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],

[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

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

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


Pimpinan Ranting Ikatan Remaja Muhammadiyah Darul Arqam Garut,

year 2004-2005


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


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


Appendix 1: Questionnaire Structure 113

Appendix 2: Result of Questionnaire Dissemination

(Absolute and Relative Number), TOTAL 116


(Absolute and Relative Number), Motorcycle 120


(Absolute and Relative Number), Public Transportation 124


(Absolute and Relative Number), Bicycle 128


(Absolute and Relative Number), On Foot 132


(Absolute and Relative Number), Car 136


(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.

http://www.uinjkt.ac.id/

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.‖

http://www.vtpi.org/tca/tca0510.pdf

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.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/good

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/use

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/help

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/profit

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/gain

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/advantage

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/favour

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/reward

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/utility

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/merit

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/boon

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mileage


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/interest

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/aid

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/gain

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/favour

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/assistance

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/betterment

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/welfare

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/goodness

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/good


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/reward

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

http://www.neiwpcc.org/neiwpcc_docs/greenbk.pdf

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.

http://bangazul.blogspot.com/2012/09/green-campus.html

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?


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)


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%


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%


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%


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%


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%


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%


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%


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%


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%


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%


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%


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%


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%


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%


b) very likely 217 24.4%

c) unlikely 46 5.2%


e) other 33 3.7%

44

No. 14 Opinion on biking at UIN From 891 respondents 100.0%


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%


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%



e) other 48 5.4%


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%





e) other 38 4.3%


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%



c) looks impossible 20 2.2%


e) other 19 2.1%


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%


e) other 27 3.0%


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


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%


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%


b) public transportation 0.56% 3rd

rank

c) bicycle -

49


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 -


From the table above, it can then be projected in the figure as follow.

Figure 4.2

Reasons Function to Transportation Means


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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%


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


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


―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


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




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





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


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


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


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


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


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%


Figure 4.12

Respondents Family Ownership of Motorcycle and Car, In Comparison


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%


72

Figure 4.13

Comparison of Respondents Opinion on Bike to and on Bike at Campus


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


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%


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%


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%


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%


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%


3) bicycle 1 0.1%

4) on foot 4 0.4%

5) car 1 0.1%


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%


3) bicycle 3 0.3%

2) RP 5.000 - RP 20.000 142 15.9% 1) motorcycle 92 10.3%


3) bicycle 5 0.6%

3) RP 20.000 - RP 50.000 252 28.3% 1) motorcycle 166 18.6%


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%


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%


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%


3) bicycle 1 0.1%

5) car 1 0.1%


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%


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


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


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


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


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



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



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


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.


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.


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)


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.


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%.



http://www.fitk-uinjkt.ac.id/

http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universitas_Islam_Negeri_Syarif_Hidayatullah_Jakarta

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.




http://www.restrojaksel.info/

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.


http://berasa-terbang-tinggi.blogspot.com/2011/08/universitas-islam-negeri-jakarta-uin.html



http://www.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/tentang-uin.html%20reveals%20that%20until%20Wisuda-85

http://www.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/tentang-uin.html%20reveals%20that%20until%20Wisuda-85

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


Graduates: 1,053, every

convocation


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

http://ekonomi.kompasiana.com/bisnis/2010/09/06/anda-ditipu-saat-parkir-oleh-pemda-dki-jakarta-250524.html

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%

http://www.bi.go.id/

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)

http://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

http://www.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/arsip-berita-utama/2439-uin-jakarta-pasang-plang-di-atas-tanah-triguna-utama.html



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).

http://www.bantenposnews.com/berita-876-uin-syarif-hidayatullah-hadapi-2-gugatan-perdata.html

http://www.bantenposnews.com/berita-876-uin-syarif-hidayatullah-hadapi-2-gugatan-perdata.html

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.

http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/1982/5/cj2n1-9.pdf

http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/1982/5/cj2n1-9.pdf

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.

http://www.vtpi.org/tca/tca0510.pdf

http://www.neiwpcc.org/neiwpcc_docs/greenbk.pdf

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.


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.


http://www.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/component/content/article/1-headline/1672-uin-jakarta-gelar-pameran-pendidikan-di-surabaya.html


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/benefit


http://www.fitk-uinjkt.ac.id/component/content/article/23-agenda/147-pelaksanaan-wisuda-sarjana-ke-85-.html

http://www.fitk-uinjkt.ac.id/component/content/article/23-agenda/147-pelaksanaan-wisuda-sarjana-ke-85-.html



http://www.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/component/content/article/1-headline/1555-rektor-harapkan-kontribusi-alumni.html

http://www.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/component/content/article/1-headline/1555-rektor-harapkan-kontribusi-alumni.html

http://www.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/component/content/article/1-headline/2161-uin-jakarta-luluskan-841-sarjana-baru.html

http://www.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/component/content/article/1-headline/2161-uin-jakarta-luluskan-841-sarjana-baru.html

http://www.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/arsip-berita-utama/2262-sebanyak-1181-peserta-akan-ikuti-wisuda-sarjana-ke-87-.html

http://www.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/arsip-berita-utama/2262-sebanyak-1181-peserta-akan-ikuti-wisuda-sarjana-ke-87-.html

http://www.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/arsip-berita-utama/2418-ribuan-calon-wisudawan-ke-89-ikuti-gladi-resik.html

http://www.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/arsip-berita-utama/2418-ribuan-calon-wisudawan-ke-89-ikuti-gladi-resik.html



http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lumpsumdistribution.asp

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/lump+sum

http://www.bi.go.id/web/en/Moneter/BI+Rate/Data+BI+Rate/

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.


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.

http://keuanganlsm.com/article/perpajakan/penyusutan-depresiasi-menurut-perpajakan/

http://keuanganlsm.com/article/perpajakan/penyusutan-depresiasi-menurut-perpajakan/

http://www.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/arsip-berita-utama/943-uin-jakarta-segera-bangun-mahad-aly-.html

http://www.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/arsip-berita-utama/943-uin-jakarta-segera-bangun-mahad-aly-.html




http://www.restrojaksel.info/one-stop-it-solutions/wisuda-sarjana-angkatan-ke-88-uin-syarif-hidayatullah-jakarta-ciputat-timur-kota-tangerang-selatan.html

http://www.restrojaksel.info/one-stop-it-solutions/wisuda-sarjana-angkatan-ke-88-uin-syarif-hidayatullah-jakarta-ciputat-timur-kota-tangerang-selatan.html

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


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


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


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


e. Other opinion


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


c. It‘s unlikely to be no motorcycle entering in

the campus


e. Other opinion

18. What is your opinion on making

new garden or green area in the

campus?

a. Indeed, it should be


c. It looks impossible


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


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%



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


UIN, if there is no daily traffic jam? (Back and forth

are summed)

891 100.0%

a) 5-30 minutes 392 44.0%


c) 1-2hours 173 19.4%

d) 2-4hours 62 7.0%


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%


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%


No answer 6 0.7%

13. What do you think of biking to campus? 891 100.0%


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%


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%


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%



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


891 100.0%

a) Indeed, it should be no motorcycle permitted to enter in the

campus 90 10.1%


c) It‘s unlikely to be no motorcycle entering in the campus 399 44.8%



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%


c) It looks impossible 20 2.2%



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%




No answer 6 0.7%

120

Appendix 3:


MOTORCYCLE Question Respondent %



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 -


a) Fast 190 21.3%

b) Cheap 32 3.6%

c) Usual 58 6.5%




No answer 0 -






d) Maybe 91 10.2%

No answer 3 0.3%


faster than private vehicle? 380 42.6%




d) Maybe 90 10.1%

No answer 8 0.9%



a) Yes 321 36.0%

b) No 59 6.6%

No answer 0 -


a) Lights 15 1.7%

b) Brakes 44 4.9%

c) Filters 16 1.8%


e) All 244 27.4%

No answer 57 6.4%

121

b1 If yes, why? 380 42.6%





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%




No answer 317 35.6%






No answer 7 0.8%

7. What‘s your daily distance from your

accommodation to UIN? 380 42.6%


b) 1km-3km 40 4.5%

c) 3km-5km 36 4.0%

d) 5-10km 96 10.8%


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%


c) 1-2hours 98 10.9%

d) 2-4hours 33 3.7%


No answer 0 -

122


to UIN, if there is no daily traffic jam? (Back and

forth are summed)

380 42.6%

a) 5-30 minutes 140 15.7%


c) 1-2hours 72 8.1%

d) 2-4hours 20 2.2%


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%


No answer 2 0.2%


a) Yes 291 32.7%

b) No 4 0.4%


No answer 0 -


a) Yes 174 19.5%

b) No 190 21.3%


No answer 2 0.2%







No answer 0 -

14. What do you think of biking inside campus? (Only

for the usage inside the campus) 380 42.6%





thinkable 27 3.0%


No answer 1 0.1%

123


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


380 42.6%






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%


campus 31 3.5%





No answer 0 -








No answer 0 -




b) I like the idea, more vegetations will reduce pollutants in

the campus 182 20.4%



e) Other opinion 15

No answer 0

124

Appendix 4:


PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION Question Respondent



a) By motorcycle 0 -

b) By public transportation 248 27.8%

c) By bicycle 0 -



f) Other 0 -


a) Fast 19 2.1%

b) Cheap 61 6.8%

c) Usual 158 17.7%


e) I proud with my own vehicle 0 -


No answer 2 0.2%






d) Maybe 54 6.1%

No answer 7 0.8%






d) Maybe 58 6.5%

No answer 6 0.7%



a) Yes 57 6.4%

b) No 167 18.7%

No answer 24 2.7%


a) Lights 2 0.2%

b) Brakes 12 1.3%

c) Filters 2 0.2%


e) All 46 5.2%

No answer 182 20.4%

125

b1 If yes, why? 248 27.8%





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%




No answer 137 15.4%






No answer 72 8.1%

7. What‘s your daily distance from your

accommodation to UIN? 248 27.8%


b) 1km-3km 47 5.3%

c) 3km-5km 25 2.8%

d) 5-10km 63 7.1%


No answer 2 0.2%



a) 5-30 minutes 31 3.5%


c) 1-2hours 65 7.3%

d) 2-4hours 59 6.6%


No answer 3 0.3%

126



forth are summed)

248 27.8%

a) 5-30 minutes 65 7.3%


c) 1-2hours 81 9.1%

d) 2-4hours 33 3.7%


No answer 4 0.4%



a) Once 3 0.3%

b) Twice 5 0.6%

c) 3 times 13 1.5%

d) 4 times 88 9.9%


No answer 3 0.3%


a) Yes 175 19.6%

b) No 25 2.8%


No answer 3 0.3%


a) Yes 75 8.4%

b) No 162 18.2%


No answer 2 0.2%







No answer 3 0.3%

14. What do you think of biking inside campus? (Only

for the usage inside the campus) 248 27.8%




d) Never thought about by me to bike inside the campus /

not thinkable 11 1.2%


No answer 3 0.3%

127


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



248 27.8%

a) Indeed, it should be no car permitted to enter in the

campus 50 5.6%





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%





No answer 1 0.1%

18. What is your opinion on making new garden or

green area in the campus? 248 27.8%






No answer 2 0.2%









No answer 4 0.4%

128

Appendix 5:


BICYCLE






c) By bicycle 18 2.0%



f) Other 0 -


a) Fast 5 0.6%

b) Cheap 4 0.4%

c) Usual 4 0.4%



f) To avoid traffic jam 0 -

No answer 0 -






d) Maybe 8 0.9%

No answer 0 -






d) Maybe 5 0.6%

No answer 0 -


motorcycle? 18 2.0%

a) Yes 8 0.9%

b) No 10 1.1%

No answer 0 -


a) Lights 1 0.1%

b) Brakes 8 0.9%

c) Filters 1 0.1%


e) All 4 0.4%

No answer 3 0.3%

129

b1 If yes, why? 18 2.0%





No answer 3 0.3%


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%


b) Expensive 3 0.3%


No answer 6 0.7%






No answer 3 0.3%


to UIN? 18 2.0%


b) 1km-3km 3 0.3%

c) 3km-5km 6 0.7%

d) 5-10km 3 0.3%


No answer 0 -



a) 5-30 minutes 5 0.6%


c) 1-2hours 4 0.4%

d) 2-4hours 4 0.4%

e) More than 4hours 0 -

No answer 0 -

130



forth are summed)

18 2.0%

a) 5-30 minutes 9 1.0%


c) 1-2hours 6 0.7%

d) 2-4hours 0 -


No answer 0 -



a) Once 2 0.2%

b) Twice 2 0.2%

c) 3 times 4 0.4%

d) 4 times 3 0.3%


No answer 0 -


a) Yes 8 0.9%

b) No 7 0.8%


No answer 0 -


a) Yes 3 0.3%

b) No 12 1.3%


No answer 0 -





d) Never thought about by me / not thinkable 0 -

e) Other opinion 0 -

No answer 0 -







thinkable 2 0.2%


No answer 0 -

131


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%


in the campus, but special parking building is


18 2.0%






No answer 0 -




18 2.0%


campus 2 0.2%





No answer 0 -








No answer 0 -





campus 6 0.7%




No answer 0 -

132

Appendix 6:


ON FOOT






c) By bicycle 0 -

d) Walking on foot 224 25.1%


f) Other 0 -


a) Fast 23 2.6%

b) Cheap 20 2.2%

c) Usual 163 18.3%




No answer 5 0.6%






d) Maybe 87 9.8%

No answer 11 1.2%






d) Maybe 68 7.6%

No answer 13 1.5%



a) Yes 47 5.3%

b) No 150 16.8%

No answer 27 3.0%


a) Lights 4 0.4%

b) Brakes 9 1.0%

c) Filters 2 0.2%


e) All 40 4.5%

No answer 163 18.3%

133

b1 If yes, why? 224 25.1%




d) To prevent the decrease of the exhaust gas quality 0 -

No answer 162 18.2%


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%




No answer 121 13.6%






No answer 66 7.4%


to UIN? 224 25.1%


b) 1km-3km 42 4.7%

c) 3km-5km 14 1.6%

d) 5-10km 6 0.7%


No answer 5 0.6%



a) 5-30 minutes 188 21.1%


c) 1-2hours 3 0.3%

d) 2-4hours 7 0.8%


No answer 4 0.4%

134



forth are summed)

224 25.1%

a) 5-30 minutes 176 19.8%


c) 1-2hours 11 1.2%

d) 2-4hours 5 0.6%


No answer 13 1.5%



a) Once 1 0.1%

b) Twice 6 0.7%

c) 3 times 9 1.0%

d) 4 times 76 8.5%


No answer 0 -


a) Yes 169 19.0%

b) No 24 2.7%


No answer 1 0.1%


a) Yes 93 10.4%

b) No 118 13.2%


No answer 2 0.2%







No answer 1 0.1%







thinkable 15 1.7%


No answer 3 0.3%

135


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%


in the campus, but special parking building is


224 25.1%






No answer 2 0.2%




224 25.1%


campus 23 2.6%





No answer 4 0.4%








No answer 4 0.4%









No answer 2 0.2%

136

Appendix 7:


CAR






c) By bicycle 0 -


e) By my own car 16 1.8%

f) Other 0 -


a) Fast 5 0.6%

b) Cheap 0 -

c) Usual 6 0.7%




No answer 0 -






d) Maybe 4 0.4%

No answer 0 -






d) Maybe 4 0.4%

No answer 0 -


motorcycle? 16 1.8%

a) Yes 9 1.0%

b) No 7 0.8%

No answer 0 -


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%





No answer 6 0.7%


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%



b) Expensive 1 0.1%


No answer 9 1.0%





d) Mostly from the streetsellers 0 -

No answer 0 -


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%


No answer 0 -



a) 5-30 minutes 2 0.2%


c) 1-2hours 4 0.4%

d) 2-4hours 4 0.4%


No answer 0 -

138


UIN, if there is no daily traffic jam? (Back and forth

are summed)

16 1.8%

a) 5-30 minutes 1 0.1%


c) 1-2hours 3 0.3%

d) 2-4hours 4 0.4%


No answer 0 -



a) Once 1 0.1%

b) Twice 2 0.2%

c) 3 times 0 -

d) 4 times 4 0.4%


No answer 0 -


a) Yes 10 1.1%

b) No 4 0.4%


No answer 0 -


a) Yes 11 1.2%

b) No 0 -


No answer 0 -




c) I‘m unlikely to bike to campus 0 -



No answer 0 -







thinkable 0 -


No answer 0 -

139


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%


in the campus, but special parking building is provided

outside the campus?

16 1.8%






No answer 0 -




16 1.8%


campus 1 0.1%





No answer 0 -








No answer 0 -




b) I like the idea, more vegetations will reduce pollutants

in the campus 6 0.7%

c) It looks impossible 0 -



No answer 0 -

140

Appendix 8:


OTHER






c) By bicycle 0 -



f) Other 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 -


No answer 0 -




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%


b) No, I prefer my motorcycle 0 -

c) No, I prefer my own car 0 -

d) Maybe 1 0.1%

No answer 0 -


motorcycle? 5 0.6%

a) Yes 2 0.2%

b) No 3 0.3%

No answer 0 -


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%


b) To extend the usage 0 -



No answer 3 0.3%


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%



b) Expensive 0 -


No answer 3 0.3%






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%


No answer 0 -



a) 5-30 minutes 0 -


c) 1-2hours 2 0.2%

d) 2-4hours 1 0.1%


No answer 0 -

142


UIN, if there is no daily traffic jam? (Back and forth are

summed)

5 0.6%

a) 5-30 minutes 1 0.1%


c) 1-2hours 0 -

d) 2-4hours 0 -


No answer 0 -



a) Once 1 0.1%

b) Twice 0 -

c) 3 times 0 -

d) 4 times 1 0.1%


No answer 0 -


a) Yes 4 0.4%

b) No 0 -


No answer 0 -


a) Yes 2 0.2%

b) No 3 0.3%

c) More than one 0 -

No answer 0 -



b) I‘m very likely to bike to campus 0 -

c) I‘m unlikely to bike to campus 0 -



No answer 0 -





c) Maybe I‘m unlikely to ride it 0 -


thinkable 0 -


No answer 0 -

143


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%






No answer 0 -

17. What do you think if there is no motorcycle permitted to



5 0.6%


campus 0 -





No answer 0 -








No answer 0 -

19. What is your opinion on adding more green vegetations in the

campus area? 5 0.6%



campus 1 0.1%

c) It looks impossible 0 -



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%


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%


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


= 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



= 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.

http://rumushitung.com/2013/02/02/tabel-chi-square-dan-cara-menggunakannya/

http://rumushitung.com/2013/02/02/tabel-chi-square-dan-cara-menggunakannya/

cost analysis for reducing traffic jam in campus...

Documents