5-10km 7.5 km 2 15 63 472.5
e) >10km 10 km 8 80 98 980
unanswered
2 (ignored)
Total 16 111 246 1,659.5
Average distance
6.94 km
6.75 km
No. 8 Time with traffic jam xi fic ficxi fip fipxi
a) 5-30 min 17.5 minutes 2 15 31 542.5
b) 30min- 1h 45 minutes 4 180 74 3,330
c) 1-2h 90 minutes 4 360 65 5,850
d) 2-4h 180 minutes 4 720 59 10,620
e) >4h 240 minutes 2 480 16 3,840
unanswered
3 (ignored)
Total 16 1,755 245 24,182.5
Average travel time, including
traffic jam
1,755 /
16
=
109.69
minutes = 1 hour
49.69
minutes
24,182.5 /
245
= 98.7
minutes = 1
hour 38.7
minutes
Relative speed
6.94 /
109.69
= 0.063
km per
minute
= 3.8
km per
hour
6.75 / 98.7
= 0.068 km
per minute =
4.1 km per
hour
No. 9 Time without traffic jam xi fic ficxi fip fipxi
a) 5-30 min 17.5 minutes 1 17.5 65 1,137.5
b) 30min- 1h 45 minutes 8 360 63 2,835
c) 1-2h 90 minutes 3 270 81 7,290
d) 2-4h 180 minutes 4 720 33 5,940
56
No. 9 Time without traffic jam xi fic ficxi fip fipxi
e) >4h 240 minutes 0 0 2 480
unanswered
4 (ignored)
Total 16 1,367.5 244 17,682.5
Average travel time, without traffic
jam
1,367.5 /
16
= 85.47
minutes = 1 hour
25.47
minutes
17,682.5 /
244
= 72.47
minutes = 1
hour 12.47
minutes
Relative speed
6.94 /
85.47
= 0.081
km per
minute
= 4.87
km per
hour
6.75 /
72.47
= 0.93 km
per minute =
5.57 km per
hour
Source: survey data analysed
Table 4.28
Speed of Walking “on Foot” and “Other” Transportation Means
On Foot: 224 respondents Other: 5 respondents
No. 7 Distance xi fic ficxi fip fipxi
a) <1km 1 km 154 154 0 0
b) 1km-3km 2 km 42 84 0 0
c) 3km-5km 4 km 14 56 2 8
d) 5-10km 7.5 km 6 45 2 15
e) >10km 10 km 3 30 1 10
unanswered 5 (ignored)
Total 219 369 5 33
Average distance 369 / 219 1.68 km 33 / 5 6.6 km
No. 8 Time with traffic jam xi fic ficxi fip fipxi
a) 5-30 min 17.5 minutes 188 3,290 0 0
b) 30min- 1h 45 minutes 20 900 1 45
c) 1-2h 90 minutes 3 270 2 180
d) 2-4h 180 minutes 7 1,260 1 180
e) >4h 240 minutes 2 480 1 240
unanswered 4 (ignored) 0
Total 220 6,200 5 645
Average travel time,
including traffic jam
6,200 / 220 = 28.18
minutes 645 / 5
= 129
minutes = 2
hour 9
minutes
Relative speed
1.68 / 28.18
= 0.059
km per
minute =
3.6 km
per hour
6.6 / 129
= 0.051 km
per minute =
3.07 km per
hour
57
No. 9 Time without traffic
jam xi fic ficxi fip fipxi
a) 5-30 min 17.5 minutes 176 3,080 1 17.5
b) 30min- 1h 45 minutes 17 765 3 135
c) 1-2h 90 minutes 11 990 0 0
d) 2-4h 180 minutes 5 900 0 0
e) >4h 240 minutes 2 480 1 240
unanswered 13 (ignored) 0
Total 211 6,215 5 392.5
Average travel time, without
traffic jam
6,215 / 211
= 29.45
minutes
392.5 / 5
= 78.5
minutes = 1
hour 18.5
minutes
Relative speed
1.68 / 29.45
= 0.057
km per
minute =
3.4 km
per hour
6.6 /
78.5
= 0.084 km
per minute =
5.04 km per
hour
Source: survey data analysed
Table 4.29
Recapitulation of Relative Speed
Transportation
Means
Average
Distance
Travel Time Relative Speed=
Distance / Travel Time
Including Traffic Jam Excluding Traffic
jam Including Traffic
Excluding Traffic
Jam
Motorcycle 7.23 km 1 hour 8.34 minutes 51.54 minutes 6.3 km per hour 8.4 km per hour
Bicycle 3.75 km 1 hour 17.36 minutes 46 minutes 2.9 km per hour 4.9 km per hour
Car 6.94 km 1 hour 49.69 minutes 1 hour 25.47
minutes 3.8 km per hour 4.87 km per hour
Public Transportation
6.75 km 1 hour 38.7 minutes 1 hour 12.47
minutes 4.1 km per hour 5.57 km per hour
On Foot 1.68 km 28.18 minutes 29.45 minutes 3.6 km per hour 3.4 km per hour
Other 6.6 km 2 hour 9 minutes 1 hour 18.5 minutes 3.07 km per hour 5.04 km per hour
Source: survey data analysed
Table 4.30
Recapitulation of Relative Speed,
Sequenced from the Fastest to the Slowest
Rank Including Traffic Jam Excluding Traffic Jam
1 Motorcycle (6.3 km/h) Motorcycle (8.4 km/h)
2 Public Transportation (4.1 km/h) Public Transportation (5.57 km/h)
3 Car (3.8 km/h) Other (5.04 km/h)
4 On Foot (3.6 km/h) Bicycle (4.9 km/h)
5 Other (3.07 km/h) Car (4.87 km/h)
6 Bicycle (2.9 km/h) On Foot (3.4 km/h) Source: survey data analysed
From the analysis above can be concluded that, it is reasonable to say
that bicycle is “fast”. When the road toward Campus is fluent and not
58
jammed with any congestion, the speed of bicycle exceeds the speed of
car, slightly. It may because of some factors not identified by this research.
4. On Foot
Table 4.31
Respondents Reason of Walking on Foot
Reason for Walking on Foot 25.1% of respondents
a) fast 2.58%
b) cheap 2.24%
c) usual 18.29%
d) hot 0.34%
e) proud 0.22%
f) avoid traffic jam 0.89%
unanswered 0.56% Source: survey data analysed
The table above is then projected in the following figure.
Figure 4.7
Respondents Reason of Walking on Foot to Campus
Source: survey data analysed
The figure shows that the most dominant reason of walking on foot is
because it is ―usual‖. This usuality might be allowed by the fact that
59
the distance taken by those walking short distance (1.68 km in
average) is considered as most efficient, in comparison to longer
distances. The comparison is shown in the table as follow.
Table 4.32
Average Distance Taken by Each Transportation Means
Transportation Means Average Distance
Motorcycle 7.23 km
Bicycle 3.75 km
Car 6.94 km
Public Transportation 6.75 km
On Foot 1.68 km
Other 6.6 km Source: survey data analysed
5. Car
Table 4.33
Respondents Reason of Using Their Car
Reason for Using Car (Private Own) 1.8% of respondents
a) fast 0.56%
b) cheap -
c) usual 0.67%
d) hot 0.34%
e) proud 0.22%
f) avoid traffic jam - Source: survey data analysed
The table above is then projected as the following figure.
Figure 4.8
Respondents Reason of Using Car to Campus
Source: survey data analysed
60
The figure shows that none of the respondents said that car is
―cheap‖ nor saying that they used it to ―avoid traffic jam‖. Some 0.56%
respondents using car said that their reason is because car is ―fast‖, but
then the reason ―fast‖ is totally subjective reason. Moreover, it is
proven that, even if there is no congestion along the road toward the
Campus, the overall speed on the street for cars (used by 1.8% of the
respondents) is slightly slower than the overall speed by using bicycles
(used by another 2.0% of the respondents), as demonstrated in the
following table.
Table 4.34
Recapitulation of Relative Speed,
Sequenced from the Fastest to the Slowest
Rank Including Traffic Jam Excluding Traffic Jam
1 Motorcycle (6.3 km/h) Motorcycle (8.4 km/h)
2 Public Transportation (4.1 km/h) Public Transportation (5.57 km/h)
3 Car (3.8 km/h) Other (5.04 km/h)
4 On Foot (3.6 km/h) Bicycle (4.9 km/h)
5 Other (3.07 km/h) Car (4.87 km/h)
6 Bicycle (2.9 km/h) On Foot (3.4 km/h) Source: survey data analysed
The table 4.34 shows that the majority of car users (0.67% of
respondents) are using their own car because it is their ―usual‖ means of
transport. The remaining two reasons are, they feel ―hot‖ then they use
their own car, and the other (or 0.22% of total respondents) admits that
they are ―proud‖ of their car.
61
6. Other
Table 4.35
Reason of Those Taking Other Transportation Means
Reason for other transportation means 5 respondents 100.0%
a) fast 4 80.0% 1st rank
b) cheap 0 0.0%
c) usual 1 20.0% 2nd
rank
d) hot 0 0.0%
e) proud 0 0.0%
f) avoid traffic jam 0 0.0%
unanswered 0 0.0% Source: survey data analysed
The table above shows that those respondents not transporting to
campus by motorcycle, public transportation, bicycle, on foot, nor by car,
are presumably taking ojek, becak, andong, or bajaj. This assumption is
supported by primary data from questionnaire, as below.
Table 4.36
Description of Those Taking Other Transportation
OTHER
Question Respondent % s374 s375 s376 s377 s378
No. 1 Transportation choice 5 0.6%
a) motorcycle 0 -
b) public transportation 0 -
c) bicycle 0 -
d) on foot 0 -
e) car 0 -
f) other 5 0.6% 1 1 1 1 1
No.2 Reason 5 0.6%
a. fast 4 0.4% 1 1 1 1
b. cheap 0 -
c. usual 1 0.1% 1
d. hot 0 -
e. proud 0 -
f. avoid traffic jam 0 -
unanswered 0 -
62
No.3 Cheap public transport 5 0.6%
a. yes 2 0.2% 1 1
b. no, motorcycle 0 -
c. no, car 0 -
d. maybe 3 0.3% 1 1 1
unanswered 0 -
No. 4 Fast public transport 5 0.6%
a. yes 4 0.4% 1 1 1 1
b. no, motorcycle 0 -
c. no, car 0 -
d. maybe 1 0.1% 1
unanswered 0 -
No. 7 Distance 5 0.6%%
a. <1km 0 -
b. 1km-3km 0 -
c. 3km-5km 2 0.2% 1 1
d. 5-10km 2 0.2% 1 1
e. >10km 1 0.1% 1
unanswered 0 -
Average distance
[(4x2)+(7.5x2)+(10x1)] 5 = (8+15+10) 5 = 33/5 = 6.6
km
No.8 Time with traffic jam 5 0.6%
a. 5-30 min 0 -
b. 30min- 1h 1 0.1% 1
c. 1-2h 2 0.2% 1 1
d. 2-4h 1 0.1% 1
e. >4h 1 0.1% 1
unanswered 0 -
Average time spent including traffic
jam
[(45 minutes x 2)+(90 minutes x 2)+(180 minutes x 1)+240
minutes] 5 = (90+180+180+240) 5 = 690/5 = 138
minutes = 2 hours 18 minutes
No. 9 Time without traffic jam 5 0.6%
a. 5-30 min 1 0.1% 1
b. 30min- 1h 3 0.3% 1 1 1
c. 1-2h 0 -
d. 2-4h 0 -
e. >4h 1 0.1% 1
unanswered 0 -
Average time spent excluding
traffic jam
[(17.5 minutes x 1)+(45 minutes x 3)+240 minutes] 5 =
(17.5+135+240) 5 = 392.5 5 = 78.5 minutes = 1 hour
18.5 minutes
63
No. 10 How often to UIN in a
week 5 0.6%
a. Once 1 0.1% 1
b. Twice 0 -
c. 3 times 0 -
d. 4 times 1 0.1% 1
e. 5 times or more 3 0.3% 1 1 1
unanswered 0 -
Average frequency to campus [(1 x 1)+(4 x 1)+(5 x 3)] 5 = (1+4+15) 5 = 20 5 = 4
times/week
15 Transportation cost/week 5 0.6%
a. Rp 0 - Rp 5.000 0 -
b. Rp 5.000 - Rp 20.000 0 -
c. Rp 20.000 - Rp 50.000 2 0.2% 1 1
d. Rp 50.000 - Rp 100.000 2 0.2% 1 1
e. >Rp 100.000 1 0.1% 1
unanswered 0 -
Average transportation cost in a
week
[(Rp35,000 x 2)+(Rp75,000 x 2)+Rp100,000] 5 =
(Rp70,000+Rp150,000+Rp100,000) 5 = Rp320,000 5 =
Rp64,000 per week
Source: survey data analysed
Table 4.37
Transportation Cost per Week of Those Taking Other Transportation
Average distance 6.6 km
Average time spent including traffic jam 2 hours 18 minutes (back and forth)
Average time spent excluding traffic jam 1 hour 18.5 minutes (back and forth)
Average frequency to campus 4 times/week
Average transportation cost in a week Rp 64,000 per week
Transportation cost per single travel to campus Rp 64,000/[4 times x 2(back and forth)] = Rp8,000
Source: survey data analysed
―Other‖ transportation used by the respondents is identified as a
vehicle taking distance of 6.6 km and costs Rp8,000.
Table 4.38
Willingness to Take Public Transportation
No. 3 Cheaper public transport 100.0%
a) yes 37.1%
b) no, motorcycle 29.2%
c) no, car 3.6%
d) maybe 27.7%
Unanswered 2.4%
64
No. 4 Faster public transport 100.0%
a) yes 46.6%
b) no, motorcycle 21.0%
c) no, car 4.0%
d) maybe 25.4%
Unanswered 3.0% Source: survey data analysed
Table 4.39
Comparison between Tendency Take Public Transportation if It is
Cheaper and if It is Faster
Do you want to move to
public transportation…
If public transportation
is cheaper?
If public transportation
is faster?
a) yes 37.1% 46.6%
b) no, motorcycle 29.2% 21.0%
c) no, car 3.6% 4.0%
d) maybe 27.7% 25.4%
unanswered 2.4% 3.0% Source: survey data analysed
Figure 4.9
Comparison between Tendency to Take Public Transportation if It is
Cheaper and if It is Faster
Source: survey data analysed
The chart shows that the respondents go rather for the speed factor than the
costs they have to spend for the transportation. The possibility to take public
transportation is higher if it would be ―faster‖, in comparison to ―cheaper‖.
65
7. MAINTENANCE
The detail of those maintaining and not maintaining is shown in the
following table.
Table 4.40
Specific Overview of Respondents Who Maintains
and Don’t Maintain Their Vehicles
YES % of
maintaining
% of total
respondents
a. Motorcycle 72.30% 36.03%
b. public transportation 12.84% 6.40%
c. bicycle 1.80% 0.90%
d. on foot 10.59% 5.27%
e. car 2.03% 1.01%
f. other 0.45% 0.22%
total 100.00% 49.83%
NO % of not
maintaining
% of total
respondents
a. motorcycle 14.90% 6.62%
b. public transportation 42.17% 18.74%
c. bicycle 2.53% 16.84%
d. on foot 37.88% 16.84%
e. car 1.77% 0.79%
f. other 0.76% 0.34%
Total 100.00% 44.44% Source: survey data analysed
The highest rank of respondents maintaining their vehicles are those who
use the motorcycle as means of transport. Meanwhile, the first and second
highest ranks of respondents who do not maintain their vehicles are those who
go for public transportation as means of transport and those who walk from
their home to the campus.
The calculation below shows the average maintenance costs spent by the
respondents annually.
66
Table 4.41
Average Annual Maintenance Cost
xi fi fixi
35.000 34 1,190,000
75.000 105 7,875,000
150.000 102 15,300,000
200.000 233 46,600,000
Total 474 70,965,000
Average maintenance cost/year Rp149,715.19 Source: survey data analysed
The average annual maintenance cost spent by respondents who maintain
their vehicles is Rp149,715.19 or Rp150,000 (per year), what sense Rp12,500
per month that means Rp416.67 per day, if it would be traced on daily basis.
The description below shows the average distance to Campus.
Table 4.42
Average Distance Taken by Respondents xi fi fixi
1 km 202 202
2 km 136 272
4 km 85 340
7.5 km 172 1290
10 km 286 2860
Total 881 4964
Average distance to campus 5.6 km Source: survey data analysed
Average distance taken by the respondents is 5.6 km. Further details will
be elaborated in specific elaboration for per-transportation-means analysis.
The description below shows the average travel time per ride to Campus.
Table 4.43
Respondents’ Average Travel Time if Traffic-Jam Time is Included
xi fi fixi
17.5 minutes 318 5,565 minutes
45 minutes 248 11,160 minutes
90 minutes 176 15,840 minutes
180 minutes 108 19,440 minutes
240 minutes 34 8,160 minutes
Total 884 60,165 minutes
Average time spent, with traffic jam 68.06 minutes Source: survey data analysed
67
The time consumed in traffic jam includes, the average (daily) travel time
of the respondents for single travel (not back-and-forth) to the Campus and
amounts to 68.06 minutes, or 1 hour 8 minutes.
Table 4.44
Respondents’ Average Travel Time, Including & Ignoring Traffic-Jam Time,
and Average Time Spent Amid Traffic Jam
xi fi fixi
17.5 minutes 392 6,860 minutes
45 minutes 239 10,755 minutes
90 minutes 173 15,570 minutes
180 minutes 62 11,160 minutes
240 minutes 7 1,680 minutes
Total 873 46,025 minutes
Average time spent, without traffic jam 52.72 minutes
Average time spent, with traffic jam 68.06 minutes
Average time spent amid traffic jam 15.34 minutes Source: survey data analysed
Disregarding the time consumed amid traffic jam, the average (daily)
travel time of the respondents for single travel (not back-and-forth) is 52.72
minutes.
The following presents the calculation of the average respondents‘
attendance frequency to Campus.
Table 4.45
Average of Respondents’ Attendance Frequency to Campus
Frequency of coming (xi) fi fixi
1 11 11
2 25 50
3 50 150
4 334 1,336
5 466 2,330
Total 886 3,877
Average coming per week 4.37 5 times per week Source: survey data analysed
68
In average, the respondents come 4.37 times to the Campus a week, during
lecturing period.
Figure 4.10
Motorcycle Ownership of Respondents Family
Source: survey data analysed
Respondents whose family has motorcycle in their house are amounted
73.7% + 18.6% = 92.3% respondents. Meanwhile, the respondents currently
using motorcycle are 42.6% respondents. It remains 49.7% leaving their
motorcycle in their houses. It means that there are other 49.7% respondents to
become potential new motorcycle users, or 116.58% of the current motorcycle
users. If all respondents owning motorcycle would come to Campus by
motorcycle, there would be twice of the bulk of motorcycles that currently are
often carried to the campus. The impact that possibly happens is that all
empty space in the campus will be all covered by motorcycles, even those
motorcycles would not all be accommodated again by the available space
69
within the campus. It even could become worse, if thousands of new students
would come to the Campus by motorcycle, plus, in the in the same time, the
number of students graduated from the campus is much smaller than the new
students.
Figure 4.11
Car Ownership of Respondents Family
Source: survey data analysed
Comparing to the current car users of only 0.07% of total students, the
potential new car users are 1.7% of total students, which means 2,500% or 25
times of the current car users. This potentiality is supported by the fact that
average distance taken by the respondents is only 5.6 km.
Table 4.46
Time-Consumed Comparison between
Motorcycle and Car in Reaching The Campus No. 8 Time with traffic jam
Motorcycle 380 respondents Car 16 respondents
a. 5-30 min 92 a. 5-30 min 2
b. 30min- 1h 144 b. 30min- 1h 4
c. 1-2h 98 c. 1-2h 4
d. 2-4h 33 d. 2-4h 4
e. >4h 13 e. >4h 2
unanswered 0 unanswered 0
70
Source: survey data analysed
In case of traffic jams motorcycles are the preferred means of transport
chosen by the respondents in order to travel to the Campus. In comparison to
the car the motorcycle would be 42.6 minutes faster (110.94 – 68.34 = 42.6).
In case there is no traffic jam, the motorcycle would be 33.93 minutes faster
(85.47 – 51.54 = 33.93) than the car.
Hence, if we average both cases above, a motorcycle is faster than a car by
(42.6 + 33.93) / 2 = 38.27 minutes.
No. 8 Time with traffic jam
Motorcycle 380 respondents Car 16 respondents
xi fi fixi xi fi fixi
17.5 min 92 1,610 min 17.5 min 2 35 min
45 min 144 6,480 min 45 min 4 180 min
90 min 98 8,820 min 90 min 4 360 min
180 min 33 5,940 min 180 min 4 720 min
240 min 13 3,120 min 240 min 2 480 min
Total 380 25,970 min Total 16 1,775 min
Average 68.34 min Average 110.94 min
No. 9 Time without traffic jam
Motorcycle 380 respondents Car 16 respondents
a. 5-30 min 140 a. 5-30 min 1
b. 30min- 1h 145 b. 30min- 1h 8
c. 1-2h 72 c. 1-2h 3
d. 2-4h 20 d. 2-4h 4
e. >4h 2 e. >4h 0
unanswered 1 unanswered 0
xi fi fixi xi fi fixi
17.5 min 140 2,450 min 17.5 min 1 17.5 min
45 min 145 6,525 min 45 min 8 360 min
90 min 72 6,480 min 90 min 3 270 min
180 min 20 3,600 min 180 min 4 720 min
240 min 2 480 min 240 min 0 0
Total 379 19,535 min Total 16 1,367.5 min
Average 51.54 min Average 85.47 min
71
Table 4.47
Respondents Family Ownership of Motorcycle and Car
Do your family own… motorcycle car
a) yes 73.7% 40.2%
b) no 7.2% 54.4%
c) more than one 18.6% 4.7%
unanswered 0.4% 0.7% Source: survey data analysed
Figure 4.12
Respondents Family Ownership of Motorcycle and Car, In Comparison
Source: survey data analysed
Table 4.47 and Figure 4.12 show that the number of motorcycles owned by
respondents is larger than the number of cars.
Table 4.48
Comparison of Respondents Opinion on Bike to and on Bike at Campus
Opinion on biking… to campus (back and forth) at (inside) campus
a) I like the idea 57.4% 59.8%
b) very likely 7.9% 24.4%
c) unlikely 13.5% 5.2%
d) not thinkable 10.9% 6.2%
e) other 10.0% 3.7%
unanswered 0.4% 0.8% Source: survey data analysed
72
Figure 4.13
Comparison of Respondents Opinion on Bike to and on Bike at Campus
Source: survey data analysed
Table 4.48 and Figure 4.13 indicate that respondents‘ preference to bike at
(inside) the campus is higher rather than to transport by bike from their home
to the Campus.
Table 4.49
Respondents’ Weighted Average Transportation Cost per Week
Transportation cost/week (xi) fi fixi
Rp2,500 132 330,000
Rp12,500 177 2,212,500
Rp35,000 294 10,290,000
Rp75,000 187 14,025,000
Rp100,000 91 9,100,000
Total 881 35,957,500
Weighted average
transportation cost/week Rp40,814.42
Source: survey data analysed
73
Table 4.49 conveys that the average transportation costs spent per week
per respondent amount to Rp 40,814.42 (As respondents averagely come to
campus 4.37 times a week, this means that the respondents spend Rp40,814.42
/ 4.37 = Rp9,339.68 per day).
The result of the calculation is true. The calculation comes from 98.9% of
the respondents comprising those using motorcycles, public transportation,
bicycle, car, walking, and using other transportations.
The table 4.49 above is more detail elaborated by the following table.
Table 4.50
Detail Elaboration of Each Level of Weekly Transportation Cost No. 15 Transportation cost/week From 891 Respondents 100.0%
1) RP 0 - RP 5.000 132 14.8% 1) motorcycle 9 1.0%
2) public transportation 6 0.7%
3) bicycle 3 0.3%
4) on foot 114 12.8%
2) RP 5.000 - RP 20.000 177 19.9% 1) motorcycle 92 10.3%
2) public transportation 45 5.1%
3) bicycle 5 0.6%
4) on foot 35 3.9%
3) RP 20.000 - RP 50.000 294 33.0% 1) motorcycle 166 18.6%
2) public transportation 80 9.0%
3) bicycle 1 0.1%
4) on foot 42 4.7%
5) car 3 0.3%
6) other 2 0.2%
4) RP 50.000 - RP 100.000 187 21.0% 1) motorcycle 84 9.4%
2) public transportation 75 8.4%
3) bicycle 6 0.7%
4) on foot 17 1.9%
5) car 3 0.3%
6) other 2 0.2%
5) >RP 100.000 91 10.2% 1) motorcycle 28 3.1%
2) public transportation 39 4.4%
3) bicycle 2 0.2%
4) on foot 12 1.3%
5) car 9 1.0%
6) other 1 0.1%
74
6) not identified 10 1.1% 1) motorcycle 1 0.1%
2) public transportation 3 0.3%
3) bicycle 1 0.1%
4) on foot 4 0.4%
5) car 1 0.1%
Source: survey data analysed
But, when it goes through the fact in the reality, found that it is not
appropriate to bring the number of respondents who walk on foot, in the
calculation, because walking is not costly. Then, it is necessary to erase the
number of respondents walking on foot, from the calculation. The detail
composition of respondents spending such transportation is as below.
Table 4.51
Detail Elaboration of Each Level of Weekly Transportation Cost,
by Ignoring Those Walking No. 15 Transportation cost/week From 891 Respondents 100.0%
1) RP 0 - RP 5.000 18 2.0% 1) motorcycle 9 1.0%
2) public transportation 6 0.7%
3) bicycle 3 0.3%
2) RP 5.000 - RP 20.000 142 15.9% 1) motorcycle 92 10.3%
2) public transportation 45 5.1%
3) bicycle 5 0.6%
3) RP 20.000 - RP 50.000 252 28.3% 1) motorcycle 166 18.6%
2) public transportation 80 9.0%
3) bicycle 1 0.1%
5) car 3 0.3%
6) other 2 0.2%
4) RP 50.000 - RP 100.000 170 19.1% 1) motorcycle 84 9.4%
2) public transportation 75 8.4%
3) bicycle 6 0.7%
5) car 3 0.3%
6) other 2 0.2%
5) >RP 100.000 79 8.9% 1) motorcycle 28 3.1%
2) public transportation 39 4.4%
3) bicycle 2 0.2%
5) car 9 1.0%
6) other 1 0.1%
75
6) not identified 6 0.7% 1) motorcycle 1 0.1%
2) public transportation 3 0.3%
3) bicycle 1 0.1%
5) car 1 0.1%
Source: survey data analysed
Table 4.52
Weighted Average Transportation Cost, Ignoring Those Walking
No. 15 Transportation cost/week 667 74.9%
1) Rp0 - Rp5.000 18 2.0%
2) Rp5.000 - Rp20.000 142 15.9%
3) Rp20.000 - Rp50.000 252 28.3%
4) Rp50.000 - Rp100.000 170 19.1%
5) >Rp100.000 79 8.9%
6) not identified 6 0.7%
Transportation cost/week (xi) fi fixi
Rp2,500 18 Rp45,000
Rp12,500 142 Rp1,775,000
Rp35,000 252 Rp8,820,000
Rp75,000 170 Rp12,750,000
Rp100,000 79 Rp7,900,000
Total 661 Rp31,290,000
Weighted average
transportation cost/week
Rp47,337.3676
Source: survey data analysed
Besides, if the bicycle users are neglected or it is presumed that those
using bicycle also do not spend any transportation cost, so the calculation
will become as the following table.
Table 4.53
Weighted Average Transportation Cost,
Ignoring Those Walking and Those Using Bicycle
No. 15 Transportation cost/week 649 72.8%
1) RP 0 - RP 5.000 15 1.7%
2) RP 5.000 - RP 20.000 137 15.4%
3) RP 20.000 - RP 50.000 251 28.2%
4) RP 50.000 - RP 100.000 164 18.4%
5) >RP 100.000 77 8.6%
6) not identified 5 0.6%
76
Transportation cost/week (xi) fi fixi
Rp2,500 15 37,500
Rp12,500 137 1,712,500
Rp35,000 251 8,785,000
Rp75,000 164 12,300,000
Rp100,000 77 7,700,000
Total 644 30,535,000
Weighted average
transportation cost/week
Rp47,414.5963
Source: survey data analysed
Hence, the total transportation costs spent by respondents using
motorcycle, public transportation, each, during four-year studying period
is calculated in the following.
Rp47,414.5963 x 16 weeks x 8 semesters = Rp6,069,068.33
Figure 4.14
Comparison of Respondents Opinion on
Car-Free UIN and Motorcycle-Free UIN
Source: survey data analysed
77
Figure 4.14 conveys that respondents rather sympathise with forbidding
cars to enter the campus, than forbidding the motorcycle on the premises of
the Campus.
Figure 4.15
Respondents’ Opinion on New Gardens Provision in
UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta’s Campus
Source: survey data analysed
Figure 4.15 indicates that 28% of the respondents are not only perceiving
gardens inside the campus as a good idea, but 65% of the respondents consider
more gardens the Campus area are desirable.
78
Figure 4.16
Respondents’ Opinion on More Vegetations Provision in
UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta’s Campus
Source: survey data analysed
Figure 4.16 shows that majority of the respondents realize that more
vegetation must exist, especially to reduce the CO2 in the campus.
79
C. Evaluation and Interpretation
1. Recapitulation of Time Consumed and Cost Spent by Respondents
Table 4.54
Summary of Weighted Average Costs and
Weighted Average Time Spent by Respondents
SUMMARY OF COST AND TIME SPENT
Weighted average maintenance cost/year Rp70,965,000
474 respondents Rp149,715.19
Weighted average distance to campus 4964 km
881 respondents 5.6 km
Weighted average time spent, with traffic jam 60,165 minutes
884 respondents 68.06 minutes
Weighted average time spent, without traffic jam 46,025 minutes
873 52.72 minutes
Weighted average time spent amid traffic jam 68.06 – 52.72 15.34 minutes
Weighted average coming per week 3,877
886 4.37 5 times
per week
Weighted average transportation costs/week 35,957,500
881 Rp40,814.42
Source: survey data analysed
The general transportation costs are Rp40,814.42 per week. In this case, no
separation between fuel cost and other transportation cost has been taken,
because of the number derived from all respondents, without differing those
who transport by their own vehicles and those who transport by public
transportation.
For those who use their own vehicles, the term ―transportation cost‖ refers
to the cost they spent for fuel.
Meanwhile, for those who use public transportation, the term
―transportation cost‖ refers to the pay for the driver or provider.
80
2. Total Cost and Total Time Spent during the 4 Years of Study
The total cost spent during the 4 years (normal) studying at the
Campus, assigned to all respondents, without differentiating the
transportation means one to another, is projected as follow.
Rp40,814.42 x 16 weeks x 8 semesters = Rp5,224,245.76
Nevertheless, due to the fact that walking on foot and transporting by
bicycle are not costly, in term of money, so then the number of
respondents walking on foot and using bicycle are excluded. As the result,
hence the real weighted average transportation cost is calculated as follow.
Rp47,414.5963 x 16 weeks x 8 semesters = Rp6,069,068.33
In addition, for particular respondents using ―motorcycle‖ and ―car‖,
they are assigned with additional costs, comprising maintenance cost and
parking costs.
The parking costs are assigned to ―motorcycle‖ and ―car‖ inside the
Campus, due to the parking as shown in the figure as follow.
Figure 4.17
Parking Cost in UIN Jakarta
Source: researcher‘s foto collection, captured from the display in UIN Syarif nHidayatullah Jakarta
81
Table 4.55
Estimated Maintenance, Transportation, Parking Costs
Spent by Motorcycle Users
Estimated total cost spent by a student during 4 years, for maintenance and transportation
Maintenance cost Rp149,715.19 x 4 years Rp598,860.76
Transportation cost Rp47,414.5963 x 16 weeks x 8 semesters Rp6,069,068.33
Parking Cost Rp500 x 5 days x 16 weeks x 8 semesters Rp320,000
Total Rp6,987,929.09 Source: survey data analysed
Table 4.56
Estimated Maintenance, Transportation, Parking Costs
Spent by Car Users
Estimated total cost spent by a student during 4 years, for maintenance and transportation
Maintenance cost Rp149,715.19 x 4 years Rp598,860.76
Transportation cost Rp47,414.5963 x 16 weeks x 8 semesters Rp6,069,068.33
Parking Cost Rp1,000 x 5 days x 16 weeks x 8 semesters Rp640.000
Total Rp7,307,929.09 Source: survey data analysed
However, the calculation in Tables 4.54 and 4.55 above are not assigned
for all respondents, but only for those using ―motorcycle‖ and ―car‖ as
transportation means to Campus.
Beside the cost in terms of money, this study also estimates the costs spent
by the students, in term of time.
Estimated total time spent by a student during 4 years, only amid the traffic jam
15.34 minutes x 5 days x 16 weeks x 8 semesters = 9,817.6 minutes = 163. 63 hours
3. Opportunity Lost of Respondents
% time amid
traffic jam = (15.34 minutes/68.06 minutes) x 100% =
22.54% of total travel time to
campus for a day
If the 22.54% is traced to the total average transportation cost of Rp5,224,245.76 (for during 4
years study period), it would be
22.54% x Rp5,224,245.76 = Rp1,177,489.42
82
Hence, it means that averagely students are losing Rp1,177,489.42 during for years only in the
middle of traffic jam, that is also meaning opportunity lost by that amount and productive time.
D. Suggested Alternative Solution
www.uinjkt.ac.id, told that the new comers are increase year by year. This
website telss that, the number of UIN Jakarta‘s students until now reached
more than 23,000 with an average new students per year approximately 4,000
people.
www.uinjkt.ac.id, supported by a correction in www.fitk-uinjkt.ac.id,
accessed 27th
March, 2013, reveals that, up the 85th
graduation in 2011, UIN
Hidayatullah Jakarta has resulted more than 50,000 alumni.
id.wikipedia.org, accessed 27th
March, 2013, reveals that, until the 72nd
graduation in 2008, UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta has resulted 36,099
alumni.
According to Lily (2011: 32),
2007 1,152 vehicles (motorcycles + cars)
2011 3,552 vehicles (motorcycles + cars)
which means an increase of 220% during 4 years. If the growth is constant for
4 years later, so in 2015 would be 220% x 3,552 vehicles = 7,814.4 7,814
vehicles.
2015 7,814 vehicles (motorcycles + cars)
2008 (72nd
graduation) 36,099 alumni, comprising 19,174 (S1) or 53.12%,
1,273 (S2) or 3.53%, and 426 (S3) or 1.18%.
83
2011 (85th
graduation) more than 50.000 alumni, but unfortunately there is
no detail information in the website. Then, we assume that the percentages are
relatively similar, that are (S-1) 53.12%, (S-2) 3.53%, and (S-3) 1.18%.
Therefore, the alumni in 2011 amount to
S-1= 53.12% x 50.000 = 26,560 alumni
S-2= 3.53% x 50.000 = 1,765 alumni
S-3= 1.18% x 50.000 = 590 alumni
Approach used: (Graduates Basis, last few convocations/graduations)
www.uinjkt.ac.id, accessed 1 April 2013, reveals that, in the 80th
Graduation, the number of graduates reached a very high number, which are
1.100 graduates.
www.uinjkt.ac.id, accessed 1 April 2013, UIN Jakarta, again, allowed at
least 841 new graduates of academic year 2011/2012. The inauguration, and at
once, the graduation ceremony were done at 86th
Graduation in Auditorium
Prof. Dr. Harun Nasution, Saturday (28/11).
www.uinjkt.ac.id, accessed 1 April 2013, tells that, UIN Jakarta‘s 87th
Graduation on Saturday (14/7) would engage 1,181 graduates.
http://www.restrojaksel.info, accessed 9th
July 2013, tells that, UIN
Jakarta‘s 88th
Graduation conducted in November 2012 inaugurated 1,166
graduates.
84
www.uinjkt.ac.id, accessed 1 April 2013, wrote that, technically, the 89th
Graduation was conducted for two days due to the number of graduates
amounted to 1.437 people.
Table 4.57
Growth of UIN Jakarta’s Graduates
Data Found in Single
Annum
Data Found in Accumulation
Wisuda-71 685 http://berasa-terbang-
tinggi.blogspot.com/2011/08/universitas-islam-
negeri-jakarta-uin.html revealed that until Wisuda-
72, UIN Jakarta has inaugurated 36,099
graduates/alumni, which means that the average per
convocation is [36,099 – 685 graduates of Wisuda
71] devided by 71 convocations, or, 35,414 71 =
498.79 499 graduates per convocation. It means
that Wisuda-72 to Wisuda-82, excluding Wisuda-
71, inaugurated 499 graduates in average.
Wisuda-83 895
Wisuda-85 683
Wisuda-86 841
http://www.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/tentang-uin.html
reveals that until Wisuda-85, revealed that until
Wisuda-85 UIN Jakarta has inaugurated more than
50,000 graduates/alumni. It means, the students
graduated between Wisuda-72 to Wisuda-85 is
amounted 50,000-36,099=13,901 graduates. To
fulfill some unidentified Wisudas, the calclulation
below is used:
13,901-(895 of Wisuda-83)-(683 of Wisuda-85)=
12,323.
There are 13 convocations between Wisuda-72 to
Wisuda-85, comprising two identified wisudas, and
the remaining 11 unidentified wisudas.
To complete the graduates number in each
unidentified wisudas, then 12,323 is devided by 11
convocations, equals to 1,120.27 1,120 graduates
per convocations.
Wisuda-87 1181
Wisuda-88 1166
Wisuda-89 1437
Wisuda-90 1345
Source: internet publication data analysed
From the table above, then the growth simulation is made and described in
the table below.
85
Table 4.58
UIN Jakarta’s Graduates Growth
Figure 4.18
Growth of UIN Jakarta’s Graduates
Source: Internet publication analysed
Table 4.59
UIN Jakarta’s Graduates Descriptive
Statistic Summary, by MS Excel
Mean 1052.75
Median 1120
Mode 1120
Standard Deviation 224.4389
Sample Variance 50372.83
Kurtosis 1.054979
Skewness -0.993964
Range 935
Minimum 502
Maximum 1437
Sum 21055
Count 20 Source: Microsoft Excel‘s Data Analysis
Graduation Graduates
Wisuda-71 685
Wisuda-72 499
Wisuda-73 1120
Wisuda-74 1120
Wisuda-75 1120
Wisuda-76 1120
Wisuda-77 1120
Wisuda-78 1120
Wisuda-79 1120
Wisuda-80 1120
Wisuda-81 1120
Wisuda-82 1120
Wisuda-83 895
Wisuda-84 1120
Wisuda-85 683
Wisuda-86 841
Wisuda-87 1181
Wisuda-88 1166
Wisuda-89 1437
Wisuda-90 1345 Source: Internet publication analysed
86
2012 23,000 total students
In average, there is an annual increase of around 4,000 students.
With the assumption that there are 3 convocations/graduations annually
Table 4.60
Forecasted Growth of UIN Jakarta’s Students from 2013 to 2017
Year Period Number of UIN Jakarta’s Students Annual Average
2012
23,000 23,000
2013 Per 89
th Graduation 23,000 existing students – 1,437 graduates = 21,563 students
22,364
Per 90th
Graduation 21,563 students – 1,345 graduates + 4,000 new comers = 24,218 students
Downward Deviation
Base Case
Upward Deviation
New Comers: 4,000, annually
Graduates: 1,053-224= 829,
every convocation
New Comers: 4,000, annually
Graduates: 1,053, every
convocation
New Comers: 4,000, annually
Graduates: 1,053+224=1,277,
every convocation
2013 Per 91st Graduation 24,218 – 829= 23,329 24,218 - 1,053= 23,165 24,218 - 1,277= 22,941
2014
Per 92nd
Graduation 23,329 – 829= 22,500 23,165 - 1,053= 22,112 22,941 - 1,277= 21, 664
23,726 Per 93rd
Graduation 22,500 – 829 + 4,000= 25,671 22,112 - 1,053 + 4,000= 25,059 21, 664 - 1,277 + 4,000= 24,287
Per 94th
Graduation 25,671 – 829= 24,842 25,059 - 1,053= 24,006 24,287 - 1,277= 23,010
2015
Per 95th
Graduation 24,842 – 829= 24,013 24,006 - 1,053= 22,953 23,010 - 1,277= 21,733
24,567 Per 96th
Graduation 24,013 – 829 + 4,000= 27,184 22,953 - 1,053 + 4,000= 25,900 21,733- 1,277 + 4,000= 24,456
Per 97th
Graduation 27,184 – 829= 26,355 25,900 - 1,053= 24,847 24,456 - 1,277= 23,179
2016
Per 98th
Graduation 26,355 – 829= 25,526 24,847 - 1,053= 23,794 23,179 - 1,277= 21,902
25,408 Per 99th
Graduation 25,526 – 829 + 4,000= 28,697 23,794 - 1,053 + 4,000= 26,741 21,902 - 1,277 + 4,000= 24,625
Per 100th
Graduation 28,697 – 829= 27,868 26,741 - 1,053= 25,688 24,625 - 1,277= 23,348
2017
Per 101st Graduation 27,868 – 829= 27,039 25,688 - 1,053= 24,635 23,348 - 1,277= 22,071
26,249 Per 102nd
Graduation 27,039 – 829 + 4,000= 30,210 24,635 - 1,053 + 4,000= 27,582 22,071 - 1,277 + 4,000= 24,794
Per 103rd
Graduation 30,210 – 829= 29,381 27,582 - 1,053= 26,529 24,794 - 1,277= 23,517 Source: Internet publication analysed
87
Figure 4.19
The Rough Forecast on the Growth of Total Students in Few Years Later
Source: Internet publication analysed
88
If it is traced to the total number of UIN Jakarta‘s students, so the generalization
of student modality to campus, as functioned to the transportation choice, would
be as follow.
Table 4.61
Forecasted Transportation Modality of UIN Jakarta’s Students in the
Highest, Base, and Lowest Possible Case
Highest
Case
Base Case Lowest
Case
No. 1 Transportation choice 100.00% 27,043 24,821 23,257
1) motorcycle 42.64871% 11,533 10,586 9,919
2) public transportation 27.83389% 7,527 6,909 6,473
3) bicycle 2.02020% 546 501 470
4) on foot 25.14029% 6,799 6,240 5,847
5) car 1.79574% 486 446 418
6) other 0.56117% 152 139 131
Total 100.00% 27,043 24,821 23,257 Source: survey data analysed under three scenarios
Due to the current condition of the Campus in which vehicles jammed in
the Campus are motorcycles and cars –also that UIN is projected to become a
Green Campus--, then the students to be accommodated by dormitory(s) or
vehicles to be accommodated by parking building(s) are maximally amounted
to 11,533 + 486 = 12,019 students (riders). This is the forecast based on
generalization of the respondents.
Meanwhile, if it is forecasted based on the vehicles growth stated by the
previous research, it would be as follow.
2007 1152 vehicles
2011 3552 vehicles
Growth of vehicles in Campus from 2007 to 2011 is 220%, which means 55%
per year.
89
It leads to an understanding that from 2011 to 2013 is growing 110% that
leads the number of vehicles increase from 3552 vehicles in 2011, to
3552 + (110% x 3552) = 3552 + 3907 = 7,459 vehicles (riders), in 2013.
To bridge between both 12,019 students (riders) and 7,459 vehicles
(riders), it is necessary to average them two. The average is (12,019 + 7,459) /
2 = 19,478 / 2 = 9,739 students (riders).
Then, if the solution to do by UIN Jakarta is building a parking area, so the
parking building must be able to accommodate 9,739 vehicles of the students
(riders).
The composition is:
Cars = (486 / 12,019) x 9,739 = 393.8 394 units
Motorcycles = (11,533 / 12,019) x 9,739 = 9,345.19 9,345 units
I Nyoman Sugita within his thesis ―Kajian Kelayakan Finansial
Pembangunan Gedung Parkir Universitas Udayana di Jalan Sudirman
Denpasar‖ (I Nyoman Sugita, 2011: 13), wrote,
―Satuan ruang parkir adalah luas efektif untuk memarkir satu kendaraan
baik mobil penumpang, truk maupun motor. Menurut buku panduan parkir
yang dikeluarkan Departemen Perhubungan Darat. Mobil penumpang
Golongan I dibedakan atas bukaan pintu mobil untuk pekerja kantoran,
universitas dan kantor pemerintah, Golongan II untuk olahragawan, pusat
hiburan, hotel, rumah sakit dan bioskop serta Golongan III untuk
penyandang cacat, karena membutuhkan pintu terbuka sangat lebar.
Tabel… berikut ini adalah table penentuan ukuran Satuan Ruang Parkir.‖
90
(Parking Space Unit is effective area to park a vehicle either passenger car,
truck, or motorcycle. Under Guidebook of Parking published by
Department of Ground Transportation, passenger car is classified
according to the width of open-door. Type I are for officers, universities,
and government officers; Type II are for sporters, entertainment center,
hotel, hospitals, and movie theaters; and Type III are for disabled people,
due to the need of very wide open-door. Table…below is the table of
measurement of the Parking Space Unit.)
Table 4.62
Type of Vehicle and Parking Space Unit
No. Type of Vehicle Parking Space Unit (m²)
1. Passenger Car Type I 2,30 x 5,00
Passenger Car Type II 2,50 x 5,00
Passenger Car Type III 3,00 x 5,00
2. Bus/Truck 3,40 x 12,5
3. Motorcycle 0,75 x 2,00 Source: Tabel 2.2 Satuan Ruang Parkir, Abubakar (1998) within
I Nyoman Sugita, 2011: 13
Under the table above, it could be understood that a car (type one: for
office, universities, and government) is equivalent 7 motorcycles, in term of
Parking Space Unit. The calculation is below.
1 car type I = (2.30 x 5.00) / (0.75 x 2.00) motorcycles = 11.5 / 1.5 =
7.66666667 7 motorcycles.
The need of UIN Jakarta is:
Car = 394 units
Motorcycles = 9,345 units equivalent to 9,345 / 7 cars = 1,335 cars
Hence, the total need of parking building of UIN Jakarta is equivalent to 394
cars + 1,335 cars = 1,729 cars.
91
Based on ekonomi.kompasiana.com, accessed March 24, 2013, with
capacity of 1000 cars a parking building could costs around Rp 60 billion on
an area of 30.000 m2, in which per m2 of the land is priced Rp 2 million.
Then, the cost needed by UIN Jakarta is around:
(1,729 / 1000) x Rp60,000,000,000 = 1.729 x Rp60,000,000,000 =
Rp103,740,000,000.
Assuming that this parking building is depreciated for 25 years by using
straight-line method, then its annual depreciation cost is as below, referring to
the formula deliberated in Financial Accounting, 3rd
edition (Robert Libby
et.al., 2001: 433) and Financial Accounting, 5th
edition (Libby et.al..2007:
409).
Depreciable Amount x Straight-Line Rate = Annual Depreciation Expense
(Cost – Residual Value) x 1/Useful Life = Annual Depreciation Expense
The annual depreciation is then,
(Rp103,740,000,000 – Rp 0) x 1/25 = Rp4,149,600,000.
Below is financial analysis of parking building.
Table 4.63
Forecasted Operational Cost
Annual cost Detail
Unit Cost Period (months) Price (Rp)
Usage of Electricity 1.000.000 12 12.000.000
Wage of Employee 1 manager 3.200.000 12 38.400.000
2 security guards 2.200.000 12 26.400.000
2 technicians 2.200.000 12 26.400.000
2 officers 2.200.000 12 26.400.000
2 cleaning services 2.200.000 12 26.400.000
Maintenance Costs Lump-sum 12 12.000.000
Total 168.000.000
Derived and reconstructed from Hasil analisis, 2011, I Nyoman Sugita, 2011: 59
PARKING BUILDING
92
Figure 4.20
Parking Tariff in UIN Jakarta
Source: author‘s photo collection, captured 9
th February 2012
The formula used is the present value of year by year (or also known as
present value of C to be received in t periods at r percent per period) by formula
below, as revealed in book Essentials of Corporate Finance (Ross et.al., 2007:
109).
The interest rate to discount the future value into present value is BI rate,
which is middle value between interest rates of banks and the inflation rate. Below
are BI rates from 5 July 2005 up to 7 March 2013. The discount rate used in the
calculation is the average of those BI rates.
Below is BI rates (Based on decision of board meeting) from 5th
July 2005 to
7th
March 2013, in www.bi.go.id, accessed 8th
April 2013.
Table 4.64
BI Rate (Based on decision of board meeting), 5th
July 2005 to 7th
March 2013
No. Period BI Rate No. Period BI Rate No. Period BI Rate
1 7 March 2013 5.75% 32 4-Aug-10 6.50% 63 8-Jan-08 8.00%
2 12 Feb 2013 5.75% 33 5-Jul-10 6.50% 64 6-Dec-07 8.00%
3 10 Jan 2013 5.75% 34 3-Jun-10 6.50% 65 6-Nov-07 8.25%
4 11 Dec 2012 5.75% 35 5-May-10 6.50% 66 8-Oct-07 8.25%
93
No. Period BI Rate No. Period BI Rate No. Period BI Rate
5 8 Nov 2012 5.75% 36 6-Apr-10 6.50% 67 6-Sep-07 8.25%
6 11 Oct 2012 5.75% 37 4-Mar-10 6.50% 68 7-Aug-07 8.25%
7 13 Sept 2012 5.75% 38 4-Feb-10 6.50% 69 5-Jul-07 8.25%
8 9 Aug 2012 5.75% 39 6-Jan-10 6.50% 70 7-Jun-07 8.50%
9 12-Jul-12 5.75% 40 3-Dec-09 6.50% 71 8-May-07 8.75%
10 12-Jun-12 5.75% 41 4-Nov-09 6.50% 72 5-Apr-07 9.00%
11 10-May-12 5.75% 42 5-Oct-09 6.50% 73 6-Mar-07 9.00%
12 12-Apr-12 5.75% 43 3-Sep-09 6.50% 74 6-Feb-07 9.25%
13 8-Mar-12 5.75% 44 5-Aug-09 6.50% 75 4-Jan-07 9.50%
14 9-Feb-12 5.75% 45 3-Jul-09 6.75% 76 7-Dec-06 9.75%
15 12-Jan-12 6.00% 46 3-Jun-09 7.00% 77 7-Nov-06 10.25%
16 8-Dec-11 6.00% 47 5-May-09 7.25% 78 5-Oct-06 10.75%
17 10-Nov-11 6.00% 48 3-Apr-09 7.50% 79 5-Sep-06 11.25%
18 11-Oct-11 6.50% 49 4-Mar-09 7.75% 80 8-Aug-06 11.75%
19 8-Sep-11 6.75% 50 4-Feb-09 8.25% 81 6-Jul-06 12.25%
20 9-Aug-11 6.75% 51 7-Jan-09 8.75% 82 6-Jun-06 12.50%
21 12-Jul-11 6.75% 52 4-Dec-08 9.25% 83 9-May-06 12.50%
22 9-Jun-11 6.75% 53 6-Nov-08 9.50% 84 5-Apr-06 12.75%
23 12-May-11 6.75% 54 7-Oct-08 9.50% 85 7-Mar-06 12.75%
24 12-Apr-11 6.75% 55 4-Sep-08 9.25% 86 7-Feb-06 12.75%
25 4-Mar-11 6.75% 56 5-Aug-08 9.00% 87 9-Jan-06 12.75%
26 4-Feb-11 6.75% 57 3-Jul-08 8.75% 88 6-Dec-05 12.75%
27 5-Jan-11 6.50% 58 5-Jun-08 8.50% 89 1-Nov-05 12.25%
28 3-Dec-10 6.50% 59 6-May-08 8.25% 90 4-Oct-05 11.00%
29 4-Nov-10 6.50% 60 3-Apr-08 8.00% 91 6-Sep-05 10.00%
30 5-Oct-10 6.50% 61 6-Mar-08 8.00% 92 9-Aug-05 8.75%
31 3-Sep-10 6.50% 62 6-Feb-08 8.00% 93 5-Jul-05 8.50%
AVERAGE 7.98% 8% Source: internet publication (www.bi.go.id)
95
Table 4.65
Payback Period and Discounted Payback Period of Parking Building
Year
Initial Investment
(Rp)
Operational Cost
(Rp) Monthly
payment
9345 motorcycles
x 12 months Monthly
payment
394 Cars
x 12 months
Revenue
(Rp) Undiscounted Net
Inflow
(Rp) Accumulated
Net Inflow
(Rp)
Discounted
Net Inflow
(Rp)
Accumulated Discounted-
Net-Inflow
(Rp) *) increase 10% per
annum 112140 4718 (4+6)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
0 -103.740.000.000 - - - - - - - - - -
1 -168.000.000 100.000 11.214.000.000 150.000 707.700.000 11.921.700.000 11.753.700.000 11.753.700.000 10.883.055.555,56 10.883.055.555,56
2 -184.800.000 110.000 12.335.400.000 160.000 754.880.000 13.090.280.000 12.905.480.000 24.659.180.000 11.064.368.998,63 21.947.424.554,18
3 -203.280.000 120.000 13.456.800.000 170.000 802.060.000 14.258.860.000 14.055.580.000 38.714.760.000 11.157.772.570,24 33.105.197.124,42
4 -223.608.000 130.000 14.578.200.000 180.000 849.240.000 15.427.440.000 15.203.832.000 53.918.592.000 11.175.270.396,90 44.280.467.521,32
5 -245.968.800 140.000 15.699.600.000 190.000 896.420.000 16.596.020.000 16.350.051.200 70.268.643.200 11.127.570.117,36 55.408.037.638,69
6 -270.565.680 150.000 16.821.000.000 200.000 943.600.000 17.764.600.000 17.494.034.320 87.762.677.520 11.024.209.080,11 66.432.246.718,80
7 -297.622.248 160.000 17.942.400.000 210.000 990.780.000 18.933.180.000 18.635.557.752 106.398.235.272 10.873.668.958,64 77.305.915.677,45
8 -327.384.473 170.000 19.063.800.000 220.000 1.037.960.000 20.101.760.000 19.774.375.527 126.172.610.799 10.683.479.807,80 87.989.395.485,25
9 -360.122.920 180.000 20.185.200.000 230.000 1.085.140.000 21.270.340.000 20.910.217.080 147.082.827.879 10.460.314.496,72 98.449.709.981,97
10 Payback -396.135.212 190.000 21.306.600.000 240.000 1.132.320.000 22.438.920.000 22.042.784.788 169.125.612.667 10.210.074.373,01 108.659.784.354,99
11 -435.748.733 200.000 22.428.000.000 250.000 1.179.500.000 23.607.500.000 23.171.751.267 192.297.363.934 9.937.966.939,12 118.597.751.294,11
12 -479.323.607 210.000 23.549.400.000 260.000 1.226.680.000 24.776.080.000 24.296.756.393 216.594.120.327 9.648.576.254,28 128.246.327.548,39
13 -527.255.967 220.000 24.670.800.000 270.000 1.273.860.000 25.944.660.000 25.417.404.033 242.011.524.360 9.345.926.713,38 137.592.254.261,77
14 -579.981.564 230.000 25.792.200.000 280.000 1.321.040.000 27.113.240.000 26.533.258.436 268.544.782.796 9.033.540.797,87 146.625.795.059,65
15 -637.979.720 240.000 26.913.600.000 290.000 1.368.220.000 28.281.820.000 27.643.840.280 296.188.623.075 8.714.491.341,54 155.340.286.401,18
16 -701.777.692 250.000 28.035.000.000 300.000 1.415.400.000 29.450.400.000 28.748.622.308 324.937.245.383 8.391.448.807,08 163.731.735.208,27
17
-771.955.462 260.000 29.156.400.000 310.000 1.462.580.000 30.618.980.000 29.847.024.538 354.784.269.921 8.066.724.025,73 171.798.459.234,00
18 -849.151.008 270.000 30.277.800.000 320.000 1.509.760.000 31.787.560.000 30.938.408.992 385.722.678.913 7.742.306.812,67 179.540.766.046,67
19 -934.066.109 280.000 31.399.200.000 330.000 1.556.940.000 32.956.140.000 32.022.073.891 417.744.752.805 7.419.900.834,81 186.960.666.881,48
20 -1.027.472.720 290.000 32.520.600.000 340.000 1.604.120.000 34.124.720.000 33.097.247.280 450.842.000.085 7.100.955.074,03 194.061.621.955,51
21 -1.130.219.991 300.000 33.642.000.000 350.000 1.651.300.000 35.293.300.000 34.163.080.009 485.005.080.094 6.786.692.199,29 200.848.314.154,79
22 -1.243.241.991 310.000 34.763.400.000 360.000 1.698.480.000 36.461.880.000 35.218.638.009 520.223.718.103 6.478.134.132,48 207.326.448.287,27
23 -1.367.566.190 320.000 35.884.800.000 370.000 1.745.660.000 37.630.460.000 36.262.893.810 556.486.611.913 6.176.125.068,49 213.502.573.355,77
24 -1.504.322.809 330.000 37.006.200.000 380.000 1.792.840.000 38.799.040.000 37.294.717.191 593.781.329.105 5.881.352.186,09 219.383.925.541,85
25 -1.654.755.090 340.000 38.127.600.000 390.000 1.840.020.000 39.967.620.000 38.312.864.910 632.094.194.015 5.594.364.265,44 224.978.289.807,29
Payback 9.09 years OR 9 years 1.3 months
Source: financial forecast
Note: *) 10% increase in the operational cost is an assumption on the growth of the Regional Minimum Wage (UMR) rate per annum.
94
96
While, if UIN Jakarta is willing to solve the problem by building student dormitories, the
established Ma‘had ‗Aly might be a standard, as its location in the same area, that is Jakarta,
in which the price of the land and other costs such as labor costs and the like are relatively the
same.
According to www.uinjkt.ac.id, accessed 27 march 2013, Ma‘had Aly UIN Jakarta was
built by spending Rp 5.3 miliar by construction period = 4 months.
First step : 29 rooms @ 4 students, plus living room, auditorium, library, fitness room,
kitchen, and bathroom in each floor.
Second step : 24 rooms @ 4 students, plus mushalla in each floor.
Hence, the capacity is (29 + 24) rooms x 4 students = 53 rooms x 4 students = 212 students.
The need of UIN Jakarta is 9,739 students. Then, the total cost needed is around:
(9,739 students / 212 students) x Rp5,300,000,000 = 45.93867 x Rp5,300,000,000 =
Rp243,475,000,000.
Table 4.66
Forecasted Operational Cost
Annual cost
Detail
Unit Cost
Period
(months) Price (Rp)
Usage of Electricity,
Water, and Facilities
2353 rooms
400.000 12 11.294.400.000 (@ 4 students or less)
Wage of Employee
1 manager
3.200.000 12 38.400.000
20 securities 2.200.000 12 528.000.000
4 technicians 2.200.000 12 105.600.000
50 office boys 2.200.000 12 1.320.000.000
Maintenance Costs
Lump-sum 12 100.000.000
Total 13.386.400.000
Derived and reconstructed from Hasil analisis, 2011, I Nyoman Sugita, 2011: 59
Using straight-line method, the annual depreciation is then,
(Rp243,475,000,000 – Rp 0) x 1/25 = Rp9,739,000,000.
DORMITORIES
98
Table 4.67
Payback Period and Discounted Payback Period of Dormitories
rate: 0.08
Economic: 50% 4869.5 students ≈ 4870 students
fee 2,000,000
Moderate: 30% 2921.7 students ≈ 2922 students
fee increase Rp500,000 annually
Deluxe: 20% 1947.8 students ≈ 1948 students
students 9739
Year
Initial Investment
(Rp)
Operational Cost Annual Payment per Student Revenue
Total Revenue Undiscounted
Net Inflow
Accumulated
Net Inflow
Discounted
Net Inflow
Accumulated
Discounted-Net-Inflow
(Rp)
(Rp) Economic Moderate Deluxe Economic Moderate Deluxe
*) increase 10%
per annum
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
0 -243,475,000,000 - - - - - - - - - - - -
1 -13.386.400.000 2.400.000 6.000.000 10.000.000 11.686.800.000 17.530.200.000 19.478.000.000 48.695.000.000 35.308.600.000 35.308.600.000 32.693.148.148,15 32.693.148.148,15
2 -14.725.040.000 2.900.000 6.500.000 10.500.000 14.121.550.000 18.991.050.000 20.451.900.000 53.564.500.000 38.839.460.000 74.148.060.000 33.298.576.817,56 65.991.724.965,71
3 -16.197.544.000 3.400.000 7.000.000 11.000.000 16.556.300.000 20.451.900.000 21.425.800.000 58.434.000.000 42.236.456.000 116.384.516.000 33.528.660.519,23 99.520.385.484,94
4 -17.817.298.400 3.900.000 7.500.000 11.500.000 18.991.050.000 21.912.750.000 22.399.700.000 63.303.500.000 45.486.201.600 161.870.717.600 33.433.716.066,32 132.954.101.551,25
5 -19.599.028.240 4.400.000 8.000.000 12.000.000 21.425.800.000 23.373.600.000 23.373.600.000 68.173.000.000 48.573.971.760 210.444.689.360 33.058.628.993,05 166.012.730.544,30
6 -21.558.931.064 4.900.000 8.500.000 12.500.000 23.860.550.000 24.834.450.000 24.347.500.000 73.042.500.000 51.483.568.936 261.928.258.296 32.443.381.427,01 198.456.111.971,31
7 -23.714.824.170 5.400.000 9.000.000 13.000.000 26.295.300.000 26.295.300.000 25.321.400.000 77.912.000.000 54.197.175.830 316.125.434.126 31.623.531.546,90 230.079.643.518,22
8 Payback -26.086.306.587 5.900.000 9.500.000 13.500.000 28.730.050.000 27.756.150.000 26.295.300.000 82.781.500.000 56.695.193.413 372.820.627.538 30.630.648.901,63 260.710.292.419,84
9 -28.694.937.246 6.400.000 10.000.000 14.000.000 31.164.800.000 29.217.000.000 27.269.200.000 87.651.000.000 58.956.062.754 431.776.690.292 29.492.709.498,73 290.203.001.918,58
10 -31.564.430.971 6.900.000 10.500.000 14.500.000 33.599.550.000 30.677.850.000 28.243.100.000 92.520.500.000 60.956.069.029 492.732.759.321 28.234.454.233,56 318.437.456.152,14
11 -34.720.874.068 7.400.000 11.000.000 15.000.000 36.034.300.000 32.138.700.000 29.217.000.000 97.390.000.000 62.669.125.932 555.401.885.253 26.877.713.921,96 345.315.170.074,10
12 -38.192.961.475 7.900.000 11.500.000 15.500.000 38.469.050.000 33.599.550.000 30.190.900.000 102.259.500.000 64.066.538.525 619.468.423.779 25.441.703.917,23 370.756.873.991,33
13 -42.012.257.622 8.400.000 12.000.000 16.000.000 40.903.800.000 35.060.400.000 31.164.800.000 107.129.000.000 65.116.742.378 684.585.166.156 23.943.291.033,76 394.700.165.025,09
14 -46.213.483.384 8.900.000 12.500.000 16.500.000 43.338.550.000 36.521.250.000 32.138.700.000 111.998.500.000 65.785.016.616 750.370.182.772 22.397.235.263,06 417.097.400.288,15
15 -50.834.831.723 9.400.000 13.000.000 17.000.000 45.773.300.000 37.982.100.000 33.112.600.000 116.868.000.000 66.033.168.277 816.403.351.049 20.816.408.552,01 437.913.808.840,15
16 -55.918.314.895 9.900.000 13.500.000 17.500.000 48.208.050.000 39.442.950.000 34.086.500.000 121.737.500.000 65.819.185.105 882.222.536.154 19.211.992.714,76 457.125.801.554,92
17 -61.510.146.385 10.400.000 14.000.000 18.000.000 50.642.800.000 40.903.800.000 35.060.400.000 126.607.000.000 65.096.853.615 947.319.389.770 17.593.658.369,04 474.719.459.923,95
18 -67.661.161.023 10.900.000 14.500.000 18.500.000 53.077.550.000 42.364.650.000 36.034.300.000 131.476.500.000 63.815.338.977 1.011.134.728.747 15.969.726.621,70 490.689.186.545,65
19 -74.427.277.125 11.400.000 15.000.000 19.000.000 55.512.300.000 43.825.500.000 37.008.200.000 136.346.000.000 61.918.722.875 1.073.053.451.621 14.347.315.077,31 505.036.501.622,96
20 -81.870.004.838 11.900.000 15.500.000 19.500.000 57.947.050.000 45.286.350.000 37.982.100.000 141.215.500.000 59.345.495.162 1.132.398.946.783 12.732.469.604,54 517.768.971.227,50
21 -90.057.005.322 12.400.000 16.000.000 20.000.000 60.381.800.000 46.747.200.000 38.956.000.000 146.085.000.000 56.027.994.678 1.188.426.941.462 11.130.283.169,15 528.899.254.396,66
22 -99.062.705.854 12.900.000 16.500.000 20.500.000 62.816.550.000 48.208.050.000 39.929.900.000 150.954.500.000 51.891.794.146 1.240.318.735.608 9.545.002.926,13 538.444.257.322,79
23 -108.968.976.439 13.400.000 17.000.000 21.000.000 65.251.300.000 49.668.900.000 40.903.800.000 155.824.000.000 46.855.023.561 1.287.173.759.169 7.980.126.658,19 546.424.383.980,98
24 -119.865.874.083 13.900.000 17.500.000 21.500.000 67.686.050.000 51.129.750.000 41.877.700.000 160.693.500.000 40.827.625.917 1.328.001.385.086 6.438.489.550,87 552.862.873.531,85
25 -131.852.461.491 14.400.000 18.000.000 22.000.000 70.120.800.000 52.590.600.000 42.851.600.000 165.563.000.000 33.710.538.509 1.361.711.923.594 4.922.342.206,51 557.785.215.738,36
Payback 7.117 years OR 7 years 1.4 months
Source: financial forecast
Note: *) 10% increase in the operational cost is an assumption on the growth of the Regional Minimum Wage (UMR) rate per annum.
97
99
Meanwhile, as both projects are assumed under perpetuity investment,
which means that it has the same amount of cash flow every year forever (time
without end; eternity), it could be compared between both by using Perpetuity
formula revealed by Essentials of Corporate Finance (Ross et.al., 2007: 131-
132), as the following.
Perpetuity PV = C/r
C/r = 100,200,000,000/0.08 = 1,252,500,000,000 (parking building)
C/r = 235,250,000,000/0.08 = 2,940,625,000,000 (dormitories)
100
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION, IMPLICATION, AND RECOMMENDATION
A. Conclusion
The analysis of the survey results shows that:
1. Motorcycle as means of transport is used by 42.6% of the respondents.
Public transportation has the second priority as transportation-means
(27.8% of the respondents)
2. Faster transportation is preferred by the respondents rather than cheaper
one.
3. ―Other‖ means of transport such as bajaj, ojek, and andong/delman, are
taken for distances of 6.6 km. The costs in average amount to Rp8,000 per
ride. In general, the ―other‖ means of transport are 4 times a week to the
campus. While, in the other hand, the average frequency of the overall
respondents to travel to Campus by using motorcycles, public
transportations, cars, bicycles, or walking on foot, indicate 5 times a week.
4. There are 7.41% of the respondents consisting of motorcycle and car users
who are not maintaining their vehicles.
5. In average, the respondents spend Rp149,715.19 ( Rp150,000) per year
for maintenance, what sense Rp12,500 per month (which is meaning
Rp416.67 if traced into daily-basis).
6. The average distance per ride is indicated by respondents with 5.6 km,
hence the daily distance per day is 11.2 km.
101
7. If the time spent amid traffic jam is included, averagely, respondents spent
68.06 minutes for single travel (not return) to campus. While, if the traffic
is fluent and not jammed by congestions, they spend in average only 52.72
minutes. It means, averagely 15.34 minutes are spent in the traffic jam.
8. In average, going to the Campus by motorcycle is 38.27 minutes faster
than by car.
9. The respondents whose family own a motorcycle amount to 92.3%.
Whereas 42.6% of the respondents currently come by motorcycles to
campus. It means there are another 49.7% (= 92.3% - 42.6%) potential
motorcycle-users, who could come to Campus by motorcycle.
10. There are 73.70% of the respondents owning motorcycles, while, 40.2%
indicate that their family owns a car. The 73.70% owning motorcycle are
consisting of 55.1% who own one motorcycle and 18.60% who own more
than one motorcycle. While, the 40.2% indicate to own a family car are
consisting of 35.5% of respondents indicate that their family owns one car
and 4.70% of respondents‘ families own more than one car.
11. Respondents would rather prefer to bike at (inside) the campus, than
having the bike as means of transport from home to the Campus.
12. The average transportation costs of respondents amount to Rp8,162.88 per
day.
13. The majority of respondents prefer to choose UIN to become car-free (no
car allowed to enter the campus) rather than motorcycle-free (motorcycle
is forbiden to enter the campus).
102
14. Most respondents support the provision of new gardens and more
vegetation in the campus.
15. The estimated total time spent by students during the 4 years program in
the traffic jam (waiting) amounts to 163.63 hours. Per day these are 15.34
minutes, which means 22.54% of total travel time to Campus the student is
waiting in traffic jam. If the 22.54% is traced to the total average
transportation costs of Rp5,224,245.76 (for the 4 years study period), it
would be loss of 22.54% x Rp5,224,245.76 = Rp1,177,489.42, in
comparison to total transportation costs of the 4 year-study-period.
16. The probability of new car users is less than that of new motorcycle users,
because the preference of the respondents is on the speed.
17. It is very likely that those who currently do not come by their own vehicles
to Campus, would more likely prefer a motorcycle than a car.
B. Implication
1. Respondents whose family has motorcycle in their house are amounted to
73.7% respondents + 18.6% respondents = 92.3% respondents.
Meanwhile, the respondents currently using motorcycle are 42.6%
respondents. It remains 49.7% leaving their motorcycle in at home. This
means that there are 49.7% of the respondents with the potentiality of
becoming new motorcycle users. This signifies an increase 116.58% of the
current motorcycle users. If all respondents owning motorcycles would
come to Campus by motorcycle, there would be twice of the bulk of
motorcycles that currently are often carried to the campus. The impact
103
that possibly happens is that all empty space in the campus will be all
covered by motorcycles, even those motorcycles would not all be
accommodated again by the available space within the campus. It even
could become worse, if thousands of new students would come to the
Campus by motorcycle, because in the in the same time, the number of
students that will graduated from the campus is much smaller than the
number of new students.
2. The number of motorcycles is growing faster than the number of cars at
the Campus. Due to the fact that respondents prefer rather ―faster‖
transportation than ―cheaper‖ one, it is very likely that the amount of
motorcycles coming in to the campus will increase.
3. The majority of the respondents support to implementation of new gardens
and vegetations in the campus. The majority of respondents also would
prefer to bike inside the campus. This contributes to the vision to make
UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Campus to become a Green Campus.
4. It is realized that UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta (UIN Jakarta) needs
wider area to build a huge particular parking building outside the Campus,
or to build more dormitories with such wide capacity as suggested by this
research. But, in accordance with http://www.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/arsip-
berita-utama/2439-uin-jakarta-pasang-plang-di-atas-tanah-triguna-
utama.html, UIN Jakarta owns the 3,390 m2 area in the north of its
campus, which is now in dispute against Yayasan Perguruan Islam
Triguna Utama. Besides, according to
104
http://www.bantenposnews.com/berita-876-uin-syarif-hidayatullah-
hadapi-2-gugatan-perdata.html, the 96,250 m2 area of the ―Komplek
Dosen UIN Jakarta‖ is still under the right of UIN Jakarta. This area
allows UIN Jakarta to build more dormitories to accommodate the suttle-
students.
5. In the perspective of business opportunity, the building of more
dormitories might increase the number of students living around the
Campus. This might lead to the increase of students consumptions, which
are positif externalities, that allows the business activity (such as
photocopy, warteg, kosan, internet rental, laundry, etc.) around the
Campus and the dormitories to boost and rocketing.
C. Recommendation
Considering the conclusions and implications above, the
recommendations to the Campus management of UIN Syarif Hidayatullah
Jakarta are as the following.
1. To build more dormitories, with the required capacity, as discussed in the
Chapter IV. This recommendation is in accordance with the financial
analysis (feasibility study) conducted, resulted that the discounted
payback-period of the dormitories building is 10 years faster than parking
building, which might be better in the investors‘ point of view if UIN
Jakarta‘s management is going to let the dormitories built are getting
funded by investors (from Islamic Development Bank, or others).
105
2. To build special parking building outside or at the entrance of the campus
area, so that there are cars and motorcycles in the campus area or at least
that the traffic can be channeled in a certain area at the Campus. This is
recommended to be conducted, when funding the dormitories building is
not currently possible.
3. To hold regular emission tests minimally once a year for a certain period,
to ensure the exhaust quality of the vehicles is within a good standard.
4. To provide bikes and electric bikes in the campus.
5. To redesign the green path in the campus.
6. To green the Campus with special vegetation that is able to absorb dust
and CO2.
106
REFERENCES
A. Tresna Sastrawijaya, M.Sc., ―Pencemaran Lingkungan”, Rineka Cipta,
Jakarta, 2000.
Abu Fatiah Al-Adnani, ―Global Warming: Sebuah Isyarat Dekatnya Akhir Zaman
dan Kehancuran Dunia”, Granada Mediatama, Surakarta, 2008.
Aula Ahmad Hafidh Saiful Fikri, ―Cost-Benefit Analysis (Modul Mata Kuliah
Evaluasi Proyek)‖, FEIS UNY, Yogyakarta, 2010.
Barry, John, ―Towards a Model of Green Political Economy: from Ecological
Modernisation to Economic Security‖, Int. J. Green Economics, Vol. 1,
Nos. 3 / 4, Inderscience Enterprise Ltd., Belfast, UK, 2007.
Berman, Jeff, ―Maximizing Project Value: Defining, Managing, and Measuring
for Optimal Return‖, AMACOM, New York, 2007.
Blocher, Edward J., Kung H. Chen, and Thomas W. Lin, ―Manajemen Biaya:
dengan Tekanan Stratejik”, buku 1 (translated from Cost Management: a
Strategic Emphasis), Salemba Empat, Jakarta, 2000.
Brian McMahon, ―Student Housing Options in the Midway”, Russell Stark,
University UNITED, December 14, 2001.
Diehl, P. L. and L. R. Gay, ―Research Methods for Business and Management‖,
Macmillan, New York, 1992.
Douglas, Evan J., ―Managerial Economics: Analysis and Strategy”, 4th
edition,
Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 1992.
Hammer, DBA, CPA, Adolph Matz, Ph.D., Milton F. Usry, Ph.D., CPA, and
Lawrence H., ―Akuntansi Biaya: Perencanaan dan Pengendalian”, jilid I,
edisi 9 (translated by Alfonsus Sirait, S.E. and Herman Wibowo from Cost
Accounting: Planning and Control, 9th
edition), Erlangga, Jakarta, 1997.
Hammitt, James K. and Lisa A. Robinson, ―Behavioral Economics and the
Conduct of Benefit-Cost Analysis: Towards Principles and Standard”,
Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis: Vol. 2: Iss. 2, Article 5, Berkeley
Electronic Press, 2011.
I G Narendra Kasuma, ―Analisis Kelayakan Finansial Rencana Pembangunan
Gedung Parkir Bertingkat di Pasar Lokitasari”, Tesis, Denpasar, Program
Pascasarjana Universitas Udayana, 2011.
107
I Nyoman Sugita, ―Kajian Kelayakan Finansial Pembangunan Gedung Parkir
Universitas Udayana di Jalan Sudirman Denpasar”, Tesis, Denpasar,
Program Magister Program Studi Teknik Sipil Program Pascasarjana
Universitas Udayana, 2011.
Iman Soeharto, ―Manajemen Proyek: dari Konseptual Sampai Operasional‖,
Erlangga, Jakarta, 1995
Keller, Philip Kotler, and Kevin Lane, ―Marketing Management”, global edition,
14e. Pearson Education, publishing as Prentice Hall, United States of
America, 2012.
Khusnul Khotimah, Ir., MM., Ir. Sutawi, MP., Ir. Adi Sutanto, MM., Ir. Maleha,
MS., & Ir. Evita S. Hani, MP., ―Evaluasi Proyek dan Perencanaan
Usaha‖, Ghalia Indonesia, Jakarta, 2002.
Libby, Libby, and Short, ―Financial Accounting”, fifth edition, New York,
McGraw-Hill, 2007.
Lily Surayya Eka Putri, M.Env.Stud., et. al. (2011: 32) within Strategi
Pengembangan UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta Menuju Eco-Campus.
Ludfi Djakfar, Amelia Kusuma Indriastuti, Akhmad Sya‘ban Nasution, ―Studi
Karakteristik dan Model Pemilihan Moda Angkutan Mahasiswa Menuju
Kampus (Sepeda Motor atau Angkutan Umum) di Kota Malang, Malang,
Jurusan Teknik Sipil, Fakultas Teknik, Universitas Brawijaya, 2010.
Maringan Masry Simbolon, ―Ekonomi Transportasi‖, Jakarta, Ghalia Indonesia,
2003.
Mazzeo, Nicolas A. and Laura E. Venegas, ―Air Pollution Dispersion inside a
Street Canyon of Gottinger Strasse (Hannover, Germany): New Results of
the Analysis of Full Scale Data‖, Int. J. Environment and Pollution, Vol.
40, Nos. 1/2/3, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd., Buenos Aires, Argentina,
2010.
Muchtarudin Siregar, ―Beberapa Masalah Ekonomi dan Management
Pengangkutan‖, Lembaga Penerbit FE UI, Jakarta, 1981.
McLead, Raymond Jr. and Eleanor Jordan, ―System Development: A Project
Management Approach‖, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 2002.
Mudrajad Kuncoro, Ph.D., ―Metode Riset untuk Bisnis & Ekonomi‖, Erlangga,
Jakarta, 2003.
Mudrajad Kuncoro, Ph.D., ―Metode Riset untuk Bisnis & Ekonomi‖, edisi 3,
Erlangga, Jakarta, 2009.
108
Mulyadi, Drs., M.Sc., ―Akuntansi Biaya”, edisi ke-4, BPFE, Yogyakarta, 1990.
M. Nur Nasution, Drs., M.S.Tr., ―Manajemen Transportasi‖, Ghalia Indonesia,
Jakarta, 2004.
Niswonger, Warren, Reeve, and Fess, ―Prinsip-Prinsip Akuntansi‖, jilid 1, edisi
19, Jakarta, Erlangga, 1999.
Panitat, Ratanawichit, ―The Appropriate Walkway towards Sustainable
Transportation in the University Community: a Case Study of Kasetsart
University, Bangkhen Campus‖, Faculty of Architecture, Kasetsart
University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Peter Lewin, as as an Assistant Professor of Economics and Political Economy at
The University of Texas at Dallas, within Journal ―Pollution Externalities:
Social Cost and Strict Liability‖, Cato Journal, Vol. 2, No. 1 (Spring
1982).
Rajan, Madhav V., Michael W. Maher, and William N. Lanen, ―Fundamentals of
Cost Accounting‖, McGraw-Hill, New York, 2006.
Richard N. Langlois, ―Cost-Benefit Analysis, Environmentalism, and Rights‖,
derived from http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-
journal/1982/5/cj2n1-9.pdf.
Richard N. Langlois. Cost-benefit analysis, Environmentalism, and rights. Cato
Journal, vol. 2, No. I (Spring 1982). Copyright © Cato Institute.
Robert Libby, Patricia A. Libby, and Daniel G. Short, ―Financial Accounting”,
third edition, New York, McGraw-Hill, 2001.
Ross, Westerfield, Jordan, ―Fundamentals of Corporate Finance”, Alternate
Edition, Ninth Edition, McGraw-Hill International Edition, New York,
2010.
Ross, Westerfield, Jaffe, ―Corporate Finance‖, 6th
edition, Revised Printing,
McGraw-Hill, New York, 2002.
Ross, Westerfield, Jordan, ―Essentials of Corporate Finance”, fifth edition,
McGraw-Hill, New York, 2007.
Rudy Setiawan, ―Studi Kelayakan Pembangunan Gedung Parkir dan Analisis
„Willingness to Pay‟: Studi Kasus di Universitas Kristen Petra”,
Surabaya.
109
Rustian Kamaluddin, Prof., Drs., H., ―Ekonomi Transportasi: Karakteristik,
Teori, dan Kebijakan‖, Ghalia Indonesia, Jakarta, 2003.
Saaty, Thomas L., ―Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory, with
The Analytic Hierarchy Process”, Vol. VI of the AHP Series, RWS
Publications, Pittsburgh, 1994.
Sharp, Ansel M., Charles A. Register, and Paul W. Grimes, ―Economics of Social
Issues”, fifteenth edition, McGraw-Hill Higher Education, New York,
2002.
Sheridan Titman, Arthur J. Keon, John D. Martin, ―Financial Management:
Principles and Applications‖, Eleventh Edition, Pearson, Boston, 2011.
Suad Husnan, MBA and Drs. Suwarsono, ―Studi Kelayakan Proyek: Konsep,
Teknik, dan Penyusunan Laporan‖, BPFE Yogyakarta and LPM2M AMP-
YKPN Kampus Balapan Yogyakarta, Yogyakarta, 1984.
S. Eko Putro Widoyoko, Prof. Dr., M.Pd., ―Teknik Penyusunan Instrumen
Penelitian”, Pustaka Pelajar, Yogyakarta, 2012.
Sudjana, MA, M.Sc., Dr., Prof., ―Metoda Statistika”, edisi 6, Tarsito, Bandung,
2005.
Sugiyono, Dr., Prof., ―Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif, Kualitatif, dan R&D‖,
Alfabeta, Bandung, 2012.
Steiner, George A., ―Top Management Planning‖, Taipei, 1976.
Stijn Van Mol, ―Analysis of Motorcycle Technical Conditions towards a
Sustainable Campus‖, Hoboken, Departement Industriële Wetenschappen
en Technologie, Industriële Wetenschappen Elektromechanica
Afstudeerrichting, Karel de Grote-Hogeschool, June 2012.
Stijn Van Mol, ―Needs Analysis of UIN Jakarta‟s Green Campus”, March 2012.
Surna Thahja Djajadiningrat, et. al., ―Ekonomi Hijau (Green Economy)”,
Rekayasa Sains, Bandung, 2011.
Tribe, ―Technology Assessment and the Fourth Discontinuity: The Limits of
Instrumental Rationality,‖ Southern California Law Review, 46(1973):
627-631, within Richard N. Langlois. Cost-benefit analysis,
Environmentalism, and rights. Cato Journal, vol. 2, No. I (Spring 1982).
Copyright © Cato Institute.
Uma Sekaran and Roger Bougie, “Research Methods for Business: A Skill
Building Approach”, fifth edition, John Wiley & Sons Ltd , Chichester,
West Sussex, United Kingdom, 2009.
110
Van Derbeck, Edward J., ―Principles of Cost Accounting”, international edition,
15e, South-Western, USA, 2010.
Walker, Gordon, ―Modern Competitive Strategy”, second edition, McGraw-Hill,
New York, 2007.
Wiji Lestari, ―Pengaruh Status Sosial Ekonomi terhadap Pemilihan Moda
Transportasi untuk Perjalanan Kerja (Studi Kasus Karyawan PT SSSWI
Kabupaten Wonosobo)”, Tesis, Semarang, Program Pasca Sarjana
Megister Teknik Sipil Universitas Diponegoro, 2007.
Williams, Haka, Bettner, and Carcello, ―Financial Accounting”, 12th
edition, New
York, McGraw-Hill, 2006.
Wisnu Arya Wardhana, ―Dampak Pemanasan Global: Bencana mengancam
Umat Manusia. Sebab, Akibat, dan Usaha Penaggulangannya‖, Andi
Offset, Yogyakarta, 2010.
Yulius, ―Karakteristik Lalu Lintas Kendaraan Bermotor di Kawasan Ciputat‖,
Research Center for Maritime Territory & Non Living Resources, Agency
for Marine & Fisheries Research, Ministry of Marine Affairs &
FisheriesRepublic of Indonesia, Jakarta, 2003.
Yuri V. Yevdokimov, ―Measuring Economic benefits of Intermodal
Transportation”, University of New Brunswick.
----. Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis II – Air Pollution Costs. Victoria
Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org/tca/tca0510.pdf), 2011.
----. Greening the Campus: Where Practice and Education Go Hand in Hand. A
collaborative effort by US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Region 1, new England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission
and Environmental Training Center (NEIWPCC/NEIETC) and the
Northeast Partnership for Environmental Technology Education
(NEPETE). Visit http://www.neiwpcc.org/neiwpcc_docs/greenbk.pdf.
.---. Buku Panduan Penulisan Skripsi FEB-UIN Jakarta. Jakarta: UIN Syarif
Hidayatullah, 2011.
---, Pedoman Akademik 2008-2009, Jakarta: Biro Administrasi Akademik dan
Kemahasiswaan Universitas Islam Negeri (UIN) Syarif Hidayatullah
Jakarta, 2008.
111
------------, ―Student Housing Market Demand Assessment”, City of San Antonio,
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc., October 2012.
---------, ―Petunjuk Pelaksanaan Undang-Undang RI No. 14 tentang Lalu Lintas
& Angkutan Jalan”, Bantuan Pelayanan & Konsultasi Hukum Indonesia,
LVRI, 1993.
http://bangazul.blogspot.com/2012/09/green-campus.html, derived from the blog
of Dr. Arif Zulkifli Nasution, an environmentalist, accessed on Thursday,
January 3, 2013.
http://www.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/component/content/article/1-headline/1672-uin-
jakarta-gelar-pameran-pendidikan-di-surabaya.html, accessed on March
26, 2012
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/benefit
http://www.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/tentang-uin.html, supported by a correction in
http://www.fitk-uinjkt.ac.id/component/content/article/23-agenda/147-
pelaksanaan-wisuda-sarjana-ke-85-.html, accessed 27th
March.
http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universitas_Islam_Negeri_Syarif_Hidayatullah_Jakar
ta, accessed 27th
March, 2013.
http://www.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/component/content/article/1-headline/1555-
rektor-harapkan-kontribusi-alumni.html, accessed 1 April 2013.
http://www.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/component/content/article/1-headline/2161-uin-
jakarta-luluskan-841-sarjana-baru.html, accessed 1 April 2013.
http://www.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/arsip-berita-utama/2262-sebanyak-1181-
peserta-akan-ikuti-wisuda-sarjana-ke-87-.html, accessed 1 April 2013.
http://www.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/arsip-berita-utama/2418-ribuan-calon-
wisudawan-ke-89-ikuti-gladi-resik.html, accessed 1 April 2013.
http://ekonomi.kompasiana.com/bisnis/2010/09/06/anda-ditipu-saat-parkir-oleh-
pemda-dki-jakarta-250524.html, accessed March 24, 2013.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lumpsumdistribution.asp, accessed 5 April
2013.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/lump+sum, accessed 5 April 2013.
http://www.bi.go.id/web/en/Moneter/BI+Rate/Data+BI+Rate/, accessed 8th
April
2013.
112
http://keuanganlsm.com/article/perpajakan/penyusutan-depresiasi-menurut-
perpajakan/, accessed 5th
April 2013.
http://www.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/arsip-berita-utama/943-uin-jakarta-segera-
bangun-mahad-aly-.html, accessed 27 march 2013.
http://www.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/component/content/article/1-headline/1672-uin-
jakarta-gelar-pameran-pendidikan-di-surabaya.html,
http://www.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/tentang-uin.html, accessed 27th
March, 2013.
http://www.restrojaksel.info/one-stop-it-solutions/wisuda-sarjana-angkatan-ke-88-
uin-syarif-hidayatullah-jakarta-ciputat-timur-kota-tangerang-selatan.html,
accessed 9th
July 2013.
113
Appendix 1: Questionnaire Structure
ENGLISH VERSION
Tuesday, 6th
March 2012
Interviewer: Green Campus Team
The questionnaire aims to study the preference of students at UIN Sharif
Hidayatullah Jakarta in choosing alternative transportation to campus. Survey on
the campus held on 1 to 8 March 2012.
This survey is in the form of structured-interview / questionnaires. Green Campus
team will interview or give questionnaires to students, randomly. Anonymity of
respondents is kept in data processing. However, for mapping the interview /
questionnaire, respondents are expected to include their name, major, and
semester.
Identity of respondent:
Name: ……………….. Major/Semester: ………………….
Choose only one answer for each question!
1. What do you usually chose as
your means of transportation to
UIN, mostly?
a. By motorcycle
b. By public transportation
c. By bicycle
d. Walking on foot
e. By my own car
f. Other
2. What is the reason for your
transportation choice?
a. Fast
b. Cheap
c. Usual
d. It is hot for biking or by public transportation
e. I proud with my own vehicle
f. To avoid traffic jam
3. Would you prefer the public
transportation, if it is cheaper
than private vehicle?
a. Yes, I will take a bus or other public
transportation
b. No, I prefer my motorcycle
c. No, I prefer my own car
d. Maybe
4. Would you prefer the public
transportation, if it is faster than
private vehicle?
a. Yes, I will take a bus or other public
transportation
b. No, I prefer my motorcycle
c. No, I prefer my own car
d. Maybe
114
5. Do you often maintain your
vehicle, especially motorcycle?
a. Yes
b. No
a1 What is maintained? a. Light
b. Brake
c. Filter
d. Spark-plug
e. All
b1 If yes, why? a. For safety
b. To extend the usage
c. To keep it in good condition
d. To prevent the decrease of the exhaust gas
quality
c1 How much is spent for
maintenance work a year?
a. Rp20.000 – Rp50.000
b. Rp50.000 – Rp100.000
c. Rp100.000 – Rp200.000
d. More than Rp200.000
a2 If no, why not? a. Unnecessary
b. Expensive
c. Not thinkable / Never thought about
6. Where do you refuel? a. Always in the official fuel station
b. Mostly in the official fuel station
c. Sometimes in the official fuel station,
sometimes in others
d. Mostly from the street sellers
7. What‘s your daily distance from
your accommodation to UIN?
a. Less than 1 kilometer
b. 1 – 3 kilometers
c. 3 – 5 kilometers
d. 5 – 10 kilometers
e. More than 10 kilometers
8. How much time do you spend in
traffic on your ride to UIN?
(Back and forth are summed)
a. 5-30 minutes
b. 30 minutes -1 hour
c. 1-2 hours
d. 2-4 hours
e. More than 4 hours
9. How much time do you spend in
traffic on your ride to UIN, if
there is no daily traffic jam?
(Back and forth are summed)
a. 5-30 minutes
b. 30 minutes -1 hour
c. 1-2 hours
d. 2-4 hours
e. More than 4 hours
10. During lecturing period, how
many times in a week do you go
to UIN?
a. once
b. twice
c. 3 times
d. 4 times
e. 5 times or more
11. Does your family have a
motorcycle?
a. Yes
b. No
115
c. More than one
12. Does your family have a car? a. Yes
b. No
c. More than one
13. What do you think of biking to
campus?
a. I like the idea
b. I‘m very likely to bike to campus
c. I‘m unlikely to bike to campus
d. Never thought about by me
e. Other opinion
14. What do you think of biking
inside campus? (Only for the
usage inside the campus)
a. I like the idea
b. If possible, I‘m very likely to bike inside the
campus
c. Maybe I‘m unlikely to ride it
d. Never thought about by me to bike inside the
campus
e. Other opinion
15. How much is your weekly
transportation costs to campus?
a. Rp0 – Rp5.000
b. Rp5.000 – Rp20.000
c. Rp20.000 – Rp50.000
d. Rp50.000 – Rp100.000
e. More than Rp100.000
16. What do you think if there is no
car permitted to enter in the
campus, but special parking
building is provided outside the
campus?
a. Indeed, it should be no car permitted to enter
in the campus
b. It‘s a good idea
c. It‘s unlikely to be no car entering in the
campus
d. Never thought about by me
e. Other opinion
17. What do you think if there is no
motorcycle permitted to enter in
the campus, but special parking
building is provided outside the
campus?
a. Indeed, it should be no motorcycle permitted to
enter in the campus
b. It‘s a good idea
c. It‘s unlikely to be no motorcycle entering in
the campus
d. Never thought about by me
e. Other opinion
18. What is your opinion on making
new garden or green area in the
campus?
a. Indeed, it should be
b. It‘s a good idea
c. It looks impossible
d. Never thought about by me
e. Other opinion
19. What is your opinion on adding
more green vegetations in the
campus area?
a. Good, it will be beautiful
b. I like the idea, more vegetations will reduce
pollutants in the campus
c. It looks impossible
d. Never thought about by me
e. Other opinion
116
Appendix 2:
Result of Questionnaire Dissemination (Absolute and Relative Number)
TOTAL
Question Respondent %
1. What do you usually chose as your means of
transportation to UIN, mostly? 891 100.0%
a) By motorcycle 380 42.6%
b) By public transportation 248 27.8%
c) By bicycle 18 2.0%
d) Walking on foot 224 25.1%
e) By my own car 16 1.8%
f) Other 5 0.6%
2. What is the reason for your transportation choice? 891 100.0%
a) Fast 246 27.6%
b) Cheap 117 13.1%
c) Usual 390 43.8%
d) It is hot for biking or by public transportation 12 1.3%
e) I proud with my own vehicle 20 2.2%
f) To avoid traffic jam 99 11.1%
No answer 7 0.8%
3. Would you prefer the public transportation, if it is
cheaper than private vehicle? 891 100.0%
a) Yes, I will take a bus or other public transportation 331 37.1%
b) No, I prefer my motorcycle 260 29.2%
c) No, I prefer my own car 32 3.6%
d) Maybe 247 27.7%
No answer 21 2.4%
4. Would you prefer the public transportation, if it is faster
than private vehicle? 891 100.0%
a) Yes, I will take a bus other public transportation 415 46.6%
b) No, I prefer my motorcycle 187 21.0%
c) No, I prefer my own car 36 4.0%
d) Maybe 226 25.4%
No answer 27 3.0%
5. Do you often maintain your vehicle, especially
motorcycle? 891 100.0%
a) Yes 444 49.8%
b) No 396 44.4%
No answer 51 5.7%
a1 If yes, what is maintained? 891 100.0%
a) Lights 22 2.5%
b) Brakes 75 8.4%
c) Filters 22 2.5%
d) Spark-plug 15 1.7%
e) All 343 38.5%
No answer 414 46.5%
117
b1 If yes, why? 891 100.0%
a) For safety 129 14.5%
b) To extend the usage 33 3.7%
c) To keep it in good condition 292 32.8%
d) To prevent the decrease of the exhaust gas quality 14 1.6%
No answer 423 47.5%
c1 If yes, how much is spent for maintenance work a year? 891 100.0%
a) Rp20.000 - Rp50.000 34 3.8%
b) Rp50.000 - Rp100.000 105 11.8%
c) Rp100.000 - Rp200.000 102 11.4%
d) More than Rp200.000 233 26.2%
No answer 417 46.8%
a2 If no, why not? 891 100.0%
a) Unnecessary 113 12.7%
b) Expensive 56 6.3%
c) Never thought about / Not thinkable 129 14.5%
No answer 593 66.6%
6. Where do you refuel? 891 100.0%
a) Always in the official fuel station 486 54.5%
b) Mostly in the official fuel station 152 17.1%
c) Sometimes in the official fuel station, sometimes in others 90 10.1%
d) Mostly from the streetsellers 15 1.7%
No answer 148 16.6%
7. What‘s your daily distance from your accommodation
to UIN? 891 100.0%
a) Less than 1km 202 22.7%
b) 1km-3km 136 15.3%
c) 3km-5km 85 9.5%
d) 5-10km 172 19.3%
e) More than 10km 286 32.1%
No answer 10 1.1%
8. How much time do you spend in traffic on your ride to
UIN? (Back and forth are summed) 891 100.0%
a) 5-30 minutes 318 35.7%
b) 30minutes - 1hour 248 27.8%
c) 1-2hours 176 19.8%
d) 2-4hours 108 12.1%
e) More than 4hours 34 3.8%
No answer 7 0.8%
118
9. How much time do you spend in traffic on your ride to
UIN, if there is no daily traffic jam? (Back and forth
are summed)
891 100.0%
a) 5-30 minutes 392 44.0%
b) 30minutes - 1hour 239 26.8%
c) 1-2hours 173 19.4%
d) 2-4hours 62 7.0%
e) More than 4hours 7 0.8%
No answer 18 2.0%
10. During lecturing period, how many times in a week do
you go to UIN? 891 100.0%
a) Once 11 1.2%
b) Twice 25 2.8%
c) 3 times 50 5.6%
d) 4 times 334 37.5%
e) 5 times or more 466 52.3%
No answer 5 0.6%
11. Does your family have a motorcycle? 891 100.0%
a) Yes 657 73.7%
b) No 64 7.2%
c) More than one 166 18.6%
No answer 4 0.4%
12. Does your family have a car? 891 100.0%
a) Yes 358 40.2%
b) No 485 54.4%
c) More than one 42 4.7%
No answer 6 0.7%
13. What do you think of biking to campus? 891 100.0%
a) I like the idea 511 57.4%
b) I‘m very likely to bike to campus 70 7.9%
c) I‘m unlikely to bike to campus 120 13.5%
d) Never thought about by me / not thinkable 97 10.9%
e) Other opinion 89 10.0%
No answer 4 0.4%
14. What do you think of biking inside campus? (Only for
the usage inside the campus) 891 100.0%
a) I like the idea 533 59.8%
b) If possible, I‘m very likely to bike inside the campus 217 24.4%
c) Maybe I‘m unlikely to ride it 46 5.2%
d) Never thought about by me to bike inside the campus / not
thinkable 55 6.2%
e) Other opinion 33 3.7%
No answer 7 0.8%
119
15. How much is your weekly transportation costs to
campus? 891 100.0%
a) Rp 0 - Rp5,000 132 14.8%
b) Rp5,000 - Rp20,000 177 19.9%
c) Rp20,000 - Rp50,000 294 33.0%
d) Rp50,000 - Rp100,000 187 21.0%
e) More than Rp100,000 91 10.2%
No answer 10 1.1%
16. What do you think if there is no car permitted to enter
in the campus, but special parking building is provided
outside the campus?
891 100.0%
a) Indeed, it should be no car permitted to enter in the campus 149 16.7%
b) It‘s a good idea 332 37.3%
c) It‘s unlikely to be no car entering in the campus 227 25.5%
d) Never thought about by me / not thinkable 131 14.7%
e) Other opinion 48 5.4%
No answer 4 0.4%
17. What do you think if there is no motorcycle permitted
to enter in the campus, but special parking building is
provided outside the campus?
891 100.0%
a) Indeed, it should be no motorcycle permitted to enter in the
campus 90 10.1%
b) It‘s a good idea 256 28.7%
c) It‘s unlikely to be no motorcycle entering in the campus 399 44.8%
d) Never thought about by me / not thinkable 103 11.6%
e) Other opinion 38 4.3%
No answer 5 0.6%
18. What is your opinion on making new garden or green
area in the campus? 891 100.0%
a) Indeed, it should be 580 65.1%
b) It‘s a good idea 249 27.9%
c) It looks impossible 20 2.2%
d) Never thought about by me / not thinkable 17 1.9%
e) Other opinion 19 2.1%
No answer 6 0.7%
19. What is your opinion on adding more green
vegetations in the campus area? 891 100.0%
a) Good, it will be beautiful 371 41.6%
b) I like the idea, more vegetations will reduce pollutants in the
campus 452 50.7%
c) It looks impossible 18 2.0%
d) Never thought about by me / not thinkable 17 1.9%
e) Other opinion 27 3.0%
No answer 6 0.7%
120
Appendix 3:
Result of Questionnaire Dissemination (Absolute and Relative Number)
MOTORCYCLE Question Respondent %
1. What do you usually chose as your means of
transportation to UIN, mostly? 380 42.6%
a) By motorcycle 380 42.6%
b) By public transportation 0 -
c) By bicycle 0 -
d) Walking on foot 0 -
e) By my own car 0 -
f) Other 0 -
2. What is the reason for your transportation choice? 380 42.6%
a) Fast 190 21.3%
b) Cheap 32 3.6%
c) Usual 58 6.5%
d) It is hot for biking or by public transportation 1 0.1%
e) I proud with my own vehicle 13 1.5%
f) To avoid traffic jam 86 9.7%
No answer 0 -
3. Would you prefer the public transportation, if it is
cheaper than private vehicle? 380 42.6%
a) Yes, I will take a bus or other public transportation 75 8.4%
b) No, I prefer my motorcycle 208 23.3%
c) No, I prefer my own car 3 0.3%
d) Maybe 91 10.2%
No answer 3 0.3%
4. Would you prefer the public transportation, if it is
faster than private vehicle? 380 42.6%
a) Yes, I will take a bus other public transportation 134 15.0%
b) No, I prefer my motorcycle 140 15.7%
c) No, I prefer my own car 8 0.9%
d) Maybe 90 10.1%
No answer 8 0.9%
5. Do you often maintain your vehicle, especially
motorcycle? 380 42.6%
a) Yes 321 36.0%
b) No 59 6.6%
No answer 0 -
a1 If yes, what is maintained? 380 42.6%
a) Lights 15 1.7%
b) Brakes 44 4.9%
c) Filters 16 1.8%
d) Spark-plug 4 0.4%
e) All 244 27.4%
No answer 57 6.4%
121
b1 If yes, why? 380 42.6%
a) For safety 84 9.4%
b) To extend the usage 18 2.0%
c) To keep it in good condition 208 23.3%
d) To prevent the decrease of the exhaust gas quality 8 0.9%
No answer 62 6.9%
c1 If yes, how much is spent for maintenance work a
year? 380 42.6%
a) Rp20.000 - Rp50.000 25 2.8%
b) Rp50.000 - Rp100.000 71 7.9%
c) Rp100.000 - Rp200.000 60 6.7%
d) More than Rp200.000 168 18.9%
No answer 56 6.3%
a2 If no, why not? 380 42.6%
a) Unnecessary 22 2.5%
b) Expensive 12 1.3%
c) Never thought about / Not thinkable 29 3.3%
No answer 317 35.6%
6. Where do you refuel? 380 42.6%
a) Always in the official fuel station 273 30.6%
b) Mostly in the official fuel station 69 7.7%
c) Sometimes in the official fuel station, sometimes in others 30 3.4%
d) Mostly from the streetsellers 1 0.1%
No answer 7 0.8%
7. What‘s your daily distance from your
accommodation to UIN? 380 42.6%
a) Less than 1km 30 3.3%
b) 1km-3km 40 4.5%
c) 3km-5km 36 4.0%
d) 5-10km 96 10.8%
e) More than 10km 175 19.6%
No answer 3 0.3%
8. How much time do you spend in traffic on your ride
to UIN? (Back and forth are summed) 380 42.6%
a) 5-30 minutes 92 10.3%
b) 30minutes - 1hour 144 16.2%
c) 1-2hours 98 10.9%
d) 2-4hours 33 3.7%
e) More than 4hours 13 1.5%
No answer 0 -
122
9. How much time do you spend in traffic on your ride
to UIN, if there is no daily traffic jam? (Back and
forth are summed)
380 42.6%
a) 5-30 minutes 140 15.7%
b) 30minutes - 1hour 145 16.3%
c) 1-2hours 72 8.1%
d) 2-4hours 20 2.2%
e) More than 4hours 2 0.2%
No answer 1 0.1%
10. During lecturing period, how many times in a week
do you go to UIN? 380 42.6%
a) Once 3 0.3%
b) Twice 10 1.1%
c) 3 times 24 2.7%
d) 4 times 162 18.2%
e) 5 times or more 179 20.1%
No answer 2 0.2%
11. Does your family have a motorcycle? 380 42.6%
a) Yes 291 32.7%
b) No 4 0.4%
c) More than one 85 9.5%
No answer 0 -
12. Does your family have a car? 380 42.6%
a) Yes 174 19.5%
b) No 190 21.3%
c) More than one 14 1.6%
No answer 2 0.2%
13. What do you think of biking to campus? 380 42.6%
a) I like the idea 199 22.3%
b) I‘m very likely to bike to campus 20 2.2%
c) I‘m unlikely to bike to campus 60 6.7%
d) Never thought about by me / not thinkable 51 5.7%
e) Other opinion 50 5.6%
No answer 0 -
14. What do you think of biking inside campus? (Only
for the usage inside the campus) 380 42.6%
a) I like the idea 221 24.8%
b) If possible, I‘m very likely to bike inside the campus 97 10.9%
c) Maybe I‘m unlikely to ride it 23 2.6%
d) Never thought about by me to bike inside the campus / not
thinkable 27 3.0%
e) Other opinion 11 1.2%
No answer 1 0.1%
123
15. How much is your weekly transportation costs to
campus? 380 42.6%
a) Rp 0 - Rp5,000 9 1.0%
b) Rp5,000 - Rp20,000 92 10.3%
c) Rp20,000 - Rp50,000 166 18.6%
d) Rp50,000 - Rp100,000 84 9.4%
e) More than Rp100,000 28 3.1%
No answer 1 0.1%
16. What do you think if there is no car permitted to
enter in the campus, but special parking building is
provided outside the campus?
380 42.6%
a) Indeed, it should be no car permitted to enter in the campus 56 6.3%
b) It‘s a good idea 146 16.4%
c) It‘s unlikely to be no car entering in the campus 108 12.1%
d) Never thought about by me / not thinkable 52 5.8%
e) Other opinion 18 2.0%
No answer 0 -
17. What do you think if there is no motorcycle
permitted to enter in the campus, but special parking
building is provided outside the campus?
380 42.6%
a) Indeed, it should be no motorcycle permitted to enter in the
campus 31 3.5%
b) It‘s a good idea 77 8.6%
c) It‘s unlikely to be no motorcycle entering in the campus 205 23.0%
d) Never thought about by me / not thinkable 53 5.9%
e) Other opinion 14 1.6%
No answer 0 -
18. What is your opinion on making new garden or green
area in the campus? 380 42.6%
a) Indeed, it should be 261 29.3%
b) It‘s a good idea 100 11.2%
c) It looks impossible 6 0.7%
d) Never thought about by me / not thinkable 6 0.7%
e) Other opinion 7 0.8%
No answer 0 -
19. What is your opinion on adding more green
vegetations in the campus area? 380 42.6%
a) Good, it will be beautiful 173 19.4%
b) I like the idea, more vegetations will reduce pollutants in
the campus 182 20.4%
c) It looks impossible 8 0.9%
d) Never thought about by me / not thinkable 2 0.2%
e) Other opinion 15
No answer 0
124
Appendix 4:
Result of Questionnaire Dissemination (Absolute and Relative Number)
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION Question Respondent
1. What do you usually chose as your means of
transportation to UIN, mostly? 248 27.8%
a) By motorcycle 0 -
b) By public transportation 248 27.8%
c) By bicycle 0 -
d) Walking on foot 0 -
e) By my own car 0 -
f) Other 0 -
2. What is the reason for your transportation choice? 248 27.8%
a) Fast 19 2.1%
b) Cheap 61 6.8%
c) Usual 158 17.7%
d) It is hot for biking or by public transportation 3 0.3%
e) I proud with my own vehicle 0 -
f) To avoid traffic jam 5 0.6%
No answer 2 0.2%
3. Would you prefer the public transportation, if it is
cheaper than private vehicle? 248 27.8%
a) Yes, I will take a bus or other public transportation 156 17.5%
b) No, I prefer my motorcycle 19 2.1%
c) No, I prefer my own car 12 1.3%
d) Maybe 54 6.1%
No answer 7 0.8%
4. Would you prefer the public transportation, if it is
faster than private vehicle? 248 27.8%
a) Yes, I will take a bus other public transportation 162 18.2%
b) No, I prefer my motorcycle 12 1.3%
c) No, I prefer my own car 10 1.1%
d) Maybe 58 6.5%
No answer 6 0.7%
5. Do you often maintain your vehicle, especially
motorcycle? 248 27.8%
a) Yes 57 6.4%
b) No 167 18.7%
No answer 24 2.7%
a1 If yes, what is maintained? 248 27.8%
a) Lights 2 0.2%
b) Brakes 12 1.3%
c) Filters 2 0.2%
d) Spark-plug 4 0.4%
e) All 46 5.2%
No answer 182 20.4%
125
b1 If yes, why? 248 27.8%
a) For safety 20 2.2%
b) To extend the usage 4 0.4%
c) To keep it in good condition 32 3.6%
d) To prevent the decrease of the exhaust gas quality 5 0.6%
No answer 187 21.0%
c1 If yes, how much is spent for maintenance work a
year? 248 27.8%
a) Rp20.000 - Rp50.000 4 0.4%
b) Rp50.000 - Rp100.000 18 2.0%
c) Rp100.000 - Rp200.000 14 1.6%
d) More than Rp200.000 29 3.3%
No answer 183 20.5%
a2 If no, why not? 248 27.8%
a) Unnecessary 46 5.2%
b) Expensive 16 1.8%
c) Never thought about / Not thinkable 49 5.5%
No answer 137 15.4%
6. Where do you refuel? 248 27.8%
a) Always in the official fuel station 120 13.5%
b) Mostly in the official fuel station 37 4.2%
c) Sometimes in the official fuel station, sometimes in others 15 1.7%
d) Mostly from the streetsellers 4 0.4%
No answer 72 8.1%
7. What‘s your daily distance from your
accommodation to UIN? 248 27.8%
a) Less than 1km 13 1.5%
b) 1km-3km 47 5.3%
c) 3km-5km 25 2.8%
d) 5-10km 63 7.1%
e) More than 10km 98 11.0%
No answer 2 0.2%
8. How much time do you spend in traffic on your ride
to UIN? (Back and forth are summed) 248 27.8%
a) 5-30 minutes 31 3.5%
b) 30minutes - 1hour 74 8.3%
c) 1-2hours 65 7.3%
d) 2-4hours 59 6.6%
e) More than 4hours 16 1.8%
No answer 3 0.3%
126
9. How much time do you spend in traffic on your ride
to UIN, if there is no daily traffic jam? (Back and
forth are summed)
248 27.8%
a) 5-30 minutes 65 7.3%
b) 30minutes - 1hour 63 7.1%
c) 1-2hours 81 9.1%
d) 2-4hours 33 3.7%
e) More than 4hours 2 0.2%
No answer 4 0.4%
10. During lecturing period, how many times in a week
do you go to UIN? 248 27.8%
a) Once 3 0.3%
b) Twice 5 0.6%
c) 3 times 13 1.5%
d) 4 times 88 9.9%
e) 5 times or more 136 15.3%
No answer 3 0.3%
11. Does your family have a motorcycle? 248 27.8%
a) Yes 175 19.6%
b) No 25 2.8%
c) More than one 45 5.1%
No answer 3 0.3%
12. Does your family have a car? 248 27.8%
a) Yes 75 8.4%
b) No 162 18.2%
c) More than one 9 1.0%
No answer 2 0.2%
13. What do you think of biking to campus? 248 27.8%
a) I like the idea 137 15.4%
b) I‘m very likely to bike to campus 11 1.2%
c) I‘m unlikely to bike to campus 42 4.7%
d) Never thought about by me / not thinkable 31 3.5%
e) Other opinion 24 2.7%
No answer 3 0.3%
14. What do you think of biking inside campus? (Only
for the usage inside the campus) 248 27.8%
a) I like the idea 143 16.0%
b) If possible, I‘m very likely to bike inside the campus 67 7.5%
c) Maybe I‘m unlikely to ride it 11 1.2%
d) Never thought about by me to bike inside the campus /
not thinkable 11 1.2%
e) Other opinion 13 1.5%
No answer 3 0.3%
127
15. How much is your weekly transportation costs to
campus? 248 27.8%
a) Rp 0 - Rp5,000 6 0.7%
b) Rp5,000 - Rp20,000 45 5.1%
c) Rp20,000 - Rp50,000 80 9.0%
d) Rp50,000 - Rp100,000 75 8.4%
e) More than Rp100,000 39 4.4%
No answer 3 0.3%
16. What do you think if there is no car permitted to
enter in the campus, but special parking building is
provided outside the campus?
248 27.8%
a) Indeed, it should be no car permitted to enter in the
campus 50 5.6%
b) It‘s a good idea 80 9.0%
c) It‘s unlikely to be no car entering in the campus 62 7.0%
d) Never thought about by me / not thinkable 40 4.5%
e) Other opinion 14 1.6%
No answer 2 0.2%
17. What do you think if there is no motorcycle
permitted to enter in the campus, but special parking
building is provided outside the campus?
248 27.8%
a) Indeed, it should be no motorcycle permitted to enter in
the campus 33 3.7%
b) It‘s a good idea 68 7.6%
c) It‘s unlikely to be no motorcycle entering in the campus 106 11.9%
d) Never thought about by me / not thinkable 26 2.9%
e) Other opinion 14 1.6%
No answer 1 0.1%
18. What is your opinion on making new garden or
green area in the campus? 248 27.8%
a) Indeed, it should be 174 19.5%
b) It‘s a good idea 62 7.0%
c) It looks impossible 1 0.1%
d) Never thought about by me / not thinkable 2 0.2%
e) Other opinion 7 0.8%
No answer 2 0.2%
19. What is your opinion on adding more green
vegetations in the campus area? 248 27.8%
a) Good, it will be beautiful 104 11.7%
b) I like the idea, more vegetations will reduce pollutants in
the campus 131 14.7%
c) It looks impossible 3 0.3%
d) Never thought about by me / not thinkable 2 0.2%
e) Other opinion 4 0.4%
No answer 4 0.4%
128
Appendix 5:
Result of Questionnaire Dissemination (Absolute and Relative Number)
BICYCLE
Question Respondent %
1. What do you usually chose as your means of
transportation to UIN, mostly? 18 2.0%
a) By motorcycle 0 -
b) By public transportation 0 -
c) By bicycle 18 2.0%
d) Walking on foot 0 -
e) By my own car 0 -
f) Other 0 -
2. What is the reason for your transportation choice? 18 2.0%
a) Fast 5 0.6%
b) Cheap 4 0.4%
c) Usual 4 0.4%
d) It is hot for biking or by public transportation 2 0.2%
e) I proud with my own vehicle 3 0.3%
f) To avoid traffic jam 0 -
No answer 0 -
3. Would you prefer the public transportation, if it is
cheaper than private vehicle? 18 2.0%
a) Yes, I will take a bus or other public transportation 4 0.4%
b) No, I prefer my motorcycle 4 0.4%
c) No, I prefer my own car 2 0.2%
d) Maybe 8 0.9%
No answer 0 -
4. Would you prefer the public transportation, if it is
faster than private vehicle? 18 2.0%
a) Yes, I will take a bus other public transportation 4 0.4%
b) No, I prefer my motorcycle 4 0.4%
c) No, I prefer my own car 5 0.6%
d) Maybe 5 0.6%
No answer 0 -
5. Do you often maintain your vehicle, especially
motorcycle? 18 2.0%
a) Yes 8 0.9%
b) No 10 1.1%
No answer 0 -
a1 If yes, what is maintained? 18 2.0%
a) Lights 1 0.1%
b) Brakes 8 0.9%
c) Filters 1 0.1%
d) Spark-plug 1 0.1%
e) All 4 0.4%
No answer 3 0.3%
129
b1 If yes, why? 18 2.0%
a) For safety 6 0.7%
b) To extend the usage 3 0.3%
c) To keep it in good condition 5 0.6%
d) To prevent the decrease of the exhaust gas quality 1 0.1%
No answer 3 0.3%
c1 If yes, how much is spent for maintenance work a year? 18 2.0%
a) Rp20.000 - Rp50.000 0 -
b) Rp50.000 - Rp100.000 3 0.3%
c) Rp100.000 - Rp200.000 9 1.0%
d) More than Rp200.000 2 0.2%
No answer 4 0.4%
a2 If no, why not? 18 2.0%
a) Unnecessary 3 0.3%
b) Expensive 3 0.3%
c) Never thought about / Not thinkable 6 0.7%
No answer 6 0.7%
6. Where do you refuel? 18 2.0%
a) Always in the official fuel station 6 0.7%
b) Mostly in the official fuel station 3 0.3%
c) Sometimes in the official fuel station, sometimes in others 5 0.6%
d) Mostly from the streetsellers 1 0.1%
No answer 3 0.3%
7. What‘s your daily distance from your accommodation
to UIN? 18 2.0%
a) Less than 1km 5 0.6%
b) 1km-3km 3 0.3%
c) 3km-5km 6 0.7%
d) 5-10km 3 0.3%
e) More than 10km 1 0.1%
No answer 0 -
8. How much time do you spend in traffic on your ride
to UIN? (Back and forth are summed) 18 2.0%
a) 5-30 minutes 5 0.6%
b) 30minutes - 1hour 5 0.6%
c) 1-2hours 4 0.4%
d) 2-4hours 4 0.4%
e) More than 4hours 0 -
No answer 0 -
130
9. How much time do you spend in traffic on your ride
to UIN, if there is no daily traffic jam? (Back and
forth are summed)
18 2.0%
a) 5-30 minutes 9 1.0%
b) 30minutes - 1hour 3 0.3%
c) 1-2hours 6 0.7%
d) 2-4hours 0 -
e) More than 4hours 0 -
No answer 0 -
10. During lecturing period, how many times in a week
do you go to UIN? 18 2.0%
a) Once 2 0.2%
b) Twice 2 0.2%
c) 3 times 4 0.4%
d) 4 times 3 0.3%
e) 5 times or more 7 0.8%
No answer 0 -
11. Does your family have a motorcycle? 18 2.0%
a) Yes 8 0.9%
b) No 7 0.8%
c) More than one 3 0.3%
No answer 0 -
12. Does your family have a car? 18 2.0%
a) Yes 3 0.3%
b) No 12 1.3%
c) More than one 3 0.3%
No answer 0 -
13. What do you think of biking to campus? 18 2.0%
a) I like the idea 9 1.0%
b) I‘m very likely to bike to campus 6 0.7%
c) I‘m unlikely to bike to campus 3 0.3%
d) Never thought about by me / not thinkable 0 -
e) Other opinion 0 -
No answer 0 -
14. What do you think of biking inside campus? (Only for
the usage inside the campus) 18 2.0%
a) I like the idea 5 0.6%
b) If possible, I‘m very likely to bike inside the campus 8 0.9%
c) Maybe I‘m unlikely to ride it 2 0.2%
d) Never thought about by me to bike inside the campus / not
thinkable 2 0.2%
e) Other opinion 1 0.1%
No answer 0 -
131
15. How much is your weekly transportation costs to
campus? 18 2.0%
a) Rp 0 - Rp5,000 3 0.3%
b) Rp5,000 - Rp20,000 5 0.6%
c) Rp20,000 - Rp50,000 1 0.1%
d) Rp50,000 - Rp100,000 6 0.7%
e) More than Rp100,000 2 0.2%
No answer 1 0.1%
16. What do you think if there is no car permitted to enter
in the campus, but special parking building is
provided outside the campus?
18 2.0%
a) Indeed, it should be no car permitted to enter in the campus 2 0.2%
b) It‘s a good idea 11 1.2%
c) It‘s unlikely to be no car entering in the campus 4 0.4%
d) Never thought about by me / not thinkable 1 0.1%
e) Other opinion 0 -
No answer 0 -
17. What do you think if there is no motorcycle permitted
to enter in the campus, but special parking building is
provided outside the campus?
18 2.0%
a) Indeed, it should be no motorcycle permitted to enter in the
campus 2 0.2%
b) It‘s a good idea 11 1.2%
c) It‘s unlikely to be no motorcycle entering in the campus 4 0.4%
d) Never thought about by me / not thinkable 1 0.1%
e) Other opinion 0 -
No answer 0 -
18. What is your opinion on making new garden or green
area in the campus? 18 2.0%
a) Indeed, it should be 7 0.8%
b) It‘s a good idea 6 0.7%
c) It looks impossible 3 0.3%
d) Never thought about by me / not thinkable 2 0.2%
e) Other opinion 0 -
No answer 0 -
19. What is your opinion on adding more green
vegetations in the campus area? 18 2.0%
a) Good, it will be beautiful 4 0.4%
b) I like the idea, more vegetations will reduce pollutants in the
campus 6 0.7%
c) It looks impossible 2 0.2%
d) Never thought about by me / not thinkable 5 0.6%
e) Other opinion 1 0.1%
No answer 0 -
132
Appendix 6:
Result of Questionnaire Dissemination (Absolute and Relative Number)
ON FOOT
Question Respondent %
1. What do you usually chose as your means of
transportation to UIN, mostly? 224 25.1%
a) By motorcycle 0 -
b) By public transportation 0 -
c) By bicycle 0 -
d) Walking on foot 224 25.1%
e) By my own car 0 -
f) Other 0 -
2. What is the reason for your transportation choice? 224 25.1%
a) Fast 23 2.6%
b) Cheap 20 2.2%
c) Usual 163 18.3%
d) It is hot for biking or by public transportation 3 0.3%
e) I proud with my own vehicle 2 0.2%
f) To avoid traffic jam 8 0.9%
No answer 5 0.6%
3. Would you prefer the public transportation, if it is
cheaper than private vehicle? 224 25.1%
a) Yes, I will take a bus or other public transportation 89 10.0%
b) No, I prefer my motorcycle 28 3.1%
c) No, I prefer my own car 9 1.0%
d) Maybe 87 9.8%
No answer 11 1.2%
4. Would you prefer the public transportation, if it is
faster than private vehicle? 224 25.1%
a) Yes, I will take a bus other public transportation 107 12.0%
b) No, I prefer my motorcycle 28 3.1%
c) No, I prefer my own car 8 0.9%
d) Maybe 68 7.6%
No answer 13 1.5%
5. Do you often maintain your vehicle, especially
motorcycle? 224 25.1%
a) Yes 47 5.3%
b) No 150 16.8%
No answer 27 3.0%
a1 If yes, what is maintained? 224 25.1%
a) Lights 4 0.4%
b) Brakes 9 1.0%
c) Filters 2 0.2%
d) Spark-plug 6 0.7%
e) All 40 4.5%
No answer 163 18.3%
133
b1 If yes, why? 224 25.1%
a) For safety 17 1.9%
b) To extend the usage 7 0.8%
c) To keep it in good condition 38 4.3%
d) To prevent the decrease of the exhaust gas quality 0 -
No answer 162 18.2%
c1 If yes, how much is spent for maintenance work a year? 224 25.1%
a) Rp20.000 - Rp50.000 5 0.6%
b) Rp50.000 - Rp100.000 11 1.2%
c) Rp100.000 - Rp200.000 17 1.9%
d) More than Rp200.000 26 2.9%
No answer 165 18.5%
a2 If no, why not? 224 25.1%
a) Unnecessary 38 4.3%
b) Expensive 24 2.7%
c) Never thought about / Not thinkable 41 4.6%
No answer 121 13.6%
6. Where do you refuel? 224 25.1%
a) Always in the official fuel station 72 8.1%
b) Mostly in the official fuel station 41 4.6%
c) Sometimes in the official fuel station, sometimes in others 37 4.2%
d) Mostly from the streetsellers 8 0.9%
No answer 66 7.4%
7. What‘s your daily distance from your accommodation
to UIN? 224 25.1%
a) Less than 1km 154 17.3%
b) 1km-3km 42 4.7%
c) 3km-5km 14 1.6%
d) 5-10km 6 0.7%
e) More than 10km 3 0.3%
No answer 5 0.6%
8. How much time do you spend in traffic on your ride
to UIN? (Back and forth are summed) 224 25.1%
a) 5-30 minutes 188 21.1%
b) 30minutes - 1hour 20 2.2%
c) 1-2hours 3 0.3%
d) 2-4hours 7 0.8%
e) More than 4hours 2 0.2%
No answer 4 0.4%
134
9. How much time do you spend in traffic on your ride
to UIN, if there is no daily traffic jam? (Back and
forth are summed)
224 25.1%
a) 5-30 minutes 176 19.8%
b) 30minutes - 1hour 17 1.9%
c) 1-2hours 11 1.2%
d) 2-4hours 5 0.6%
e) More than 4hours 2 0.2%
No answer 13 1.5%
10. During lecturing period, how many times in a week
do you go to UIN? 224 25.1%
a) Once 1 0.1%
b) Twice 6 0.7%
c) 3 times 9 1.0%
d) 4 times 76 8.5%
e) 5 times or more 132 14.8%
No answer 0 -
11. Does your family have a motorcycle? 224 25.1%
a) Yes 169 19.0%
b) No 24 2.7%
c) More than one 30 3.4%
No answer 1 0.1%
12. Does your family have a car? 224 25.1%
a) Yes 93 10.4%
b) No 118 13.2%
c) More than one 11 1.2%
No answer 2 0.2%
13. What do you think of biking to campus? 224 25.1%
a) I like the idea 154 17.3%
b) I‘m very likely to bike to campus 28 3.1%
c) I‘m unlikely to bike to campus 15 1.7%
d) Never thought about by me / not thinkable 14 1.6%
e) Other opinion 12 1.3%
No answer 1 0.1%
14. What do you think of biking inside campus? (Only for
the usage inside the campus) 224 25.1%
a) I like the idea 152 17.1%
b) If possible, I‘m very likely to bike inside the campus 38 4.3%
c) Maybe I‘m unlikely to ride it 9 1.0%
d) Never thought about by me to bike inside the campus / not
thinkable 15 1.7%
e) Other opinion 7 0.8%
No answer 3 0.3%
135
15. How much is your weekly transportation costs to
campus? 224 25.1%
a) Rp 0 - Rp5,000 114 12.8%
b) Rp5,000 - Rp20,000 35 3.9%
c) Rp20,000 - Rp50,000 42 4.7%
d) Rp50,000 - Rp100,000 17 1.9%
e) More than Rp100,000 12 1.3%
No answer 4 0.4%
16. What do you think if there is no car permitted to enter
in the campus, but special parking building is
provided outside the campus?
224 25.1%
a) Indeed, it should be no car permitted to enter in the campus 39 4.4%
b) It‘s a good idea 92 10.3%
c) It‘s unlikely to be no car entering in the campus 42 4.7%
d) Never thought about by me / not thinkable 34 3.8%
e) Other opinion 15 1.7%
No answer 2 0.2%
17. What do you think if there is no motorcycle permitted
to enter in the campus, but special parking building is
provided outside the campus?
224 25.1%
a) Indeed, it should be no motorcycle permitted to enter in the
campus 23 2.6%
b) It‘s a good idea 88 9.9%
c) It‘s unlikely to be no motorcycle entering in the campus 80 9.0%
d) Never thought about by me / not thinkable 21 2.4%
e) Other opinion 8 0.9%
No answer 4 0.4%
18. What is your opinion on making new garden or green
area in the campus? 224 25.1%
a) Indeed, it should be 130 14.6%
b) It‘s a good idea 72 8.1%
c) It looks impossible 7 0.8%
d) Never thought about by me / not thinkable 6 0.7%
e) Other opinion 5 0.6%
No answer 4 0.4%
19. What is your opinion on adding more green
vegetations in the campus area? 224 25.1%
a) Good, it will be beautiful 80 9.0%
b) I like the idea, more vegetations will reduce pollutants in
the campus 126 14.1%
c) It looks impossible 5 0.6%
d) Never thought about by me / not thinkable 5 0.6%
e) Other opinion 6 0.7%
No answer 2 0.2%
136
Appendix 7:
Result of Questionnaire Dissemination (Absolute and Relative Number)
CAR
Question Respondent %
1. What do you usually chose as your means of
transportation to UIN, mostly? 16 1.8%
a) By motorcycle 0 -
b) By public transportation 0 -
c) By bicycle 0 -
d) Walking on foot 0 -
e) By my own car 16 1.8%
f) Other 0 -
2. What is the reason for your transportation choice? 16 1.8%
a) Fast 5 0.6%
b) Cheap 0 -
c) Usual 6 0.7%
d) It is hot for biking or by public transportation 3 0.3%
e) I proud with my own vehicle 2 0.2%
f) To avoid traffic jam 0 -
No answer 0 -
3. Would you prefer the public transportation, if it is
cheaper than private vehicle? 16 1.8%
a) Yes, I will take a bus or other public transportation 5 0.6%
b) No, I prefer my motorcycle 1 0.1%
c) No, I prefer my own car 6 0.7%
d) Maybe 4 0.4%
No answer 0 -
4. Would you prefer the public transportation, if it is
faster than private vehicle? 16 1.8%
a) Yes, I will take a bus other public transportation 4 0.4%
b) No, I prefer my motorcycle 3 0.3%
c) No, I prefer my own car 5 0.6%
d) Maybe 4 0.4%
No answer 0 -
5. Do you often maintain your vehicle, especially
motorcycle? 16 1.8%
a) Yes 9 1.0%
b) No 7 0.8%
No answer 0 -
a1 If yes, what is maintained? 16 1.8%
a) Lights 0 -
b) Brakes 2 0.2%
c) Filters 1 0.1%
d) Spark-plug 0 -
e) All 7 0.8%
No answer 6 0.7%
137
b1 If yes, why? 16 1.8%
a) For safety 1 0.1%
b) To extend the usage 1 0.1%
c) To keep it in good condition 8 0.9%
d) To prevent the decrease of the exhaust gas quality 0 -
No answer 6 0.7%
c1 If yes, how much is spent for maintenance work a year? 16 1.8%
a) Rp20.000 - Rp50.000 0 -
b) Rp50.000 - Rp100.000 1 0.1%
c) Rp100.000 - Rp200.000 2 0.2%
d) More than Rp200.000 7 0.8%
No answer 6 0.7%
a2 If no, why not? 16 1.8%
a) Unnecessary 3 0.3%
b) Expensive 1 0.1%
c) Never thought about / Not thinkable 3 0.3%
No answer 9 1.0%
6. Where do you refuel? 16 1.8%
a) Always in the official fuel station 13 1.5%
b) Mostly in the official fuel station 1 0.1%
c) Sometimes in the official fuel station, sometimes in others 2 0.2%
d) Mostly from the streetsellers 0 -
No answer 0 -
7. What‘s your daily distance from your accommodation
to UIN? 16 1.8%
a) Less than 1km 0 -
b) 1km-3km 4 0.4%
c) 3km-5km 2 0.2%
d) 5-10km 2 0.2%
e) More than 10km 8 0.9%
No answer 0 -
8. How much time do you spend in traffic on your ride to
UIN? (Back and forth are summed) 16 1.8%
a) 5-30 minutes 2 0.2%
b) 30minutes - 1hour 4 0.4%
c) 1-2hours 4 0.4%
d) 2-4hours 4 0.4%
e) More than 4hours 2 0.2%
No answer 0 -
138
9. How much time do you spend in traffic on your ride to
UIN, if there is no daily traffic jam? (Back and forth
are summed)
16 1.8%
a) 5-30 minutes 1 0.1%
b) 30minutes - 1hour 8 0.9%
c) 1-2hours 3 0.3%
d) 2-4hours 4 0.4%
e) More than 4hours 0 -
No answer 0 -
10. During lecturing period, how many times in a week do
you go to UIN? 16 1.8%
a) Once 1 0.1%
b) Twice 2 0.2%
c) 3 times 0 -
d) 4 times 4 0.4%
e) 5 times or more 9 1.0%
No answer 0 -
11. Does your family have a motorcycle? 16 1.8%
a) Yes 10 1.1%
b) No 4 0.4%
c) More than one 2 0.2%
No answer 0 -
12. Does your family have a car? 16 1.8%
a) Yes 11 1.2%
b) No 0 -
c) More than one 5 0.6%
No answer 0 -
13. What do you think of biking to campus? 16 1.8%
a) I like the idea 7 0.8%
b) I‘m very likely to bike to campus 5 0.6%
c) I‘m unlikely to bike to campus 0 -
d) Never thought about by me / not thinkable 1 0.1%
e) Other opinion 3 0.3%
No answer 0 -
14. What do you think of biking inside campus? (Only for
the usage inside the campus) 16 1.8%
a) I like the idea 8 0.9%
b) If possible, I‘m very likely to bike inside the campus 6 0.7%
c) Maybe I‘m unlikely to ride it 1 0.1%
d) Never thought about by me to bike inside the campus / not
thinkable 0 -
e) Other opinion 1 0.1%
No answer 0 -
139
15. How much is your weekly transportation costs to
campus? 16 1.8%
a) Rp 0 - Rp5,000 0 -
b) Rp5,000 - Rp20,000 0 -
c) Rp20,000 - Rp50,000 3 0.3%
d) Rp50,000 - Rp100,000 3 0.3%
e) More than Rp100,000 9 1.0%
No answer 1 0.1%
16. What do you think if there is no car permitted to enter
in the campus, but special parking building is provided
outside the campus?
16 1.8%
a) Indeed, it should be no car permitted to enter in the campus 1 0.1%
b) It‘s a good idea 2 0.2%
c) It‘s unlikely to be no car entering in the campus 9 1.0%
d) Never thought about by me / not thinkable 3 0.3%
e) Other opinion 1 0.1%
No answer 0 -
17. What do you think if there is no motorcycle permitted
to enter in the campus, but special parking building is
provided outside the campus?
16 1.8%
a) Indeed, it should be no motorcycle permitted to enter in the
campus 1 0.1%
b) It‘s a good idea 9 1.0%
c) It‘s unlikely to be no motorcycle entering in the campus 3 0.3%
d) Never thought about by me / not thinkable 1 0.1%
e) Other opinion 2 0.2%
No answer 0 -
18. What is your opinion on making new garden or green
area in the campus? 16 1.8%
a) Indeed, it should be 7 0.8%
b) It‘s a good idea 6 0.7%
c) It looks impossible 2 0.2%
d) Never thought about by me / not thinkable 1 0.1%
e) Other opinion 0 -
No answer 0 -
19. What is your opinion on adding more green
vegetations in the campus area? 16 1.8%
a) Good, it will be beautiful 7 0.8%
b) I like the idea, more vegetations will reduce pollutants
in the campus 6 0.7%
c) It looks impossible 0 -
d) Never thought about by me / not thinkable 3 0.3%
e) Other opinion 0 -
No answer 0 -
140
Appendix 8:
Result of Questionnaire Dissemination (Absolute and Relative Number)
OTHER
Question Respondent %
1. What do you usually chose as your means of
transportation to UIN, mostly? 5 0.6%
a) By motorcycle 0 -
b) By public transportation 0 -
c) By bicycle 0 -
d) Walking on foot 0 -
e) By my own car 0 -
f) Other 5 0.6%
2. What is the reason for your transportation choice? 5 0.6%
a) Fast 4 0.4%
b) Cheap 0 -
c) Usual 1 0.1%
d) It is hot for biking or by public transportation 0 -
e) I proud with my own vehicle 0 -
f) To avoid traffic jam 0 -
No answer 0 -
3. Would you prefer the public transportation, if it is
cheaper than private vehicle? 5 0.6%
a) Yes, I will take a bus or other public transportation 2 0.2%
b) No, I prefer my motorcycle 0 -
c) No, I prefer my own car 0 -
d) Maybe 3 0.3%
No answer 0 -
4. Would you prefer the public transportation, if it is faster
than private vehicle? 5 0.6%
a) Yes, I will take a bus other public transportation 4 0.4%
b) No, I prefer my motorcycle 0 -
c) No, I prefer my own car 0 -
d) Maybe 1 0.1%
No answer 0 -
5. Do you often maintain your vehicle, especially
motorcycle? 5 0.6%
a) Yes 2 0.2%
b) No 3 0.3%
No answer 0 -
a1 If yes, what is maintained? 5 0.6%
a) Lights 0 -
b) Brakes 0 -
c) Filters 0 -
d) Spark-plug 0 -
e) All 2 0.2%
No answer 3 0.3%
141
b1 If yes, why? 5 0.6%
a) For safety 1 0.1%
b) To extend the usage 0 -
c) To keep it in good condition 1 0.1%
d) To prevent the decrease of the exhaust gas quality 0 -
No answer 3 0.3%
c1 If yes, how much is spent for maintenance work a year? 5 0.6%
a) Rp20.000 - Rp50.000 0 -
b) Rp50.000 - Rp100.000 1 0.1%
c) Rp100.000 - Rp200.000 0 -
d) More than Rp200.000 1 0.1%
No answer 3 0.3%
a2 If no, why not? 5 0.6%
a) Unnecessary 1 0.1%
b) Expensive 0 -
c) Never thought about / Not thinkable 1 0.1%
No answer 3 0.3%
6. Where do you refuel? 5 0.6%
a) Always in the official fuel station 2 0.2%
b) Mostly in the official fuel station 1 0.1%
c) Sometimes in the official fuel station, sometimes in others 1 0.1%
d) Mostly from the streetsellers 1 0.1%
No answer 0 -
7. What‘s your daily distance from your accommodation to
UIN? 5 0.6%
a) Less than 1km 0 -
b) 1km-3km 0 -
c) 3km-5km 2 0.2%
d) 5-10km 2 0.2%
e) More than 10km 1 0.1%
No answer 0 -
8. How much time do you spend in traffic on your ride to
UIN? (Back and forth are summed) 5 0.6%
a) 5-30 minutes 0 -
b) 30minutes - 1hour 1 0.1%
c) 1-2hours 2 0.2%
d) 2-4hours 1 0.1%
e) More than 4hours 1 0.1%
No answer 0 -
142
9. How much time do you spend in traffic on your ride to
UIN, if there is no daily traffic jam? (Back and forth are
summed)
5 0.6%
a) 5-30 minutes 1 0.1%
b) 30minutes - 1hour 3 0.3%
c) 1-2hours 0 -
d) 2-4hours 0 -
e) More than 4hours 1 0.1%
No answer 0 -
10. During lecturing period, how many times in a week do
you go to UIN? 5 0.6%
a) Once 1 0.1%
b) Twice 0 -
c) 3 times 0 -
d) 4 times 1 0.1%
e) 5 times or more 3 0.3%
No answer 0 -
11. Does your family have a motorcycle? 5 0.6%
a) Yes 4 0.4%
b) No 0 -
c) More than one 1 0.1%
No answer 0 -
12. Does your family have a car? 5 0.6%
a) Yes 2 0.2%
b) No 3 0.3%
c) More than one 0 -
No answer 0 -
13. What do you think of biking to campus? 5 0.6%
a) I like the idea 5 0.6%
b) I‘m very likely to bike to campus 0 -
c) I‘m unlikely to bike to campus 0 -
d) Never thought about by me / not thinkable 0 -
e) Other opinion 0 -
No answer 0 -
14. What do you think of biking inside campus? (Only for
the usage inside the campus) 5 0.6%
a) I like the idea 4 0.4%
b) If possible, I‘m very likely to bike inside the campus 1 0.1%
c) Maybe I‘m unlikely to ride it 0 -
d) Never thought about by me to bike inside the campus / not
thinkable 0 -
e) Other opinion 0 -
No answer 0 -
143
15. How much is your weekly transportation costs to
campus? 5 0.6%
a) Rp 0 - Rp5,000 0 -
b) Rp5,000 - Rp20,000 0 -
c) Rp20,000 - Rp50,000 2 0.2%
d) Rp50,000 - Rp100,000 2 0.2%
e) More than Rp100,000 1 0.1%
No answer 0 -
16. What do you think if there is no car permitted to enter in
the campus, but special parking building is provided
outside the campus?
5 0.6%
a) Indeed, it should be no car permitted to enter in the campus 1 0.1%
b) It‘s a good idea 1 0.1%
c) It‘s unlikely to be no car entering in the campus 2 0.2%
d) Never thought about by me / not thinkable 1 0.1%
e) Other opinion 0 -
No answer 0 -
17. What do you think if there is no motorcycle permitted to
enter in the campus, but special parking building is
provided outside the campus?
5 0.6%
a) Indeed, it should be no motorcycle permitted to enter in the
campus 0 -
b) It‘s a good idea 3 0.3%
c) It‘s unlikely to be no motorcycle entering in the campus 1 0.1%
d) Never thought about by me / not thinkable 1 0.1%
e) Other opinion 0 -
No answer 0 -
18. What is your opinion on making new garden or green
area in the campus? 5 0.6%
a) Indeed, it should be 1 0.1%
b) It‘s a good idea 3 0.3%
c) It looks impossible 1 0.1%
d) Never thought about by me / not thinkable 0 -
e) Other opinion 0 -
No answer 0 -
19. What is your opinion on adding more green vegetations in the
campus area? 5 0.6%
a) Good, it will be beautiful 3 0.3%
b) I like the idea, more vegetations will reduce pollutants in the
campus 1 0.1%
c) It looks impossible 0 -
d) Never thought about by me / not thinkable 0 -
e) Other opinion 1 0.1%
No answer 0 -
144
1) Fast
2) Usual
1) Fast
2) Cheap & Usual
1) Usual
2) Cheap
3) Fat
1) Usual
2) Fast
3) Cheap
1) Fast
2) Avoid traffic jam
1) Usual
2) Fast
3) Hot
6.6 km
3.75 km
3.21 km
1.72 km
7.23 km
6.94 km
Dominant Reasons Average Distance
Appendix 9: Grand Mapping
145
5 km scale
UIN
= motorcycle (7.23 km)
= car (6.94 km)
= other (6.6 km)
= bicycle (3.75 km)
= public transportation (3.21 km)
= on foot (1.72 km)
= 5 kilometer
146
5 km scale
UIN
Motorcycle users‘ demography
Distance
380
respondents 100.0%
a) <1km 30 7.9%
b) 1km-3km 40 10.5%
c) 3km-5km 36 9.5%
d) 5-10km 96 25.3%
e) >10km 175 46.1%
not identified 3 0.8%
xi fi fixi
1 km 30 30
2 km 40 80
4 km 36 144
7.5 km 96 720
10 km 175 1750
Total 377 2724
Average distance to
campus 2724 : 377 7.23 km
= 5 kilometer
147
5 km scale
UIN
Public transportation users‘ demography
Distance
248
respondents 100.0%
a) <1km 65 26.2%
b) 1km-3km 63 25.4%
c) 3km-5km 81 32.7%
d) 5-10km 33 13.3%
e) >10km 2 0.8%
not identified 4 1.6%
xi fi fixi
1 km 65 65
2 km 63 126
4 km 81 324
7.5 km 33 247.5
10 km 2 20
Total 244 782.5
Average distance to
campus 782.5 : 244 3.21 km
= 5 kilometer
148
5 km scale
UIN
Bicycle users‘ demography
Distance
18
respondents 100.0%
a) <1km 5 27.8%
b) 1km-3km 3 16.7%
c) 3km-5km 6 33.3%
d) 5-10km 3 16.7%
e) >10km 1 5.6%
xi fi fixi
1 km 5 5
2 km 3 6
4 km 6 24
7.5 km 3 22.5
10 km 1 10
Total 18 67.5
Average distance to
campus 67.5 : 18 3.75 km
= 5 kilometer
149
5 km scale
UIN
Walker on foot demography
Distance
224
respondents 100.0%
a) <1km 154 68.8%
b) 1km-3km 42 18.8%
c) 3km-5km 14 6.3%
d) 5-10km 6 2.7%
e) >10km 3 1.3%
not identified 5 2.2%
xi fi fixi
1 km 154 154
2 km 42 84
4 km 14 64
7.5 km 6 45
10 km 3 30
Total 219 377
Average distance
to campus 377 : 219 1.72 km
= 5 kilometer
150
5 km scale
UIN
Car users‘ demography
Distance
16
respondents 100.0%
a) <1km 0 0.0%
b) 1km-3km 4 25.0%
c) 3km-5km 2 12.5%
d) 5-10km 2 12.5%
e) >10km 8 50.0%
xi fi fixi
1 km 0 0
2 km 4 8
4 km 2 8
7.5 km 2 15
10 km 8 80
Total 16 111
Average distance to
campus 111 : 16 6.94 km
= 5 kilometer
151
5 km scale
UIN
Other-users‘ demography
Distance 5 respondents 100.0%
a) <1km 0 0.0%
b) 1km-3km 0 0.0%
c) 3km-5km 2 40.0%
d) 5-10km 2 40.0%
e) >10km 1 20.0%
xi fi fixi
1 km 0 0
2 km 0 0
4 km 2 8
7.5 km 2 15
10 km 1 10
Total 5 33
Average distance to
campus 33 : 5 6.6 km
= 5 kilometer
152
OBSERVATION
21st September 2012
OBSERVATION
21st September 2012
OBSERVATION
21st September 2012
OBSERVATION
21st September 2012
Appendix 10: Observation Photos
153
OBSERVATION
21st September 2012
OBSERVATION
21st September 2012
OBSERVATION
21st September 2012
OBSERVATION
25th September 2012
154
OBSERVATION
21st September 2012
OBSERVATION
21st September 2012
OBSERVATION
25th September 2012
OBSERVATION
25th September 2012
OBSERVATION
25th September 2012
OBSERVATION
25th September 2012 OBSERVATION
25th September 2012
155
OBSERVATION
5th March 2013
OBSERVATION
5th March 2013
OBSERVATION
5th March 2013
OBSERVATION
5th March 2013
156
Irhamni Abdul Latif‘s photo, 15th
April 2013
157
Appendix 11: Chi Square Table
df Significance Level
df Significance Level
= 0.05 = 0.01 = 0.001 = 0.05 = 0.01 = 0.001
1 3.84 6.64 10.83 51 68.67 77.39 87.97
2 5.99 9.21 13.82 52 69.83 78.62 89.27
3 7.82 11.35 16.27 53 70.99 79.84 90.57
4 9.49 13.28 18.47 54 72.15 81.07 91.88
5 11.07 15.09 20.52 55 73.31 82.29 93.17
6 12.59 16.81 22.46 56 74.47 83.52 94.47
7 14.07 18.48 24.32 57 75.62 84.73 95.75
8 15.51 20.09 26.13 58 76.78 85.95 97.03
9 16.92 21.67 27.88 59 77.93 87.17 98.34
10 18.31 23.21 29.59 60 79.08 88.38 99.62
11 19.68 24.73 31.26 61 80.23 89.59 100.88
12 21.03 26.22 32.91 62 81.38 90.80 102.15
13 22.36 27.69 34.53 63 82.53 92.01 103.46
14 23.69 29.14 36.12 64 83.68 93.22 104.72
15 25.00 30.58 37.70 65 84.82 94.42 105.97
16 26.30 32.00 39.25 66 85.97 95.63 107.26
17 27.59 33.41 40.79 67 87.11 96.83 108.54
18 28.87 34.81 42.31 68 88.25 98.03 109.79
19 30.14 36.19 43.82 69 89.39 99.23 111.06
20 31.41 37.57 45.32 70 90.53 100.42 112.31
21 32.67 38.93 46.80 71 91.67 101.62 113.56
22 33.92 40.29 48.27 72 92.81 102.82 114.84
23 35.17 41.64 49.73 73 93.95 104.01 116.08
24 36.42 42.98 51.18 74 95.08 105.20 117.35
25 37.65 44.31 52.62 75 96.22 106.39 118.60
26 38.89 45.64 54.05 76 97.35 107.58 119.85
27 40.11 46.96 55.48 77 98.49 108.77 121.11
28 41.34 48.28 56.89 78 99.62 109.96 122.36
29 42.56 49.59 58.30 79 100.75 111.15 123.60
30 43.77 50.89 59.70 80 101.88 112.33 124.84
31 44.99 52.19 61.10 81 103.01 113.51 126.09
32 46.19 53.49 62.49 82 104.14 114.70 127.33
33 47.40 54.78 63.87 83 105.27 115.88 128.57
34 48.60 56.06 65.25 84 106.40 117.06 129.80
35 49.80 57.34 66.62 85 107.52 118.24 131.04
36 51.00 58.62 67.99 86 108.65 119.41 132.28
37 52.19 59.89 69.35 87 109.77 120.59 133.51
38 53.38 61.16 70.71 88 110.90 121.77 134.74
158
df Significance Level
df Significance Level
= 0.05 = 0.01 = 0.001 = 0.05 = 0.01 = 0.001
39 54.57 62.43 72.06 89 112.02 122.94 135.96
40 55.76 63.69 73.41 90 113.15 124.12 137.19
41 56.94 64.95 74.75 91 114.27 125.29 138.45
42 58.12 66.21 76.09 92 115.39 126.46 139.66
43 59.30 67.46 77.42 93 116.51 127.63 140.90
44 60.48 68.71 78.75 94 117.63 128.80 142.12
45 61.66 69.96 80.08 95 118.75 129.97 143.32
46 62.83 71.20 81.40 96 119.87 131.14 144.55
47 64.00 72.44 82.72 97 120.99 132.31 145.78
48 65.17 73.68 84.03 98 122.11 133.47 146.99
49 66.34 74.92 85.35 99 123.23 134.64 148.21
50 67.51 76.15 86.66 100 124.34 135.81 149.48
Source:http://rumushitung.com/2013/02/02/tabel-chi-square-dan-cara-
menggunakannya/, accessed on May 16, 2013.