Volume 8 Edisi Khusus Nomor 2 Oktober 2008
Junxer
rssN
Karya Iimiah
TnaNSPoRTAST
Fonuttl Sluor Tn.lNSportl,\sr
nN raR-Pi:Rci lRr,r.^,N
141 1-2442
Nomor A.9. Publikasi Jurnal
Txcr;r
Nasional Terakredit:
Penyunting Pelakana:
Wimpy Ssntosa (Ketua) Heru Sutomo (Anggota) Bambang Riyanto (Anggota) Pcnelaah Ahii
l\1. \'anrin Jinca (l'rogranr Studi 'feknik'l'ransportasi PPS Universitas Hasanuddin) Pirrardi Koestalam (Jurusan Teknik Sipil lnstirut'leknologi Sepuluh Nopember) Achurad Wicaksono (Jurusan Teknik Sipil Universitas Brarvijal'a) Sigit Priyanto (Jururan l'eknik Sipil dan Lingkungan Universitas Gadjah lt4ada) Soetarrto Suhodho (Depaftemen'l'ck]iik Sipil Universitas lDdonesia) Drnang Paril(esit (Jurusan Tekrik Sipildan l-ingkungan Univcrsitas Gadjah Mada) Winrpy Santosa (Jurusan Teknik Sipil Llniversitas Katolik Parahyangan)
Siti Malkharnah (Jurusal Teknik Sipil
dan Lingkungan Universitas Gadlah Mada)
'I'ala i lsahe:
Fitria
Tri
Ju lianti Basu ki Joe$ ono
Alamat Redaki/Penerbit Fakultas Tekrik, Jurusan feknik Sipil
Universitas Katolik Parahyangan Jalan Ciumbuleuit No. 94, Bandung 40 l4 l Tlp. (r:r22) 2033691 Faks. (022) 2033692 E-mail: fstptT@home .unpar ac. id
Terbit pada bulan-bulan: Juni dan Desember Penanggung -iawab:
Ketua Forunr Studi Transportasi antar-Pcrguruan'finggi Bia),a Pengganti l)ercetakJn
Anggota FSTPT: Rp 25.000,00 pcr eksemplar
ilrnum: Rp 35.000,00 per eksemplar Ongkos kirim: Dalitnr Pulau Jawa: Rp 10.000,00 pcr eksemplar Luar Pulau Jawa: Rp 15.000,00 per eksernplar Pcmbayaran dapat Jrlakukan melalui Wesel Pos atau langsung ke redaksi. Selrap anggola FSTI'T otomalis mendapat salu eksenrplar secara cuma-cuma
Jurnal Transportasi adalah jurnal iluriah di bidang ilmu transponasi yang diterbitkan dua kali setahun oleh Forum Studi Transponasi anrar-Perguruan Trrrr:gi (FSTPT). Makaliih-makalah yang dimuat di jurnal ini merupakan makalah-niakalrilr rerbrrL dari Simposruur FS1'PT y;ng diadakan sctiap tahun. Di samping sebagai wadah koniunikasi ilrri.rh, peirerbitan Jurnai Tr.,nsponasijuga bertLrjuan rintuk menlrbarluaskan hasil-hasil penelitian yang -l berkaitan deI]ga:r brdanrl rlmu trunsll)rl.iil Jurna ransfL-.rta:i r,i:rlrh Jurnal IEIIAKREDI I{Sl berdasarkan Keputusan Direklur Jcn.lcrll i'.ndL.lrliirn frn!!i. ll(:'.irtenren PendiJLj.ln \i1\ional Republik lndonesia, \omor 108/D IK']'l/Kep/2007 tanggal
2l Agusrui 2rr07.
Volume
I
Edisi Khusus Nomor 3 Oktober 2008
ISSN 141 1-2442
Junxer TnaNSPoRrASr Font-nt Sruor Tn-q,Nsponresr,qr'rre-a-PERGURTIAN Tnrccr
DAFTAR ISI Kata Pcngantar Comparison of User Perception of Willingness and Ability to Pay for Parakansit Service in
187-198
Bandung
Tri Basuki Joeowno Pcrtumbuhan Sepeda Motor dan Dampaloya Bagi Transportasi Perkotaan
199-212
Harun Al-Rasyid S, Lubis Punctuality and Expected Waiting Time of Stage Buses in Mixed Traffic
213-226
Suwardo, Madzlan Napiah, and lbrahim Kamaruddin Simplified 1'echnique for Monitoring Road Traffic Safety Indicators
zz7 -234
Tri Tjahjono Prioritas Angkutan Umum untuk Menggapai Keberlanjutan
235-214
Heru Sutomo Angkutan Umum Multimoda Sebagai Suatu Pilihan pada Perencanaan Transportasi
?45-258
Berkelanjutan
Erika Buchari Distribusi Arus Lalulintas pada La.1ur-Lajur Jalan Bebas Hambatan dalam Kota 6
Lajv
2
259-212
Arah
Leksmono Suryo Putranto dan Dedy Setio lntan Krlas Bahk Pembangunan Transportasi lndonesia
273-282
Waldljono Indeks Pengarang Jumal Transportasi Volume 8 Edisi Khusus
283-t-?84-1
Kata Pengantar I)rL.ji rtLrkLrr sLrdah selalal
I'aclu saat rencana untuh menerbitkan Edisi Khusus ini disampaikan di Rapat Anggotrr l:S'1 I'l1ang lalu. kanri sebenarn)/a hanya merencanal(an untuk menerbilkan I (satur rornor saja untuk Edisi Khusus ini. Tetapi respons anggota FSTPT sangat luar biasa. Kita patut bergerrbira bahrva para anggota FSIPT sangat antusjas dalam mengirimkan artikcl trntLrl< mcndukung penerbitan Jurnal Transportasi Edisi Khusus ini.
lrclaltri proses i-evrcu,, terpilih 2rl (dua puluh errpal) artikel, sehingga kami harur rrenelbitlian 3 (tiga) nornor. UntLrl< itu kami rnengucapkan banyak terima kasih kepada parii r-elrcir er.r. lihususnya Bapak Prof. Dr. Sigit Priyanto dan Bapak Dr. Achnrad \\/icalisono. vans telah bekerja keras schingga hasil re,vleu,dapet karnitcrima tepat waktu. Setclrrh
I:disi lthLrsrrs ini tidak akan nlungkin tcrlaksana tanpa dukungan pihak-pihak terkait. Untuk itLr liarni nrergLrcapkan terima kasih kepada Bapak Dr. Tri ljahjono (Ketua FSTPT) atas ilukLrngan t'ang telah diberikan, sena kepada Pusat Studi Transportasi dan Logistik lPtlS'IRAL) Universitas Gadjah Mada dan Center for Transportation Studics (C'fS) []nircrsitas Katolik Parahyangan, yang telah mendukung penerbitan Jurnal Transpodasi VolLrnre 8. Edisi Khusus, ini. Selanrat [Jlang'l ahun FSTPT
Ketua Penyunting Pelaksana,
Prof. Dr. Wimpy Santosa
COMPARISON OF USER PERCEPTION OF WILLINGNESS A TD ABILITY TO PAY FOR PARATRANSIT SERVICE IN BANDUNG Tri Basuki Joewo no Department of Civil Engineering Parahyangan Catholic University
JI. Ciumbuleuit94 Dandun&, Indonesia 40141 Ph: +62-022-2033691 F: +62-022-2033692 vftri
[email protected],dc.id
Abstr:lct Public transportation fare determination coverS a variety of faclors, ranging from the cost of providing the
service
(0
urban transport policy. which will be expressed in the fafe level, fare structure, and method of fare
cOllection. In fact, the cu rrent practice of fare determination results in much controversy from operators and
users, for example in Indonesia. The main problem focuses on the different perceptions regarding 'the suitable farc' for all stakeholders. This 3r1icle aims to compare the user perception of willingness and ability [Q pay for paratransit. The data were collected from a survey in Bandung. Indonesia. and analyzed using sUHistical analyses. The findings illustrate a gap between the values of willingness and ability, and also reveal that peop le ditferenl valuations regarding the ir related perceptions_ This study also discusses the policy
implications of [his analysis. Keywords: willingness to pay, ability to pay, fare, perception. paratransit.
INTRODUCTION In economics, the consum er's willingness to pay (WTP) means the maximum amo unt that a person woul d be willing to pay for n service rather than do without it (A IGhuraiz and Enshassi, 2005), or wou ld give up in order to enjoy an improvement in qual ity (W hitehead, 2005). The WTP concept is useful in visualizing the viewpoint of users of a system (Khisty and Lall , 2003) and as the key com ponent of the benefit-<:ost evaluation (Hoehn and Krieger, 2000; AI-Ghuraiz and Enshassi, 2004). Further. a positive WTP indicates not only a positive attitude to the thing valued, but also has the advantage of indicating the strength of that attitude constrained by factors such as an ability to pay (Jones-Lee, 1993; Wa lton et ai, 2004). Meanwhile, the ability to pay (ATP) princip le, bes ide the benefits princ iple, is one of the normati ve approaches underlying th e theory of taxation (see e.g. Musgrave and Musgrave, 1975; Deb et ai, 2003). The ATP principle meanS that for a pu blic project, those who are able lO affo rd to pay more should pay more. The most popular var iant of the ATP principle is ca lled the equal marginal sacrifice principle (Musgrave and Musgrave, 1975). A usual assumption is that individua ls who declare them selves wi lling to pay the price should, somehm\, be able to do so (Russell. 1996; Mataria et a i, 2006). In fact, as Senbil and Kitamura (2004) stated, individuals are Jptto report values below the real va lue that can be paid, because they might feel them se lves more comfortable by leaving a gap that mi ght be traversed in the case of increased risk, and they mi ght gradually increase the value or sudden ly swilch to the real WTP when their reported values turns out to be of no use. Thus, the rel alionship between WTP and ATP remains a matter of debate. Some economists argue that the two notions should be strongly distinguished (Mataria et a i,
2006).
Jumal Trnnsportasl Vol. & EdlSI Khusus 1\'0.3 Oktober2008; 187-1 98
t87
the hunran dec is ion-n.raking process, emphasizing the accumulation of evidence regarding the disparities in the measures ofvalues (see Knetsch and Sinden, 198'1; Loomes et al. 2006: and Sugdcn, 2003 ior n.rore discussion regarding this topic). Sugdc-n (2005) statcs that thc prelerences that govern people's actual behavior are otien incoherent and unstable. Indeed, psl,chologists have shown that people olten treat gains and losses aslmmetricall), and tend to rcquire a substantially larger increase in rvealth to compensate lor a loss than tlre :rrroLrnt thcl rvould be willing to pay for an equivalent gain (Guria et al, 2005). I
tJ D
G) E
o
@
t
Vo+JV V
Vd
(a)
Figure
If a person expresses
D
ib)
I
Willingness to Pay (Manheim, 1979)
a WTP for a service, and even
if
s/he proceeds to pav for
it in
thc leal rvorld. -\uch stated and revealed behavior ma)' not be automaticiill) interpreted as plool'of affordability. Payments might be made at considerable social cost. obliging the Person to give up essential consuulption such as education, just to bc able to acquire the service (Mataria et al, 2006). Indeed, when confronted u,ith a sevcre social and,/or economic exogenous shock, such as rapid impoverishment, individuals may begin a process of re-prioritization of what is important and what is not. leading them ro underestimate issues in which they were previously expressing relative interesr (Mataria et al. 2006). Lr these situations the role of ATP bccornes clcar, u'hich underlines the d il'lcrence bctrvce rr WTP and ATP. Indeed, it seeurs fair, even for the poor, to give a high value of W IP lor good scrvices, even though they are unaffordable: as Ajzen et al (2000) and Walton et al (2004) have stated, WTP values are based on psychologically considerations. Also, it seems tair for the poor to express a very low ATP, even for very good services, since ATP is defincd as the real allocation or sharing from his/her income in order to buy the service, rr,,h ich lirrits the capability to buy that service. It is highly possible that someone shows a high \l'lP uhile sinrultancously showing a lorl ATP. This means that the poor have a high appreciation tbr thc services that are too expensive ibr them to allord. This is a possiblc situatiorr for' 'captive riders, especialll thc poor. In the case of hiqh incontc (generally 'choice ) riders rneeting an unsatist'actorv or lorv service quality, they * ill be highll' likcll to have a verl lou WTP, although in fact thcl have a high ATP.
DA'I'A COLT,EC'IION The data uscd to study the users' ability and willingness to pa) u.re collected using the qucstionnaire devised by Hadi (200-1). The qLrestionnaire was distributed to the respondcnts Lrsing simple random sampling both off-board (in ternrinal)arrd on-board. kr
('onrpan:.r of user pcrceptron ot williugncss uld at)r rl)
ii fay
tbr paralransrt
ser
vicc (Trr Basulr Jot\\ouo
I
18!
The monthly expenses of the users ranged {iom less than 0.5 million IDR (58.69'0), 0.5 I million IDR (30.4%), to more than 1 million IDR ( I 1%). The transportation expenses per month were less than 100,000 IDR (62%) and 100,000 IDR or more (38uui,). The distribution of the number of tnps using paratransit per day was once (13.(r%). twice (63.2ok), and three or more times per day (23.20/,,). The trip length in making use of paratransit was less than 5 km (18.3%),5-10 km (41.8%), l0-20 krn (23.2%), and morc than 20km (10.1%). The u,aiting t ime r ange d from 1 ess than5 minutes (41 .7%),5 1{\ minutes (34.5%), l0-15 minutes (11%), to more than l5 minutes (7.2%).
The users perceived accessibility as easy (60.9%) and fair (35.9%), while 21.2% and 72.8Yo perceived paratransit as comfortable and fair, respectively. While 19.4Y" of the respondents s tated that p aratransit was safe, the perceived service quality of paratransit ranged from very bad (5.5%), and bad (20%), to far ('10.7%). The suncy yielded the result that'16.8o/,' of the respondents agreed with a fare increment when therc is an inrprovement in scrvice quality, with the agreed fare increment as less than 500 IDR (45.3%,) and 500 IDR or more (54.7%). It is useful to know whether there is a difference betwecn the value of WTP and ATP, and between the value based on quality perception and financial perception. The result of the paired t-test shows that the WTPq (WTP based on quality perccption) is significantly higher than ATPq (ATP based on quality perception), where thc H6 : WTPq ATPq = 0 is rejected (p-value - .016) with H" : WTPq-ATPq > 0. This result explains that people tend to express a higher value of u,illingness than their ability when they relate the valuation with the quality perception. The value of WTPf (WTP based on financial perception) is significantly smaller than ATPf (ATP based on financial perception), which is shown by the rejection of H6 : WTPf ATPf : 0 (p-value : .000) with H" : WTPf-ATPf < 0. The result illustrates that people tend to express a lower willingness than their ability rvhen they relate the valuation with the financial perception. In addition, the paired t-test also shows that thc value of WTPq is significantly different from WTPI and the value of ATPq is sigrrificantly dlffcrent fiom ATPf. This is shown by the rejection (p-value : .000) of H6 : WTPq = WTPI, and also H6 : ATPq = ATPf. Further analysis employs a cross-tabulation of ATP and WTP. Table I explains the relationship between WATP values and several aspects of service quality, namely accessibility, comfort, safety, and overall quality. Since there are different pcrceptions regarding the service quality, from very good up to very bad, then it is intercsting to know whether there is any difference in WATP for groups of users who perceive the service quality as bad, and users who pcrceive it as good. Thus, the null hypothesis (H6) is that the value of WATP is independent of the service quality perception. The chi square test is employed to test the independence as the null hypothesis (Ott and Longnecker, 2001). As can be seen in Table l , the chi-squarc test shows that the values of A IP and W'l'P based on quality perception are independcnt of the service quality categories (p > .01). This means that there is no difference in A",WTP based on the differcnt perceptions of service quality. The possible reason for this is that the paratransit's service quality was perccivcd similarly, so the users only show a naro\\ range of W/ATP.
Comparison ofuscr pcrccption of will ingrcss ard ability !o pay for par-.transit service (Tri Basuki JoewoDo)
l9l
Table I Cross-Tabulation for ATP and WTP Based on Perception of Quality of Service W'fP Qualitr' (lDR)
l8
2
t4
750-1000
69 62 50
i4
4 4
> 1500
l'otal p"value for 12 test
<75 0
750-1001) r000- l 250
1250-1500 >
q
@
7
Com fort
Difficult Comforr Fair
2'7
2 210
l5o0
Total p-r,alue for 12 test
39 27 6
t14
Fair
Sa
Discomlbrt
Safe
0
24
33 75
li
3l 8l
l8
8l
6
90
I
t6
'7
65
0
I
55 7
0
'7
251
2t
214
ll
.452 Accessibility
ATP Qualitl, (lDR)
a
FaiI
.-7 5{)
t000-1250 1250-t500
;
Accessibility
Easy
.402 Comfort
letv N"ol
Safc
Very
Bad
l4
26
0
26
6 6 0 0
22
1)
1
2t
'74
ll
4
65
2
I
1
t9
69
244
il
Bad 4
Fair
6 ood
9
0
t7
43 71
5
t5 I3 I
'tl Safe
Quality V
llad
t2
0
ll
4
l9
l6
46
6
59
9
6l
3E
3
t7
19
6
80
22
1
4 0
26
83
7
89
27
5
26
4l l8 t24
3l
7
35
9
2
73
251
21
274
1t
l9
'tl 2to
.t60
ll
839
531
0
.017
Saletv Safe Not
3
8
(iood
7
046
Difficult Comfort Fair Discomfort
Fair
l6
2 2
5
Qualit_v
Uad
2
20
80
4 69 150
I
']
38
0
244
l3
i
Iti:i
100.00
.
. . ,,
--
...*:.., l
X. ri,. .. ..... 7
5.00
5
0.00
2
5.00
s E
O
1.
'; .+. ,x t.a
000
2s0
500
1000 1250
150
1750
1500
2000
ATP/WTP Range (Rupiah)
.x
\\'TP-QS(Very
Bad)
AtP'QS(Very
Bad)
r- 'y1p-q5*r, -*o ATP-QS(Bad) +
---x- WTPQS(cood)
WTO-QS(Fair)
"'-
ATP-Qs(Fat)
-
ATPQS(Good)
Figure 2 Ability to Pay and Willingness to Pay Based on Service Quality
i
I00.00
x .A
7
5.00
=E 50.00
O
2
5.00
x. a.
0.00
250
---^
750
500
1000 t250
1500 1750
2000
ATP/WTP Range (Rupiah)
00.000Rp.) Rp.)
wTP-'l'rans_Exp(
WTP- ftansp Exd>= 100.000 Rp.) -r. .ATP-Trans_
x
Exp(>= 100.000 Rp.)
Figure 3 Ability to Pay and Willingness to Pay Based on User Expenses for Transportation
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wish to thank to everyone who has contributed to this research, especially Y. Y. Hadi, who has provided the data ftom his research. He would also like to thank the reviewers for providing very constructive comments on the initial version of this article.
Companson of user pcrccptioo of willingness and ability to pxy for paratransit servic€ (Tri Basuki Joewono)
a
195
R. 2003. The responsibility criterion:
consumer sovereig ty without the assumption of coherent preferences. CSERGE Working Paper EDM 03-02. The Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment and School ofEconomic and Social Studies. Univcrsity of East Anglia. Norwich. Sugden, R. 2005. Taking uncon.sidered preferences seriously. School of Economics, Sugden,
UniversiS, of East Angiia, Norwich. Cited November 01, 2006 from htp:/lwww.economics. ucr.edu/seminars/ winter06/ets/BobSugden2-8-06.pdf Walton, D., Thomas, J. A and Cenek, P. D. 2004. Self and others' willingness to pay for improvements lo the purt'd road surface. Transportation Research Part A 38. Whitehead, i. C. 2005. Combifirg willingness to pay and behavior data with limitetl infornration. Resource and Energy Economics 27.
Comparison ofuser pcrceprion of willingness and abiliry to pay for Paratransit servicc (Tri Basuki Jocwono)
l9'7
