Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project

Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads

Mohammad Arif Rohman

Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements

of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

FACULTY OF ARCHITECTURE, BUILDING AND PLANNING

THE UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE
2017
 Abstract

Indonesia as a developing country has been intensively developing toll roads to support its economic
growth through the Public Private Partnerships (PPP) scheme. However, toll road development in
Indonesia is not quite following the plan. Despite the fact that they have been developed since 1978,
currently, only about 950 km of toll roads‟ length is under an operational stage. Social problems in the
form of community protest to the toll road impact are perceived as the main problem since Indonesia
has moved from an authoritarian to a democratic country. According to the project success theory, the
success of toll roads as PPP infrastructure projects should be measured by the overall stakeholders‟
satisfaction, as the ultimate success of the project has a close relationship with stakeholders. The
community who reside adjacent to the toll roads who is also the user is very important stakeholders for
the success of PPP projects. Therefore, it is important to consider community satisfaction as a success
measure of infrastructure projects. Failure to accommodate the community needs and interests lead to
stakeholder opposition that can reduce the chance of the project success.

From the community perspective, a toll road is an infrastructure project that attracts public interest and
has a long project life cycle. Therefore, it needs to become sustainable by balancing economic,
environmental and social aspects. However, the existing PPP theory only relies on the Best Value (BV)
Concept that mainly focuses on the economic aspect, less significant environmental based consideration,
and almost no attention is given to the social aspect. This is perhaps the reason for the social problem
that leads to the stakeholder opposition. Indeed, the ultimate success of a PPP project should be
measured by how it contributes as much benefit as possible to the community as the end user. This can
be done by including social sustainability as the success criteria of PPP toll road projects because this
aspect is usually close to the community needs and interests.

Project Social Benefit (PSB), which is adapted from the social sustainability theory, is important to
deliver the project benefit streams to the society and to ensure the long-term viability of infrastructure
projects such as toll roads. This research investigated and tested the PSB application as the social
success measure in the context of PPP toll road projects in Indonesia from the community perspective.
Attributes to measure PSB were investigated using a quantitative approach as well as the factors or
constructs that influence on PSB, namely Project Design (PD), Community Participation (CP) and
Government‟s Role (GR). Data were collected through some research steps consisting of a preliminary
interview, pilot test, and questionnaire survey. Stakeholders‟ perceptions were obtained through the
questionnaire survey involving 375 respondents from the government, private sectors and community
using a purposive sampling method. A series of statistical techniques were used in this research

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads |i
consisting of mean analysis, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) test, post hoc test, Exploratory Factor
Analysis (EFA), Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Structural Equation Modeling (SEM).

It was found that the existing toll road performance was sub-optimal according to the stakeholders‟
perceptions, especially the community. It can be seen from the attributes‟ scores for the four constructs
(PSB, PD, CP, and GR) which mostly were less than 4.00 as the minimum category of satisfaction level.
This might happened as the four constructs had not been clearly defined and used as indicators to guide
the success of infrastructure project. Moreover, the research found that the community tended to have
different perceptions of the attributes‟ performance compared to that of the government and private
sectors. It possibly happened because, in the existing implementation, the community has not been
adequately involved in the decision-making process. The above overall conditions perhaps become the
reason for social problems that often happen in the toll road development in Indonesia. In addition to
those aforementioned, the research found that the government has an important role in delivering PSB
based on SEM. As the owner of an infrastructure project, the government is a powerful stakeholder in
the decision-making process in PPP scheme. The government has an important influence on community
participation which led to project design and finally contributed to PSB performance. Therefore, the
government should have a better performance to achieve the overall project success. However, it was
found that the influence of the Government‟s Role (GR) to the PSB cannot be performed directly but
should be mediated by the Project Design (PD) and the Community Participation (CP).

Finally, the community participation was found as a channel to communicate the community interests
and needs in the decision-making process that can improve the project design performance. It is
suggested that community participation should be formulated as a mechanism for formally injecting
people (in this case is the community) to improve the existing traditional PPP scheme. The current
concept of Public Private People Partnerships (4P) can be adopted as the framework to implement this
idea. However, since each project has different characteristics, the framework should be customised
according to the project nature. This research contributes to the body of knowledge by presenting a new
success perspective of toll roads by providing a more comprehensive theoretical framework to
understand the success from the PSB Concept. Practically, this study contributes to providing guidance
for the overall stakeholders, especially the government as the most powerful stakeholder in the decision-
making process to overcome the existing limitations of the PPP concept by increasing the PSB in PPP
toll road project in Indonesia. It is expected by implementing this concept, the social problem can be
addressed, stakeholders‟ opposition can be reduced and a more comprehensively successful toll road can
be achieved.

Keywords: community, government‟s role, project social benefit, participation, project design, Public
Private Partnerships (PPP), toll road projects

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | ii
 Declaration

This is to certify that :

(i) the thesis comprises only my original work towards the PhD except where
indicated in the preface,
(ii) due acknowledgment has been made in the text to all other material used,
(iii) the thesis is less than 100,000 words in length, exclusive of tables, maps,
bibliographies and appendices.

Mohammad Arif Rohman

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | iii
 Acknowledgements

All praises due to Allah SWT, the Almighty God because only because of His help and guidance I have
passed one-step my life path. May prayers and peace be upon Prophet Muhammad SAW who guides us
towards a safe and happy life in this world and hereafter. I wish to express my appreciation to those
who support me in the preparation of this thesis at The University of Melbourne. I am very grateful to
have Dr. Hemanta Doloi as my principal supervisor. Dr. Doloi never stops at supporting and encourage
me in every stage of my PhD life, especially he asked me to never give up during the difficult times. His
constant support and encouragement helps me to survive and pass through every milestone of my
candidature. He always gives me trust and freedom for making decisions, which helped me to overcome
any difficulties in my research and this, makes me learn how to be an independent researcher. To Dr.
Doloi, I say with great respect, I am greatly indebted.

I am also grateful to have Associate Professor Dr. Christopher Heywood as my research co-supervisor.
He is a friendly, supportive and dedicated mentor. To me, beside a supervisor, he is a good friend to
whom I can talk any difficulties about my study. I learn from him many valuable things beyond the
research exercise that I believe very important to my academic career. To Dr. Heywood, I would say
thank you very much for your support and kindness. It is an honor for me to have both Dr. Doloi and Dr.
Heywood as my research team.

I would like to thank Associate Professor Alan March and Dr. Sophie Sturup as my research committee
for their valuable comments and supports which stimulated me to widen my research perspectives. I also
would like to thank the Research Office, especially Jane Trewin and Ceira Barr for their support and
assistance during my study . Thank you to my study colleagues, Essam Almahmoud, Asheem Strestha,
Citra Ongkowijoyo and Argaw Gurmu for being discussion partners during my PhD journey.

This study was funded by the Direktorat Jenderal Sumber Daya Riset, Teknologi dan Pendidikan
Tinggi, Ministry of Research and Higher Education, Republic of Indonesia. To Government of
Indonesia, I would say thank you for providing me funding to pursue this PhD study. Thank you to
Construction Management Laboratory members, Staff of Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of
Civil Engineering and Planning and Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember (ITS) who give me
opportunity to continue this study. I would like to also thank all the respondents in both interview and
questionnaire survey. Their valuable response is very important for this research.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | iv
I thankful to my parents and parents in law who always pray for my family success. Without their
support and supplication, this difficult task would be almost impossible to be done. Thank you to our
family who always provides support and supplication for this success. I am also very lucky to have
Ratna Andini as a friend, wife and proud mother of our children who always supports me in every
moment of my life. Without her support and supplication, this part of life would be difficult to pass.
Last but not least, I am grateful to have three wonderful children (Shavira Alya Rahma, Achmad Ikmal
Azky Fauzy, and Achmad Syafrie Muzakky) which always keep my spirits up to finish this long
journey. I hope this small work can be a good inspiration for them to always study in their life.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads |v
 LIST OF PUBLICATIONS

The following papers are some of the outputs were produced during this PhD research to disseminate
the author‟s work:

1. Rohman, M.A., Doloi, H. and Heywood, C. (2013). Theoretical Model Development of the

Government‟s Roles in Achieving Stakeholders‟ Satisfaction in PPP Toll Road. Conference

Proceeding of the 38th Australasian Universities Building Education Association Conference

(AUBEA) in Auckland, New Zealand, November, 20-22.

2. Rohman, M.A., Doloi, H. and Heywood, C. (2015). The Community Perspective of the Social

Benefit of Public Private Partnerships (PPP) Toll Road Projects. Conference Proceeding of Cobra

Conference in collaboration with University Technology Sydney and University of Western

Sydney, Australia, July, 8-10.

3. Rohman, M.A., Doloi, H. and Heywood, C. (2015). Government‟s Roles in PPP Toll Road

Projects. Conference Proceeding of 6th International Conference on Construction Engineering and

Project Management in Busan Korea, October, 11-14.

4. Rohman, M.A., Doloi, H. and Heywood, C.A. (2017). Success Criteria of PPP Toll Road Projects

from a Community Societal Perspective. Built Environment Project and Asset Management

(BEPAM), 7 (1), 32-44.

5. Rohman, M.A., Doloi, H. and Heywood, C.A. (2017). Achieving Project Social Benefit for the

Success of PPP Toll Road Projects using SEM. Journal paper‟s manuscript is under supervisors‟

review.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | vi
 TABLE OF CONTENT

Abstract ....................................................................................................................................................................... i
Declaration ................................................................................................................................................................ iii
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................................... iv
LIST OF PUBLICATIONS ....................................................................................................................................... vi
TABLE OF CONTENT ........................................................................................................................................... vii
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................................... vii
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................................. xiii
CHAPTER 1INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1. Background ........................................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1.1. Problems in Indonesia PPP Toll Road Project Development ................................................................. 1
1.1.2. Limitation of the Current Success Measure of PPP Toll Road Projects ................................................. 5
1.1.3. The Promising Application of Project Social Benefit in Infrastructure Development ............................ 6
1.2. Problem Statement ............................................................................................................................................. 8
1.3. Research Objective ............................................................................................................................................ 8
1.4. Research Questions ............................................................................................................................................ 8
1.5. Research Hypotheses ......................................................................................................................................... 9
1.6. Scope and Limitations...................................................................................................................................... 10
1.7. Research Methodology .................................................................................................................................... 11
1.8. Thesis Structure ............................................................................................................................................... 11
1.9. Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 12
CHAPTER 2 TOLL ROAD PROJECT SUCCESS AND SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY ....................................... 13
2.1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 13
2.2. Toll Road Projects............................................................................................................................................ 13
2.2.1. A Toll Road as a Transport Project ...................................................................................................... 13
2.2.2. A Toll Road as a Construction Project ................................................................................................. 15
2.2.3. A Toll Road as an Infrastructure PPP Project ....................................................................................... 16
2.3. Project Success ................................................................................................................................................ 21
2.3.1. The Concept of Project Success ............................................................................................................ 21
2.3.2. Project Success Criteria ........................................................................................................................ 22
2.3.3. Project Success Factors ......................................................................................................................... 31
2.4. Stakeholders in PPP Projects ........................................................................................................................... 42
2.5. The Importance of the Community Perspective in the Success of PPP Toll Road Projects............................. 44
2.6. Relating Project Success to Sustainable Development .................................................................................... 44
2.7. Sustainable Development ................................................................................................................................. 45
2.7.1. Definition of Sustainability and Sustainable Development .................................................................. 45
2.7.2. The Concept of Sustainable Development ............................................................................................ 46
2.7.3. Sustainable Development Measurement ............................................................................................... 47

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | vii
 2.7.4. Sustainable Infrastructure Projects ....................................................................................................... 48
2.7.5. Shortcomings of Current Sustainable PPP Projects .............................................................................. 49
2.8. Social Sustainability......................................................................................................................................... 52
2.8.1. Definition of Social Sustainability ........................................................................................................ 52
2.8.2. Social Sustainability and Impact Assessment ....................................................................................... 53
2.8.3. Social Sustainability Criteria ................................................................................................................ 56
2.8.4. Previous Research in Social Sustainability ........................................................................................... 60
2.8.5. Factors Influencing Social Sustainability Performance ........................................................................ 62
2.9. Chapter Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 63
CHAPTER 3 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND CONCEPTUAL MODEL DEVELOPMENT ................... 65
3.1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 65
3.2. Project Social Benefit (PSB) Construct ........................................................................................................... 65
3.2.1. Definition of Project Social Benefit ...................................................................................................... 66
3.2.2. Principles and Attributes of Project Social Benefit Construct .............................................................. 66
3.2.2.1. Fulfillment of Basic Needs and Quality of Life ....................................................................... 66
3.2.2.2. Social Justice ........................................................................................................................... 67
3.2.2.3. Social Cohesion and Interaction .............................................................................................. 68
3.2.2.4. Cultural Diversity .................................................................................................................... 69
3.2.2.5. Accessibility ............................................................................................................................ 69
3.2.2.6. Public Participation .................................................................................................................. 69
3.3. Project Design (PD) Construct ......................................................................................................................... 75
3.3.1. The Project Design Concept.................................................................................................................. 75
3.3.2 Several Steps in Project Design ............................................................................................................ 78
3.3.3. Principles and Attributes of Project Design .......................................................................................... 79
3.4. Community Participation (CP) Construct ........................................................................................................ 83
3.4.1. Definition of Community Participation................................................................................................. 83
3.4.2. Advantages and Disadvantages of Community Participation ............................................................... 84
3.4.3. Types of Community Participation ....................................................................................................... 85
3.4.4. Method and the Level of Community Participation .............................................................................. 86
3.4.5. Principles and Attributes of Community Participation ......................................................................... 87
3.5. Government‟s Role in PPP Projects (GR) Construct ....................................................................................... 91
3.5.1. The Concept of Government‟s Role ...................................................................................................... 91
3.5.2. Government‟s Role in Infrastructure Project Development ................................................................... 92
3.5.3. Principles and Attributes of Government‟s Role in Infrastructure Projects ........................................... 93
3.5.3.1. Appropriate Project Selection and Planning ............................................................................ 93
3.5.3.2. Provision of a Favourable Investment Environment ................................................................ 93
3.5.3.3. Establishment of an Adequate Regulatory Framework and Appropriate Support ................... 94
3.5.3.4. Establishment of a Good Bureaucracy ..................................................................................... 94
3.5.3.5. Selection of an Appropriate Concessionaire and Supervise Project Implementation .............. 95

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | viii
3.6. Conceptual Model and Hypotheses‟ Development .......................................................................................... 99
3.7. Chapter Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 101
CHAPTER 4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................... 102
4.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 102
4.2. Determination of the Research Category ....................................................................................................... 102
4.3. Selection of the Research Paradigm and Approach ....................................................................................... 103
4.4. Determination of Research Design Principle ................................................................................................. 104
4.4.1. Research Purpose ................................................................................................................................. 105
4.4.2. Selection of Analysis Method .............................................................................................................. 105
4.4.3. Research Conceptualisation and Operationalisation ............................................................................ 107
4.4.4. Unit of Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 108
4.4.5. Data Required ...................................................................................................................................... 109
4.4.6. Type of Data Collected ........................................................................................................................ 109
4.4.7. The Method of Data Collection............................................................................................................ 110
4.4.7.1. The Selection of The Survey Method .................................................................................... 110
4.4.7.2. Selection of Purposive Sampling Method .............................................................................. 111
4.4.7.3. The Selection of Cross-Sectional Data Collection ................................................................. 112
4.5. Step and Procedure of the Research Design................................................................................................... 112
4.5.1. Literature Review ................................................................................................................................. 112
4.5.2. Defining Research Objective and Question ......................................................................................... 114
4.5.3. Theoretical Framework and Conceptual Model Development ............................................................ 114
4.5.4. Development of Instruments for Data Collection ................................................................................ 114
4.5.5. Human Research Ethics Process .......................................................................................................... 115
4.5.6. Preliminary Survey through Expert Interview ..................................................................................... 115
4.5.6.1. Objective ................................................................................................................................ 115
4.5.6.2. Instrument Used ..................................................................................................................... 115
4.5.6.3. Respondents ........................................................................................................................... 117
4.5.6.4. Preliminary Survey Results ................................................................................................... 117
4.5.7. Pilot Test .............................................................................................................................................. 121
4.5.7.1. Objective ................................................................................................................................ 121
4.5.7.2. Instrument Used ..................................................................................................................... 121
4.5.7.3. Respondents ........................................................................................................................... 122
4.5.7.4. Pilot Test Results ................................................................................................................... 122
4.5.8. Main Survey ......................................................................................................................................... 122
4.5.8.1. Objective ................................................................................................................................ 122
4.5.8.2. Instrument Used ..................................................................................................................... 123
4.5.8.3. Respondents ........................................................................................................................... 123
4.5.8.4. Objects Under Study .............................................................................................................. 124
4.5.8.5. Period of Survey .................................................................................................................... 125
4.5.8.6. Main Survey Results .............................................................................................................. 125

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | ix
 4.5.9. Thesis Writing ..................................................................................................................................... 126
4.5.10. Research Publication .......................................................................................................................... 127
4.6. Chapter Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 127
CHAPTER 5 PRELIMINARY ANALYSES ......................................................................................................... 128
5.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 128
5.2. Data Preparation and Screening ..................................................................................................................... 128
5.2.1. Data Coding and Checking .................................................................................................................. 128
5.2.2. Missing Data Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 129
5.2.3. Outliers Detection ................................................................................................................................ 131
5.2.4. Assessment of Normality ..................................................................................................................... 137
5.3. Descriptive Analysis ...................................................................................................................................... 138
5.3.1. Description of the Sample ................................................................................................................... 138
5.3.1.1. Government Sector................................................................................................................. 139
5.3.1.2. Private Sector ........................................................................................................................ 140
5.3.1.3. Community Sector................................................................................................................. 142
5.3.2. The Overall Perception of the Attributes‟ Mean and Ranking ............................................................. 142
5.3.2.1. The Project Social Benefit Construct ..................................................................................... 143
5.3.2.2. The Project Design Construct ................................................................................................ 145
5.3.2.3. The Community Participation Construct ............................................................................... 146
5.3.2.4. The Government‟s Role Construct ........................................................................................ 147
5.4. Comparative Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 148
5.4.1. The Project Social Benefit (PSB) Construct ........................................................................................ 148
5.4.2. The Project Design (PD) Construct ...................................................................................................... 150
5.4.3. The Community Participation (CP) Construct ..................................................................................... 151
5.4.4. The Government‟s Role (GR) Construct ............................................................................................. 152
5.5. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Test ............................................................................................................ 154
5.6. Posthoc Test ................................................................................................................................................... 159
5.7. Chapter Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 166
CHAPTER 6 MEASUREMENT SCALE ASSESSMENT AND ATTRIBUTES CLASSIFICATION................ 168
6.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 168
6.2. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) ............................................................................................................... 168
6.2.1. Factor Analysis Appropriateness ......................................................................................................... 169
6.2.2. Assumptions on the Factor Extraction and Factor Rotation ................................................................. 181
6.2.3. Model Assessment Criteria .................................................................................................................. 182
6.2.3.1. Percentage of Variance Extracted .......................................................................................... 182
6.2.3.2. Scree Test Criterion ............................................................................................................... 183
6.2.3.3. Communalities ...................................................................................................................... 183
6.2.3.4. Factor Loading ...................................................................................................................... 183
6.2.4. Results Interpretation and Model Improvement ................................................................................... 184
6.2.5. EFA Results ......................................................................................................................................... 184

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads |x
 6.2.5.1. The Project Social Benefit (PSB) Construct ............................................................................ 184
6.2.5.2. The Project Design (PD) Construct ......................................................................................... 187
6.2.5.3. The Community Participation (CP) Construct ....................................................................... 189
6.2.5.4. The Government‟s Role (GR) Construct ................................................................................. 191
6.2.6. Reliability Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 193
6.2.6.1. Cronbach‟s Alpha .................................................................................................................... 194
6.2.6.2. Corrected Item-Total-Correlation ............................................................................................ 194
6.2.7. Summary of the EFA ........................................................................................................................... 197
6.3. Understanding Stakeholders‟ Perceptions Based on the Factors‟ Performance ............................................. 198
6.3.1. The Project Social Benefit (PSB) Construct ........................................................................................ 199
6.3.2. The Project Design (PD) Construct...................................................................................................... 201
6.3.3. The Community Participation (CP) Construct ..................................................................................... 203
6.3.4. The Government‟s Role (GR) Construct ............................................................................................. 205
6.3.5. The Overall Construct Performances ................................................................................................... 207
6.4. Chapter Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 208
CHAPTER 7 INVESTIGATION OF THE CONSTRUCTS‟ RELATIONSHIPS ................................................. 209
7.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 209
7.2. Overview of the SEM Concept ...................................................................................................................... 210
7.3. Analysis of the Measurement Model using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) ........................................ 211
7.3.1. Analysis Assumptions of CFA ............................................................................................................. 212
7.3.1.1. Sample Size ........................................................................................................................... 212
7.3.1.2. Minimum Attributes per Construct and Reflective Relationship Model ............................... 212
7.3.1.3. Estimation Technique ............................................................................................................ 213
7.3.1.4. Specification of CFA Model Alternatives ............................................................................. 213
7.3.2. Model Fit Criteria ................................................................................................................................ 217
7.3.2.1. Statistical Significance of Parameter Estimate ...................................................................... 217
7.3.2.2. Factor Loadings ..................................................................................................................... 217
7.3.2.3. Goodness of Fit (GOF) .......................................................................................................... 218
7.3.3. Modification to Improve the CFA Model ............................................................................................ 220
7.3.4. CFA Results ......................................................................................................................................... 221
7.3.5. Analysis of Construct Validity ............................................................................................................. 223
7.3.5.1. Convergent Validity ............................................................................................................... 224
7.3.5.2. Discriminant Validity ............................................................................................................ 227
7.3.5.3. Nomological Validity ............................................................................................................ 227
7.3.5.4. Face Validity .......................................................................................................................... 227
7.4. Analysis of the Structural Model ................................................................................................................... 228
7.4.1. The Structural Model Concept ............................................................................................................. 228
7.4.2. Model Assessment Criteria .................................................................................................................. 229
7.4.3. Initial Results of the Structural Model Assessment ............................................................................. 229

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | xi
 7.4.4. Model Refinement ............................................................................................................................... 232
7.4.5. Final Structural Model ......................................................................................................................... 236
7.5. Testing of Mediation Effect ........................................................................................................................... 238
7.5.1. Mediation Effect of the Community Participation (CP) Construct ...................................................... 238
7.5.2. Mediation Effect of the Project Design (PD) Construct ....................................................................... 240
7.5.3. Mediation Effect of Community Participation (CP) and Project Design (PD) Constructs .................. 242
7.6. Chapter Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 243
CHAPTER 8 DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS ................................................................................................ 245
8.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 245
8.2. The Need for Project Social Benefit (PSB) in the Overall PPP Project Success Criteria .............................. 245
8.3. A Perspective of PPP Project Success from the Project Social Benefit Concept .......................................... 249
8.4. Delivery of Project Social Benefit to the Community ................................................................................... 251
8.4.1. Relationship between Project Design and Project Project Social Benefit ............................................ 252
8.4.2. Relationships between Community Participation, Project Design and Project Social Benefit ............ 255
8.4.3. Relationships between Government‟s Role, Community Participation, Project Design and
Project Social Benefit .......................................................................................................................... 257
8.5. Understanding the Stakeholders‟ Perceptions and the Importance of the 4P Concept ................................... 260
8.6. Improving the Government‟s Role to Deliver Project Social Benefit and Achieving PPP Toll Road
Project Success .............................................................................................................................................. 265
8.7. Chapter Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 267
CHAPTER 9 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH .............................. 269
9.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 269
9.2. Revisiting the Research Questions ................................................................................................................. 269
9.3. Summary of the Research Findings ............................................................................................................... 270
9.3.1. PSB Definition and Its Criteria ........................................................................................................... 270
9.3.2. Identification of Constructs that Potentially Influence Project Social Benefit Performance .............. 271
9.3.3. Establishment of the Theoretical Framework and Conceptual Model ................................................ 271
9.3.4. Identification of Relevant Attributes to Measure the Related Constructs ........................................... 272
9.3.5. Investigation of the Stakeholders‟ Perceptions According to the Research Attributes ....................... 272
9.3.6. Investigation of Underlying Factors to Classify the Research Attributes ........................................... 273
9.3.7. Investigation of the Constructs‟ Relationships ................................................................................... 273
9.4. Research Contribution ................................................................................................................................... 274
9.4.1. Contribution to the Existing Body of Knowledge .............................................................................. 274
9.4.2. Practical Implications for Construction Management Practice ........................................................... 277
9.5. Research Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research ................................................................ 278
9.6. Closure ........................................................................................................................................................... 279
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................................... 281
APPENDIX A. Preliminary Survey............................................................................................... ..........................A-1
APPENDIX B. Questionnaire Survey............................................................................................. .........................B-1

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | xii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1. Project Success Criteria ................................................................................................................ 25

Table 2.2. PPP Project Success Criteria.......................................................................................................... 28
Table 2.3. PPP Project Success Factors .......................................................................................................... 32
Table 2.4. PPP Project Success Factors .......................................................................................................... 37
Table 2.5. Social Sustainability Definition ..................................................................................................... 52
Table 2.6. Social Sustainability Criteria ........................................................................................................ 58
Table 3.1 Attributes for Project Social Benefit in Toll Roads ...................................................................... 70
Table 3.2. Attributes for Project Design ......................................................................................................... 81
Table 3.3. Attributes for Community Participation ........................................................................................ 89
Table 3.4. Attributes for the Government‟s Role ........................................................................................... 96
Table 4.1. Experts‟ Profile from the Interview ............................................................................................... 118
Table 4.2. Experts‟ Response from the Project Social Benefit Attributes ...................................................... 119
Table 4.3. Experts‟ Response from the Project Design Attributes.................................................................. 119
Table 4.4. Experts‟ Response from the Community Participation Attributes ................................................. 120
Table 4.5. Experts‟ Response from the Government‟s Attributes .................................................................. 121
Table 4.6. Toll Road Projects under Study ..................................................................................................... 125
Table 5.1. Statistical Parameters for the Project Social Benefit (PSB) Construct .......................................... 133
Table 5.2. Statistical Parameters for the Project Design (PD) Construct ....................................................... 134
Table 5.3. Statistical Parameters for the Community Participation (CP) Construct ...................................... 135
Table 5.4. Statistical Parameters for the Government‟s Role (GR) Construct ............................................... 136
Table 5.5. The Respondents‟ Overall Background ........................................................................................ 139
Table 5.6. The Government Sector‟s Respondent Background ..................................................................... 140
Table 5.7. The Private Sector Respondent Background ................................................................................ 141
Table 5.8. The Community Sector Respondent Background ......................................................................... 142
Table 5.9. Attributes‟ Performance for the PSB Construct ............................................................................ 143
Table 5.10. Indicators‟ Performance of the PD Construct ................................................................................ 145
Table 5.11. Indicators‟ Performance of CP Construct ...................................................................................... 146
Table 5.12. Indicators‟ Performance of GR Construct ..................................................................................... 147
Table 5.13. ANOVA Test for the PSB Construct ............................................................................................. 155
Table 5.14. ANOVA Test for the PD Construct ............................................................................................... 156
Table 5.15. ANOVA Test for the CP Construct .............................................................................................. 157
Table 5.16. ANOVA Test for Government‟s Role Construct ......................................................................... 158
Table 5.17. Posthoc Test using the LSD Method for the PSB Construct ........................................................ 160
Table 5.18. Posthoc Test using the LSD Method for the PD Construct ........................................................... 162
Table 5.19. Posthoc Test using the LSD Method for the CP Construct .......................................................... 163
Table 5.20. Post Hoc Test using LSD Method for Government‟s Role Construct .......................................... 165
Table 6.1. Correlation Matrix for the PSB Construct ..................................................................................... 171
Table 6.2. Correlation Matrix for the PD Construct ....................................................................................... 172

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | xiii
Table 6.3. Correlation Matrix for the CP Construct ....................................................................................... 173
Table 6.4. Correlation Matrix for the GR Construct ....................................................................................... 174
Table 6.5. KMO and Bartlett Test of Sphericity ............................................................................................. 175
Table 6.6. Anti-Image Matrix for the PSB Construct ..................................................................................... 177
Table 6.7. Anti-ImageMatrix for the PD Construct ........................................................................................ 178
Table 6.8. Anti-ImageMatrix for the CP Construct ........................................................................................ 179
Table 6.9. Anti-ImageMatrix GR Construct ................................................................................................... 180
Table 6.10. Total Variance Explained for the PSB Construct .......................................................................... 185
Table 6.11. Rotated Factor Loadings and Communalities for the PSB Construct ............................................ 186
Table 6.12. Total Variance Explained for the PD Construct ............................................................................ 188
Table 6.13. Rotated Factor Loadings and Communalities for the PD Construct .............................................. 189
Table 6.14. Total Variance Explained for the CP Construct ............................................................................ 190
Table 6.15. Rotated Factor Loadings and Communalities for the CP Construct .............................................. 191
Table 6.16. Total Variance Explained for the GR Construct ............................................................................ 192
Table 6.17. Rotated Factor Loadings and Communalities for the GR Construct ............................................. 193
Table 6.18. Cronbach‟s Alpha Coefficient for the Four Constructs ................................................................. 194
Table 6.19. Corrected-Item-Total-Correlation for the PSB Construct.............................................................. 195
Table 6.20. Corrected-Item-Total-Correlation for the PD Construct................................................................ 196
Table 6.21. Corrected-Item-Total-Correlation for the CP Construct ................................................................ 196
Table 6.22. Corrected-Item-Total-Correlation for the GR Construct ............................................................... 197
Table 6.23. Summary of the EFA ..................................................................................................................... 197
Table 6.24. Factor‟s Performance Analysis for the PSB Construct .................................................................. 200
Table 6.25. Factor‟s Performance Analysis for the PD Construct ................................................................... 202
Table 6.26. Factor‟s Performance Analysis for the CP Construct ................................................................... 204
Table 6.27. Factor‟s Performance Analysis for the GR Construct .................................................................. 206
Table 7.1. Goodness of Fit (GOF) Criteria ..................................................................................................... 220
Table 7.2. Statistical Significance Parameter Estimate ................................................................................... 222
Table 7.3. Goodness of Fit (GOF) of the CFA Result .................................................................................... 222
Table 7.4. AVE and CR Analysis ................................................................................................................... 226
Table 7.5. Construct Correlation Matrix ......................................................................................................... 227
Table 7.6. Statistically Significant Parameters of the Initial Structural Model Results .................................. 230
Table 7.7. Goodness of Fit (GOF) for the Structural Model Analysis Results ............................................... 231
Table 7.8. Summary of the Structural Model Analysis Results ...................................................................... 232
Table 7.9. The Significant Parameter Estimates for Model B ........................................................................ 233
Table 7.10. Goodness of Fit (GOF) for Model B ............................................................................................. 233
Table 7.11. Significant Parameter Estimates for Model C ............................................................................... 234
Table 7.12. Goodness of Fit (GOF) for Model C ............................................................................................. 235
Table 7.13. Parameter Comparison between Model A, Model B and Model C ............................................... 237
Table 7.14. Summary of the Final Structural Model Analysis Results............................................................. 237

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | xiv
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1. PPP Projects Types ........................................................................................................................ 19

Figure 3.1. The Research‟s Conceptual Model and Hypotheses ...................................................................... 101
Figure 4.1. Research Steps and Procedure ...................................................................................................... 113
Figure 5.1. Summary of Missing Data Analysis .............................................................................................. 130
Figure 5.2. Comparison of the Three Sectors‟ Perceptions of the PSB Attributes ........................................... 149
Figure 5.3. Comparison of the Three Sectors‟ Perceptions of the PD Attributes ............................................. 150
Figure 5.4. Comparison of the Three Sectors‟ Perceptions of the CP Attributes ............................................. 152
Figure 5.5. Comparison of the Three Sectors‟ Perceptions of the GR Attributes ............................................ 153
Figure 6.1. Scree Plot for the PSB Construct ................................................................................................... 185
Figure 6.2. Scree Plot for the PD Construct ..................................................................................................... 188
Figure 6.3. Scree Plot of the CP Construct ...................................................................................................... 190
Figure 6.4. Scree Plot for the GR Construct..................................................................................................... 192
Figure 7.1. SEM Model Component ............................................................................................................... 211
Figure 7.2 (a) First Modelling Alternative ........................................................................................................ 214
Figure 7.2 (b) Second Modelling Alternative .................................................................................................... 215
Figure 7.2 (c) Third Modelling Alternative ....................................................................................................... 216
Figure 7.3. Final Measurement Model ............................................................................................................. 224
Figure 7.4. Structural Model . .......................................................................................................................... 229
Figure 7.5. Factor Loading of the Initial Structural Model Results ................................................................. 230
Figure 7.6. Factor Loading and Path Coefficients for Model B ....................................................................... 234
Figure 7.7. Factor Loading and Path Coefficients for Model C ....................................................................... 236
Figure 7.8. Direct Relationships between GR and PD ..................................................................................... 239
Figure 7.9. Relationship between GR, CP and PD ........................................................................................... 239
Figure 7.10. Direct Relationship between GR and PSB .................................................................................... 240
Figure 7.11. Relationship between GR, CP and PSB ........................................................................................ 240
Figure 7.12. Relationships between GR, PD and PSB ...................................................................................... 241
Figure 7.13. Relationship between CP and PSB ................................................................................................ 241
Figure 7.14. Relationships between CP, PD and PSB ....................................................................................... 242
Figure 7.15. Relationships between GR, CP, PD and PSB ............................................................................... 243

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | xv
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AMOS = Analysis of Variance

ANOVA = Analysis of Variance
ASEAN = Association of Southeast Asian Nations
AVE = Average Variace Extracted
BAPPENAS = Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional
BLT = Build, Lease and Transfer
BOO = Build-Own-Operate
BOT = Build-Operate-Transfer
BROT = Build-Rehabilitate-Operate- Transfer
BUMN = Badan Usaha Milik Negara
BV = Best Value
CABE = Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment
CFA = Confirmatory Factor Analysis
CP = Community Participation
CR = Construct Reliability
CSF = Critical Success Factor
CSR = Corporate Social Responsibility
DBFO = Design-Build-Finance-Operate
DETR = Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions
DfA = Design for All
EFA = Exploratory Factor Analysis
EIA = Environmental Impact Assessment
ESCAP = Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific
ESIA = Environmental and Social Impact Assessment
GOF = Goodness of Fit
GoI = Government of Indonesia
GR = Government‟s Role
HIA = Health Impact Assessment
ICWE = International Conference on Water and the Environment
IIGF = Indonesian Infrastructure Guarantee Fund
IUCN = International Union for Conservation
KMO = Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
MI = Modification Indices
MIC = Major Infrastructure Project

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | xvi
MP3EI = Master Plan Percepatan Ekonomi Indonesia
MUTP = Mega Urban Transport Project
OM = Operation-Maintenance
PPIAF = Public-Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility
PD = Project Design
PFI = Private Finance Initiatives
PPI = Public Private Investment
PPP = Public Private Partnership
PPPP (4P) = Public Private People Partnership
P3CU = PPP Central Unit
PSB = Project Social Benefit
PLN = Perusahaan Listrik Negara (Power Supply Operator)
PMBoK = Project Management Body of Knowledge
PSC = Public Sector Comparator
ROT = Rehabilitate-Operate-Transfer
SCBA = Social Cost Benefit Analysis
SEM = Structural Equation Modeling
SIA = Social Impact Assessment
SEA = Strategic Impact Assessment
SNA = Social Network Analysis
SOE = State-Owned Enterprise
SRE = Standard Residual Error
SSHC = Social Sustainability Health Check
TBL = Triple Bottom Line
UNDESA = United Nation Department of Economic and Social Affairs
VfM = Value for Money
WCED = World Commission on Environment and Development

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | xvii
 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background
This thesis is a PhD research which aims to investigate project success measures from the
community‟s perspective or Project Social Benefit (PSB) and how to deliver this concept in the
context of Public Private Partnership (PPP) toll road projects in Indonesia. The research was
generally motivated by three conditions, namely existing problems in Indonesia PPP toll road
project development, limitations of the current PPP project success, and the potential contribution
of social sustainability implementation in infrastructure project development. To provide a better
understanding of the research context and background, the aforementioned conditions are reviewed
in the next three sub-sections.

1.1.1. Problems in Indonesia PPP Toll Road Project Development

Indonesia is one of the largest countries with a highly significant population among the Association
of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries and has a strategic role in the world economy. In
2016, Indonesia was ranked as the world‟s 10th largest economy in terms of purchasing power
parity and has become a member of the G-20 (World Bank, 2016). The country‟s population in
2015 was 251.86 million that was the largest in ASEAN and numbers four in the world after the
US, China, and India. Most of the population is located in Java and Bali Islands, which are the
densest location in the country with a total population percentage of about 59.12% (BPS, 2010).

Geographically, Indonesia‟s position is located in the heart of the world economy because about
50% of the world‟s population is in Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries,
including Indonesia. By considering this strategic geographic position and its current population,
the Government of Indonesia (GoI) is planning to become one of the world‟s key players by 2025
(Coordinating Ministry of Economic Affairs, 2011). GoI has launched a Master Plan for
Acceleration of Indonesian Economic Development or Master Plan Percepatan Ekonomi Indonesia
(MP3EI) to guide the direction and accelerate the country‟s economic development.

Furthermore, to realize the above vision, as a developing country, Indonesia is intensively

developing its infrastructure to support the economic development as guided by MP3EI.
Infrastructure was defined as facilities that provide basic services to make economic activity
possible, which covers the areas of energy, water supply, transport, information communication
technology (ICT) and urban services (Public Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility (PPIAF),

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads |1
2012). However, the GoI‟s budget cannot cover the overall budget needed to speed the
development process across the country. To speed the distribution of development across the
country, the government seeks to involve the private sectors through a Public Private Partnership
(PPP) scheme. According to Government‟s Regulation (PP) No. 15 (2005), a PPP scheme is
usually proposed for projects that only satisfy both financial and economic feasibilities.
Meanwhile, for the project that is only economically feasible but not financially viable, the project
is fully funded by the government‟s budget, and set as a priority to speed the infrastructure
distribution in the whole country.

Actually, PPP is not a new concept in Indonesia as it has been implemented since the 1990s.
Indonesia was ranked second in terms of private sector involvement in infrastructure after
Philippines (World Bank, 2004). The PPP implementation is related to power generation,
telecommunication infrastructure development and construction of expressways (Indonesian PPP
Guide, 2010). Unfortunately, the previous PPP implementation in Indonesia was not quite
successful as in 1997-1998, monetary crises happened and had a significant economic growth
impact. As a result, public infrastructure investment dropped sharply from USD 8 billion in 1994 to
USD 1.5 billion in 2002 (World Bank, 2004). Some projects experienced problems where their
contracts needed to be further negotiated, and one of the reasons was perhaps because the projects
were awarded through a direct appointment instead of an open and transparent tendering process
(Indonesian PPP Guide, 2010). Due to this crisis, Indonesia‟s infrastructure was in a very bad
condition causing several problems such as road congestion and the crisis in electricity production
and power supply (Pisu, 2010).

After the economic crisis in 1998, the Indonesia government has been trying to focus back on
building the infrastructure to support its economic growth (World Bank, 2004). To speed the
infrastructure development, the GoI has been involving the private sectors in infrastructure
development through PPP schemes. Along with the economic recovery from 2001 to 2008, the
private infrastructure investment then slowly began to improve. The Indonesian PPP Guide (2010)
stated that PPP programs were implemented in several fields, namely airports, sea and river ports,
roads and bridges, railways, water supply and untreated irrigation systems, drinking water,
wastewater, solid waste, information and communications technology, electricity, and oil and gas.
In order to realize the private involvement in the infrastructure provision, the government created a
new PPP system where the government opens greater opportunities to the private sector, both local
and foreign investors to participate in the provision of infrastructure. All the tender processes were
conducted with a transparent and competitive environment. Some State-Owned Enterprises (SOE)
or usually called as Badan Usaha Milik Negara (BUMN) that were used to get right to manage

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads |2
infrastructure provision were not automatically appointed to manage the projects at that time
(Indonesian PPP Guideline, 2010).

However, attracting private investment in infrastructure project development is not an easy job.
Even though the above several improvements on the PPP system have been conducted, the PPP
implementation in Indonesia is not quite successful. Wibowo and Mohamed (2010) stated that the
Government of Indonesia (GoI) held two International Infrastructure Summits in 2005 and 2006 in
order to attract private involvement in the infrastructure development. Yet, the government failed
to attract the private sectors from a total of 91 infrastructure projects that had been offered through
Build Operate Transfer/Public Private Partnership (BOT/PPP). The reason for the unsuccessful
attraction of private investors was perhaps the private sector found it was still not easy to perform
business in PPP projects in Indonesia. Indeed, the willingness of the private sectors to take part in
PPPs depended very much on the environment where the project operated (Zhang, 2005b).
Kumaraswamy and Zhang (2001) believed that success or failure of the PPP scheme was dependent
on the law, political and economic conditions, which were pre-requisites to implement this scheme
as private parties would only invest if a project could rationally generate profits.

For several decades, toll road projects have become important PPP projects in Indonesia as the
government has expressed its great interest in developing many toll roads in order to support
economic growth, where a total of 3,450 km is expected to be completed in the next two decades
with the BOT (Build-Operate-Transfer) Scheme (Wibowo, 2005). Furthermore, according to
BAPPENAS (2010), out of 26 priorities for PPP projects between 2010-2014, 17 projects were toll
road projects with total cost USD 7,591.57 million or about 92% of the total project‟s cost, which
was USD 8,333.44 million. Meanwhile, in 2015, a number of prospective projects cost was USD
3,601.30 million from 5,619.80 or about 65% from the total PPP project cost (BAPPENAS, 2015).

Toll roads in Indonesia have been built since 1978 and with private sector involvement since the
1990s (Abednego and Ogunlana, 2006). According to Government‟s Regulation (PP) No. 15
(2005), toll road project development is intended to realize national development and to promote
equilibrium of regional redevelopment which can be achieved by building a road network funded
by road users. Similar to the other infrastructure types, toll road project development in Indonesia
has been delivered through either under Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) or Operation and
Maintenance Contract in which when the concession period of the toll roads expired, the private
sector has to return it to the government (Ministry of Public Works) and it will be employed as a
public road.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads |3
According to Government‟s Regulation (PP) No. 15 (2005), the GoI has the right to manage, to
undertake and to control the toll road project development and implementation through The
Indonesian Toll Road Authority (Badan Pengatur Jalan Tol, BPJT). This is intended to achieve
maximal benefit for the nation and its society and to avoid negative impacts on the society.
Previously, toll road projects were solely developed and managed by PT Jasa Marga as an SOE.
However, with the new PPP system, the government becomes the toll road regulator while PT. Jasa
Marga is now positioned as the toll roads‟ concessionaires which is similar to other toll road
companies such as PT. Marga Mandala Sakti, PT. Citra Marga Nushapala Persada, PT. Marga
Bumi Matraraya and the like. All toll road companies have to participate in the tendering process as
well.

Nevertheless, Indonesian toll road development has not been quite following the plan. Although
toll road development has started since 1978 and with private sector involvement since the 1990s
(Abednego and Ogunlana, 2006), currently only about 950 km of toll roads are operated in
Indonesia (Badan Pengatur Jalan Tol/ BPJT, 2016). Several challenges have been found during the
implementation of the PPP scheme especially concerning the project implementation and the
operational performance. Regarding the project implementation, there have been insignificant
changes in the toll roads‟ length since 2005. Rostiyanti and Tamin (2010) identified several
problems regarding toll road project implementation such as less coordination and too many
government bodies involved in the process, unclear functions of Indonesian Toll Road Authority
(Badan Pengatur Jalan Tol/BPJT), limitation of government support, complex and conflicting
regulations due to weaker law enforcement, lack of procedures, and indecisive character of the
government entities in taking action. To improve the PPP implementation, Rostiyanti and Tamin
(2010) suggested revitalizing the government‟s role pertaining to institutional arrangements and the
re-evaluation of laws and regulations. Meanwhile, Bustaman and Ramayandi (2012) highlighted
the need for empowerment of the PPP Central Unit (P3CU) for coordinating the implementation of
PPP programs in Indonesia.

Meanwhile, regarding the projects‟ performance, the current toll road projects have not met the
stakeholders‟ satisfaction. Li et al. (2013) define stakeholder satisfaction as the achievement of
stakeholders' pre-project expectations in the actual performance of each project stage. Within
construction project perspective, satisfaction is the happiness level of the people affected by a
project (Chan et al., 2002). Moreover, Leung et al. (2004) argued that stakeholder satisfaction can
be achieved by gauging the level the discrepancies between the goal level (the level that is set) and
performance level (the level that is achieved). Furthermore, they stated that goal is considered as a
cognitive representation of value and decision-making is a process to enable the value being
transformed to a goal.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads |4
Even though toll roads have been recognized to have potential positive contributions to the urban
environmental qualities by smoother traffic (less congestion) and reduced emission, Handayani
(2008) asserted that their performance is still below the ideal criteria according to three
environmental sustainability criteria, namely level of traffic risk, air pollution, and the level of
congestion. In addition to the above problems, social issues are currently perceived as the main
reason for slow progress in the toll road project development after the Reformation Era in 1998.
These social problems occur in the form of a land acquisition problem (Tamin et al., 2011) and
community protest due to a project‟s impact (Kompas, 2010). Nevertheless, the land acquisition is
a complex problem (Tamin et al., 2011) and it is beyond the scope of this research. These social
problems have been increasing since the Reformation Era as Indonesia has moved from an
authoritarian to a democratic state, which resulted in the freedom of information leading to the
ability to express public opinions in public speeches or demonstrations (Bhakti, 2004). As a result,
the public's expectations about infrastructure projects‟ success, including toll roads, is increasing.

Realizing the fact that a successful infrastructure project development including toll road projects
in a developing country is not an easy job as an infrastructure project is a complex involving many
stakeholders with diverse interests and expectations. Managing stakeholders is very important to
achieving a successful infrastructure project. For that reason, investigating PPP in this particular
country is quite important to promote the PPP projects‟ success as well as to provide a broader
picture of PPP implementation in a developing country. To have a better understanding about how
a successful infrastructure project can be achieved, the limitation of current PPP project success as
the scheme often used to develop toll road projects is necessary to be reviewed.

1.1.2. Limitation of the Current Success Measure of PPP Toll Road Projects
Indeed, the success of a toll road is highly important because of the toll road, which is also part of
the national road system, has great influence on economic activities. Economic and Social
Commission for Asia and the Pacific or ESCAP (2001) asserted that a road project has both
positive and negative impacts since it contributes to economic development and enhances the
quality of life as well as being a source of damage due to negative impacts on the environment and
human life. Therefore, toll road project should be planned carefully to maximise positive impacts
and minimise negative impacts on the community for achieving the overall success.

As part of an infrastructure project that is often developed under a Public Private Partnership (PPP)
Scheme, a toll road involves many stakeholders with diverse interests and expectations. As such,
the success of infrastructure projects is more appropriately measured through the overall
stakeholder satisfaction (Ng et al., 2010). A stakeholder is an individual or organization with a
vested interest (in terms of power, legitimacy, and urgency) in a project‟s success and a project‟s

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads |5
operating environment (Olander, 2007). Generally, stakeholders in PPP projects can be divided into
three categories – government, private and community (Ng et al., 2010).

However, the current practice of the PPP concept still has a lack of concern with regard to the
community perspective (Ng et al., 2013). The current success criteria of PPP projects is only based
on the Best Value (BV) concept (Zhang, 2006a; Yuan et al., 2009; Ng et al., 2010) which is
analyzed using a Public Sector Comparator (PSC) method. This BV concept only stresses on
quality, efficiency/effectiveness, Value for Money (VfM) and performance standards as the main
backbone (Zhang, 2006a). Indeed, it is not sufficient to only measure success with this current
traditional PPP concept as it often cannot accommodate the community needs and interests as the
end-user stakeholder (Majamaa et al., 2008). The social problems in Indonesian toll road projects
perhaps happen because of the lack of community needs and interests in the PPP toll road project
development. “Community” in this research refers to people who reside around a toll road and who
are also toll road users. This was because this community feels positive and/or negative effects of a
toll road development so they could provide balanced perceptions about its existence.

Because an infrastructure project affects the community not only in short or medium-term, the
success of infrastructure projects should ensure it can deliver benefits to the community in the
long-run period over the project life cycle. The community is an end-user and therefore it becomes
a key stakeholder of public infrastructure, so its success perspective is very important for
successful infrastructure projects. Conversely, failure to respond and meet community expectations
can cause stakeholder opposition and may cause project failure (El-Gohary et al., 2006; Majamaa et
al, 2008; Li et al., 2013). As such, infrastructure should deliver community satisfaction to achieve
its success.

1.1.3. The Promising Application of Project Social Benefit in Infrastructure Development

With regard to the above community perspective, since the PPP infrastructure projects have long
project life cycle, they need to become sustainable in addition to other success measures
(Kumaraswamy et al., 2007). Sustainable development is development meeting the needs and
aspirations of the present without comprising future generations‟ ability to meet their needs
(WCED, 1987). Therefore, an infrastructure project such as a PPP toll road should be sustainable
not only for the current but also for future generations by balancing economic, environmental and
social dimensions, known as the Triple Bottom Line (TBL).

However, while much attention has been given in the published literature to economic and
environmental sustainabilities, social sustainability still has had less attention in the built
environment project context (Colantonio et al., 2009; Almahmoud and Doloi, 2015). Social

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads |6
sustainability is part of the TBL concept proposed by Elkington (1998) in addition to economic and
environmental dimensions and is how to articulate sustainable development. Actually, prior to that
concept, Social Impact Assessment (SIA), as an extension of Environmental Impact Assessment
(EIA), has been proposed since the early 1970s to assess developments‟ social impact.
Unfortunately, SIAs and EIAs have been perceived as failing to consider positive development
outcomes and in the case of SIAs, they emphasise more the individual effects rather than on
societies as a whole (Vanclay, 2004).

Doloi (2012) asserted that social sustainability which deals with several qualitative aspects of
community satisfaction is very important in ensuring that project benefits stream to all stakeholders
as well as community at large in the long-run. Success in the long-run is close to the community
interest and therefore the ultimate success of infrastructure is indicated when the project can fulfill
the needs and interests of the community as well as improve its quality of life. There has been some
social sustainability research in the context of built environment projects or construction
management practice (Chan and Lee, 2008; Shen et al., 2010; Doloi, 2012; Li et al., 2013;
Almahmoud and Doloi, 2015). Yet, how social sustainability practice is linked to toll road project
success has not been widely explored. As such, measurement of toll road project success from a
social perspective is still obscure.

This thesis proposes the incorporation of social sustainability in the success criteria of PPP toll road
projects in Indonesia. In this thesis, the terms criteria, attribute, and indicator are used
interchangeably and they refer to having a similar meaning. The term “Project Social Benefit”
(PSB) is used hereafter to represent a social benefit of the project to the community, as part of the
social sustainability concept. The reason is that social sustainability itself has not been agreed and it
still being under development (McKenzie, 2004; Colantonio, 2009). While several previous types
of research only focused on the acquisition perceptions from industry practitioners such as the
government and private sectors and the community‟s voice, this study includes all three
stakeholders in PPP toll road projects – government, private and community sectors. It is important
to investigate the overall stakeholders‟ perceptions to comprehensively understand the PSB
performance in Indonesian toll road projects. Furthermore, selecting Indonesia as the research
context is expected to provide a better understanding to address current social issues in PPP
implementation in a developing country by integrating PSB into the success criteria for achieving
successful infrastructure projects. Du Plessis (2007) emphasised the importance of sustainable
development practice in a developing country while the process is still being created rather than
being charged after it has been done.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads |7
1.2. Problem Statement
According to the above explanation, the significance of PSB or social sustainability has been
recognized in the built environment area. However, the PSB application in the context of PPP toll
road projects is still obscure. Indeed, PSB application with respect to the community perspective is
very important to achieve the overall success in this type of project. Therefore, this research aims to
fill the gap by investigating PSB implementation as part of the social sustainability concept in PPP
toll road projects within the Indonesia context.

In addition to that, this research also investigates factors or constructs that influence PSB
performance. It is not sufficient to understand PSB criteria without getting information on how to
achieve or improve its performance. As such, it is also important to understand the enabling factors
that influence the performance as it still cannot provide comprehensive understanding on how the
performance can be achieved or improved (Almahmoud et al., 2012). Currently, several factors or
constructs that influence the PSB have not been clearly investigated in the literature. As such, this
research also investigated the constructs that influence PSB performance.

1.3. Research Objective

Having defined the research problem, the research objective needs to be formulated to guide the
research direction. This research aims to develop a concept to overcome current limitations of
success measures in PPP toll road projects, especially in Indonesia as a developing country. The
PSB concept, as well as the factors or constructs that influence its performance, were investigated
in this research. It is expected that by obtaining a comprehensive understanding about PSB, the
current limitations of the PPP concept can be overcome and social problems that often happen can
be reduced to achieve project success in PPP toll road project development in Indonesia.

1.4. Research Questions

According to the above research objective, a research question can be articulated to narrow down
and navigate the research objective into a more manageable problem. The main research question
was then formulated to understand the PSB concept as follows “What is the definition of PSB,
what are its criteria and what are constructs that influence PSB performance in the context of PPP
toll road projects in Indonesia?”

The main research question was then divided into eight following sub-research questions:
1. What is PSB‟s definition and what are its criteria?
2. What are constructs that influence PSB‟s performance?
3. What kind of attributes measure constructs that influence PSB‟s performance?

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads |8
 4. What are the theoretical framework and conceptual model to relate constructs that
influence PSB‟s performance?
5. What are the research hypotheses?
6. What are the stakeholders‟ perceptions of the research attributes?
7. What are the underlying factors behind the research attributes?
8. What are the constructs‟ relationships based on the research hypothesis?

1.5. Research Hypotheses

The research hypotheses were also developed in this quantitative research with regard to the
investigation of constructs that influence PSB performance. The hypotheses were formulated
according to the research theoretical framework based on an extensive literature review. According
to several previous studies, PSB can be achieved through a good Project Design or PD (CABE and
DETR, 2001) and Community Participation or CP (Li et al., 2013). Through effective CP, the
community interest can be captured to improve the project's long-term viability and give benefit to
the community (Li et al., 2013). CP results can then be implemented through the PD commencing
from the initial stage of the project (Mirghani and Savenije, 1995).

Meanwhile, the achievement of a good PD and the CP process can potentially be realized through
effective performance of the Government‟s Role (GR). Government as a regulator as well as
project initiator has the power to set the policy for good PD in infrastructure projects (CABE and
DETR, 2001). In addition, an effective CP is also heavily dependant on the infrastructure project‟s
owner, which is usually the government (Li et al., 2013). The government has a better position than
other parties in handling the problem that is beyond private and community control. Indeed,
government plays an important role in the success of PPP project development (Kumaraswamy and
Zhang, 2001; Zhang et al, 2005a).

Based on the above explanation, there appears to be a relationship between the performance of
PSB, PD, CP, and GR in the context of PPP toll road projects. Yet, so far there have been no
empirical studies that investigate these relationships. Therefore, this research investigated the
relationships between PSB, PD, CP and GR to understand how to deliver PSB in the toll road
projects. Six hypotheses that were formulated in this study are as follows:

H1 : Government‟s Role (GR) positively influences the Community Participation (CP);

H2 : Government‟s Role (GR) positively influences the Project Design (PD);
H3 : Government‟s Role (GR) positively influences the Project Social Benefit (PSB);
H4 : Community Participation (CP) positively influences the Project Design (PD);

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads |9
 H5 : Community Participation (CP) positively influences the Project Social Benefit (PSB); and
H6 : Project Design (PD) positively influences the Project Social Benefit (PSB).

1.6. Scope and Limitations

The scope of this study is as follows:
1. The research was limited to an Indonesian context, where the data was collected from eight toll
roads that were developed after 1998 and have been in the operational stage when the main
survey was conducted. The respondents can comprehensively assess the performance of
completed projects under the operational phase. In addition, the toll road projects developed
after the Reformation Era in 1998 involved the community in the participation process. The
eight toll road projects involved in the study are located in Surabaya, Semarang, Cirebon,
Jabodetabek and Bandung respectively.
2. The respondents involved in this survey consisted of three sectors: the government, the private
sector, and the community. These types of respondents must have been involved in CP in
these selected toll roads‟ project development. In addition, the three sectors of the respondent
must know the selected toll road conditions and have experience as users of the project.
3. Even though this research assesses the level of stakeholders‟ perceptions, instead of focusing
on stakeholders‟ satisfaction, this research is focused to acquire the stakeholders‟ perceptions
regarding toll road project‟s performance with regard to PSB, PD, CP and GR in several
project stages started from initial to the operational phase.
4. Purposive sampling was selected as the data collection technique because the targeted
respondents are the stakeholders that have very specific characteristics. The respondents
should have an information or an understanding of the community participation process when
the toll road projects were developed and know the current toll road condition performance.
Based on that fact, it was not easy to obtain the respondents with such specific characteristics.
Moreover, currently, the database of stakeholders which involved in toll road project
development is not easy to obtain. As such, purposive sampling technique was used in this
research by selecting the respondents who met the requirement.
5. The focus of this research is the overall toll road project‟s life cycle, except for the demolition
stage since the toll roads that had been developed are now still in the operational stage. The
project life cycle in this research embraced the planning, design, construction and operation
stages. The reason was several attributes of the Constructs should be assessed based on the
stakeholders‟ experience or perception in those projects‟ stages. Therefore, the stakeholders
should consider the project performance from the early stages (planning, design, and
construction) to the current stage (operational stage) to assess the constructs‟ performances.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 10
6. However, even though the main survey was based on the stakeholders‟ perception that
encompassing the overall project life cycle, the time for the data collection was based on a
cross-sectional method that is a measurement of the stakeholders‟ perceptions in a specific
point of time. The reason was that the focus of the measurement was to obtain a general
perception of the stakeholders regarding current PPP toll road projects performance in order to
better develop a new PPP concept rather than to compare their opinions. As such, a
longitudinal survey that is usually performed to compare and investigate respondents‟
perceptions at different times was not selected in this research. In addition to that, the selection
of a longitudinal study was not possible because of budget and time limitations.

1.7. Research Methodology

This research applied a quantitative approach based on cross-sectional survey data. Data collection
was conducted through several stages, namely preliminary survey, pilot test, main survey and data
analysis. A preliminary survey was aimed at validating the research attributes involving 12 (twelve)
experts in toll road project development in Indonesia. In addition, the pilot test involving 11
(eleven) respondents were also performed to develop and test the questionnaire to ensure that it
worked as expected. Meanwhile, the main survey was conducted in the selected eight toll road
projects on Java, Indonesia. Explanation of the selection of the projects under study can be seen in
more detail in Chapter 3 on the research methodology.

Data analysis was performed using statistical descriptive techniques such as mean and standard
deviation. The analysis was then followed by an Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) test to investigate
the different perceptions among the stakeholders. Furthermore, several multivariate analyses were
also carried out consisting of reliability and validity analyses using Exploratory Factor Analysis
(EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). EFA was used as the technique to test the
constructs‟ reliability and validity as well as to reduce or classify the attributes to measure the
constructs for an easy interpretation. The CFA was used to confirm the EFA result and this was the
initial step of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) analysis to obtain reliable and valid constructs
prior to the relationship analysis between the research‟s constructs. Some parameters of the model
fit were used as criteria to determine whether the model was able to represent the research data.
Finally, when Goodness of Fit (GOF) requirements met the measurement model, relationships
between the constructs were then investigated using SEM.

1.8. Thesis Structure

This thesis consists of nine chapters that have been structurally arranged and organized to be easy
to follow. Chapter one provides a summary of the thesis content that involves the research
background, problem statement, objectives, scope limitation, research methodology, and significant

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 11
findings of this research. Chapter two reviews literatures pertaining to the toll road and social
sustainability. This involves the concept of toll road project from various perspectives, project
success concept, stakeholders in PPP projects, the importance of the community perspectives in the
success of PPP projects, the relationship between successful projects and sustainable development,
an elaboration of a social sustainability concept including criteria and factors that influence social
sustainability.

Chapter three provides the research theoretical framework as well as the conceptual model
development by explaining the definition of research constructs as well as their attributes and
finally explains several hypotheses to be tested. Chapter four provides a research methodology
that describes the research steps and methods used such as respondents‟ involvement, sample size,
data collection process as well as several data analyses that have been carried out.

Chapter five presents a preliminary analysis of the data that contains data preparation and
screening, descriptive analysis as well as a comparative analysis between the groups of
respondents‟ perceptions. ANOVA analysis and post hoc test to investigate the differences between
stakeholders‟ perceptions were also explained in this chapter. Chapter six explains the process of
investigating the constructs‟ reliability and validity. Reliability analysis using Cronbach Alpha and
Corrected Item-To-Total Correlation parameter were also described in this chapter to complete the
EFA and CFA tests.

Chapter seven analyses the constructs‟ relationships using the SEM technique. In the first step, the
overall measurement model analysis was also performed to find an initial model that satisfies the
Goodness of Fit (GOF) parameter. Once the measurement model was found, the relationships‟
analysis was conducted. Investigations of the mediation effects were also reported in this chapter.
Chapter eight discusses the research findings with regard to the constructs‟ relationships and how
these findings relate to the achievement of project social benefit. This chapter also further
elaborates how the project social benefit can promote overall PPP project success. Finally, chapter
nine summarises all the research findings, highlights the theoretical as well as practical
contributions and subsequently provides the limitations and recommendations for future research.

1.9. Chapter Summary

This chapter introduces the research thesis by presenting the motivation or research background,
research questions, and objectives, hypotheses, scope and limitations as well as the methodology.
The main findings and research contribution in terms of contribution to the body of knowledge and
its practical implications are also explained. Finally, it also provides the structure of this thesis.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 12
 CHAPTER 2
TOLL ROAD PROJECT SUCCESS AND SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY

2.1. Introduction
This research is underpinned by theories of project success and social sustainability. The previous
chapter provided the research background on the importance of investigating social sustainability
as part of the success criteria in Public Private Partnerships (PPP) toll road projects. However,
social sustainability is a controversial topic and still under development in which researchers still
disagree and debate it. Therefore, this chapter provides a review regarding social sustainability and
how this concept is connected to the theory of project success. However, to provide a
comprehensive understanding of the research project context, this chapter also has an explanation
of toll road projects, project success as well as sustainable development before reviewing the social
sustainability theory.

After this introduction in Section 2.1, Section 2.2 reviews the concept of a toll road project and this
is followed by Section 2.3 that presents the concept of project success. The concept of stakeholders
in PPP project is reviewed in Section 2.4 to provide a clear understanding of any parties involved in
PPP scheme. Section 2.5 presents the importance of community in the success of PPP toll road
projects. The relation between project success and sustainable development is explained in Section
2.6. Sustainable development as the main core of the social sustainability concept is then reviewed
in Section 2.7. The concept of social sustainability itself is investigated in Section 2.8. Finally, a
summary of this chapter is provided in Section 2.9.

2.2. Toll Road Projects

A toll road is basically promoted as a public road and part of the national road network system
where users are required to pay a toll fee (Handayani, 2008). A toll road is also part of traffic
management in reducing congestion in urban areas. However, according to its characteristics, toll
roads can be seen from different perspectives such as transport, construction, or infrastructure PPP
projects. To get a more comprehensive understanding of this concept, the toll road concept is
reviewed related to these perspectives.

2.2.1. A Toll Road as a Transport Project

A toll road is actually part of transport management strategies which aim to manage road
congestion in urban areas in the form of road pricing (Handayani, 2008). Road congestion has often
become a transport problem in many urban areas due to increasing population and vehicle

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 13
ownership. Road congestion is a condition when the traffic volume is exceeding the road capacity.
According to Stopher (2004), the term congestion refers to recurrent congestion because of high
demand and bottlenecks which happen in a pattern over days or hours, not non-recurrent
congestion which is random and usually happens because of accidents, road works and the like.
Due to the traffic congestion, negative impacts can happen, such as unreliable travel times,
pollution due to increased fuel consumption, non-productive time, increased stress, reduction in
both mobility, which is related to the ease of movement, and accessibility that is related to the ease
of reaching destinations (Stopher, 2004).

Generally, transport management strategies can be classified into five forms, namely public
transport, congestion charging, road pricing and other approaches such setting the working hours
period and integration of land use and transport planning (Stopher, 2004). Road pricing is a
transport policy based on an economic instrument according to incentives and/or disincentives
principle to provide revenue for transport use (as the cost to construct and maintain the facility) as
well as manage the congestion (Schwaab and Thielmann, 2002). Meanwhile, other economic
instruments besides road pricing are including vehicle taxation, fuel taxation, parking fees and
congestion pricing.

According to Schwaab and Thielmann (2002) road pricing has been implemented in several places
in the world, such as Norway, Singapore and the UK, and is perceived as an effective concept of
basic transport policy which has several advantages, such as: revenue generation, market-economy
compatibility, enforcing the user-pays-principle, incentive-based transport policy approach, high
effectiveness, dynamic incentives and greater flexibility. Furthermore, Schwaab and Thielman
(2002) stated that road pricing may take one of the following forms:
o A general road pricing scheme for the complete road network;
o Tolls (often used to recover investment and maintenance costs of motorways or bridges);
o Urban road pricing: congestion pricing (congested urban road), area licensing (charge in
actual roads in cities), and cordon pricing (entrance fee into a city);
o Vignettes schemes (fee for temporarily accessing certain road networks such as an express
motorway); and
o An electronic mileage-tax for heavy good vehicles (to effectively tax transit cargo
transport, such as in Switzerland and Germany).

According to the above, a toll road is part of the road pricing system which aims to manage
congestion in the form of redirecting traffic during limited hours (Handayani, 2008) on which the
cost is usually based on distance or hours of usage. A toll road is usually built as an alternative road
in an area which has traffic density, such as in a suburban commuter corridor. Because of the traffic

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 14
density consequences, there is a different level of service and therefore congestion pricing can be
collected and a toll tariff is a compensation to the road users who want to use the service (Johansen,
1989).

In the Indonesia context, the reason for toll road selection as the method to reduce traffic
congestion is because this type of method can generate funding for the infrastructure development
by itself, which covers the investment and maintenance costs. As such, the government does not
need to use their budget to fund this infrastructure and could allocate funds to other projects and
areas where it is not economically and financially feasible for the project to implement tolls.

2.2.2. A Toll Road as a Construction Project

Toll roads can also be seen from a construction project perspective, which is usually a micro-
perspective. A construction project is intended to build facilities and where the project‟s activities
only happen once or are non-repeatable in the project life cycle, unlike a manufacturing process
that takes place regularly or repeatedly. Du Plessis (2007, p.69) defines construction as “The broad
process/mechanism for the realisation of human settlements and the creation of infrastructure that
supports development”. This includes the extraction and treatment of raw materials, the
manufacturing of construction materials and components, the construction project cycle from
feasibility to deconstruction, and the management and operation of the constructed asset. A toll
road project is a temporary activity with start and end date which aims to create something unique
either in the form of products or services. Generally, a construction project has several phases that
can be categorized as feasibility, design, building/construction, operation, decommissioning,
demolition and disposal (Du Plessis, 2007). Meanwhile, Li et al (2012) classified construction
project‟s life cycle consisting of planning, design, construction, operation, and demolition.
Therefore, with regard to a toll road as part of a construction project, this type of project is an
activity which happens once in time and has several project life cycle elements from the initial
(feasibility stage) up to disposal stage.

In addition to the above, as it is often implemented with a large budget, a toll road can also be seen
as a mega-construction project. The Federal Highway Administration of the USA (2016) defines
mega-projects as “major infrastructure projects that cost more than USD 1 billion, or projects of a
significant cost that attracts a high level of public attention or political interest because of
substantial direct and indirect impacts on the community, environment, and state budgets”.
However, Sturup (2010) defines Mega Urban Transport Project (MUTP) as a project that costs
more than USD 0.5 billion (the year 2000) which facilitates transport and built in urban areas.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 15
“Megaprojects are a completely different breed of the project in terms of their level of aspiration,
lead times, complexity, and stakeholder involvement and consequently, they are also a very
different type of project to manage” (Flyvbjerg, 2014). Nevertheless, Haidar and Ellis, Jr. (2010)
argued that, theoretically, a mega-project is the same as a general construction project, but it is
different in accordance with its size and complexity. Zhai et al. (2009) revealed that compared with
general projects, mega-projects have more types of stakeholders, such as a sponsor, a customer, a
performing organization, subcontractors, suppliers, the public, investors, and so forth.

In the Indonesian context, a toll road project usually has an allocated budget of no more than USD
0.5 billion or Indonesian Rupiah (IDR) 5 trillion. According to the above definitions, a toll road in
Indonesia it is not quite appropriate to classify it as a mega-project, but to restrict this is to just
being a construction project.

2.2.3. A Toll Road as an Infrastructure PPP Project

Toll roads are a part of the infrastructure that is often delivered using Public Private Partnership
(PPP) schemes and this is the case for Indonesian toll road projects. Traditionally, until the end of
the twentieth century, public infrastructure was provided by the government or the public sector as
they were the owner and responsible for infrastructure in almost all countries (Tsamboulas et al.,
2012). This public infrastructure provision is usually delivered by using a design-bid-build
procurement system (Aziz, 2007). However, Kwak et al. (2009) argued that a purely public
approach might cause problems such as slow and ineffective decision-making, inefficient
organizational and institutional frameworks, and lack of competition and efficiency.

Moreover, experience has shown that the implementation of construction projects (especially
mega-projects) using the traditional procurement model resulted in projects that were over budget
and over time (Poole, 2011). On the other hand, a purely private approach may cause problems
such as inequalities in the distribution of infrastructure services (Kwak et al., 2009). PPP is then
formulated as cooperation between government and private sectors to overcome these limitations
and to strengthen both capacities in infrastructure provision.

PPPs were first introduced in the UK in the form of Private Finance Initiatives (PFIs) during the
late 1980s and early 1990s (Cheung et al., 2012). PPPs have been widely applied in industrialized
countries such as the USA, in Eastern Europe, and the Pacific Rim and in places with tremendous
new infrastructure demands, such as Latin America (Akintoye et al., 2003). A PPP scheme is
perceived as a vehicle to involve the private sector in infrastructure project development either
because of a government‟s budget limitations or because of best value principles (Kumaraswamy
and Zhang, 2001).

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 16
However, even though the PPP has been widely adopted as an infrastructure procurement route all
over the world, the term “PPP” is still not clearly defined (Kwak et al., 2009). Sometimes PPP is
even perceived as privatization. Nevertheless, Grimsey and Lewis (2005) rejected this opinion and
specified that PPP is a concept that is located between traditional public service and pure
privatization. In privatization, the government has no direct role in the ongoing operation, but in the
PPP concept, the government still has the main responsibility. PPP is defined as “a long-term
contract between the public and private sectors where government pays the private sector to deliver
infrastructure and related services on behalf, or in support, of government‟s broader service
responsibilities which typically make the private sector parties who build infrastructure responsible
for its condition and performance on a whole-of-life basis” (Australia Government, 2008, p.3).
Meanwhile, within the Indonesia context, a PPP is defined as a partnership between the public and
private sectors in infrastructure provision through a government body and project company in a
contractual agreement for any works for infrastructure capacity improvement, management or
maintenance to improve infrastructure (IIGF, 2012). In principle, a PPP is intended to get the
maximum benefit (best value) for delivering public infrastructure services by utilizing private
sector advantages and simultaneously transferring some risks and responsibilities to them
(Akintoye et al., 2003; Yuan et al., 2009).

Several models of PPP have been introduced in the published literature. Nevertheless, currently,
researchers still have different classifications for PPPs. For example, Li et al. (2005) identified
eight types of PPPs in the UK, namely: (1) asset sales that is related to the sales of surplus public
sector assets; (2) a wider market which introduces the skills and finance of the private sector to get
better use of public sector assets; (3) sales of business which relates to the sale of a share in state
owned businesses by flotation or a trade sale; (4) partnership companies, this includes introducing
private sector ownership into state-owned businesses, which still preserving public interest through
legislation, regulations, and the like; (5) Private Finance Initiatives (PFIs); (6) joint ventures, in
which public and private sector partners pool their assets and resources together under joint
management; (7) Partnership investments, in which the public sector contributes to the funding of
investment by private sector parties, to ensure that the public sector shares in the return generated;
(8) and Policy partnerships, in which the private sector individuals or parties are involved in the
development, or implementation of public sector policy.

Meanwhile, Public Private Investment of the World Bank or PPI (2013) divided PPP types into
four categories, namely Management and Lease Contracts, Concessions, Greenfield Projects, and
Divestitures. The first category is Management and Lease Contracts which are types of partnerships
where a private entity takes over the management of a state-owned enterprise for a fixed period

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 17
while ownership and investment decisions remain with the state. There are two types of this PPP,
which are Management Contracts and Lease Contracts. A management contract is where the
government pays a private operator to manage the facilities, but the operational risk remains with
the government. Meanwhile, in a Lease contract, the government leases the assets to a private
operator for a fee and the private operator takes on the operational risk.

The second category is Concessions, where a private entity takes over the management of a state-
owned enterprise for a given period during which it also assumes significant investment risk. This
category can be classified into four types, namely Rehabilitate-Operate-Transfer (ROT),
Rehabilitate-Lease-Transfer (RLT), and Build-Rehabilitate-Operate-Transfer (BROT). The third
classification is one for Greenfield Projects where a private entity or a public-private joint venture
builds and operates a new facility for a specified period in the project contract. The facility may
return to the public sector at the end of the concession period. This type can be categorized into
five categories:
o Build-Lease-Own (BLO);
o Build-Own-Transfer (BOT) or Build-Own-Operate-Transfer (BOOT);
o Build-Own-Operate (BOO);
o Merchant, where private sponsor builds a new facility in a liberalized market in which the
government provides no revenue guarantees. The private developer assumes construction,
operating, and market risk for the project (for example, a merchant power plant); and
o Rental, where private sponsor places a new facility at its own risk, owns and operates the
facility at its own risk during the contract period.

Meanwhile, the Divestitures is where a private entity buys an equity stake in a state-owned
enterprise through an asset sale, public offering, or mass privatization program. This type can be
classified into two categories:
o Full sale, where the government transfers 100% of the equity in the state-owned company
to private entities; and
o Partial sale, where the government transfers part of the equity in the state-owned company
to private entities. The private stake may or may not imply private management of the
facility.

While the different classification of the PPP types is conceptualised in the literature, researchers
still have not agreed on the PPP definition, as mentioned before. Akintoye et al., (2003) asserted it
is still difficult to obtain an agreement regarding the PPP definition. However, Kwak et al. (2009)
described that PPPs are situated between the purely public and purely private model of delivery, as
can be seen in Figure 2.1. According to the figure, PPP types can be divided into five categories,

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 18
which are Operation-Maintenance (OM), Design-Build-Operate (DBO), Design-Build-Finance-
Operate (DBFO), Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) and Build-Own-Operate (BOO).

Figure 2.1. PPP Projects Types (Kwak et al., 2009)

As a procurement route model, PPP has an advantage as well as a limitation. For example, Pongsiri
(2002) identified several advantages in PPPs, either from public or private sector perspectives.
From the public agency perspective, the implementation of a PPP would give an improvement of
program performance, cost efficiencies, better service provision and appropriate risk allocation and
responsibilities. Meanwhile, from the private perspective it gives the benefit of better investment
potential, can make a reasonable profit and has more opportunities to expand their business
interests. In addition to that, Ng et al. (2012a) asserted that PPPs could release a government‟s
budgetary limit by injecting private sector resources, encouraging innovation, enhancing
productivity, allowing better risk allocation, increasing Value for Money (VfM) and improving
cost-effectiveness. In addition, Hwang et al. (2012) posited that some countries have adopted PPPs
due to fiscal deficits, budgetary pressure, demand-supply gaps, and inefficient public service
delivery of infrastructure, while other countries choose PPP for operational efficiency,
technological innovation and management skills, and more active involvement of private players in
public services.

However, the current concept of PPP has also been criticised. Pongsiri (2002) pointed out that PPPs
have been increasing in complexity, experiencing a loss of decision-making autonomy, information
asymmetry and has substantial problems due to unresolved problems with regard to equity, access,
participation, and democracy. Kumaraswamy and Zhang (2001) presented several problems of
BOT projects resulting from cost overruns, unrealistic prices and income projections, and legal
disputes between the private operator and the government due to political obstacles. In addition,
PPP projects are known for having a high risk compared to traditionally organized projects (Välilä,
2005). If these risks are not properly managed, they may threaten the success of PPP projects.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 19
The current traditional PPP concept has also been criticised due to has not accommodated the end-
user perspective (public) as the evaluation criteria for the decision-making process (Majamaa et al.,
2008). Current PPP system is more focus on the contractually based criteria as the performance
evaluation criteria without considering direct input from the end-user. On the other side, the end-
user needs and interests of the key stakeholders are highly important to be accommodated in the
decision-making process to deliver their satisfaction. As such, the new framework called Public
Private People Partnerships (4P) is proposed to involve end-user stakeholder since early stages of
project life cycle in the traditional PPP‟s decision-making process to achieve customer-oriented
service (Majamaa et al., 2008).

The idea of the 4P concept is also supported by Ng et al. (2013) which proposed a framework for
community participation process in the context of PPP project improvement in Hong Kong which
is also called as Public Private People Partnerships (4P). The framework is characterized by four
key features that adapted Bickerstaff et al. (2002), namely inclusiveness, transparency,
instructiveness, and continuity. Recognizing and formally integrated people or community through
the implementation of the 4P concept is expected can improve the infrastructure project resilience
and subsequently deliver a more sustainable project implementation (Zhang et al., 2015).
Resilience is important considering PPP has a long-term contract than traditional procurement that
generates high-risk business (Kumaraswamy et al., 2015). However, involving many parties in the
decision-making is a complex process that potentially leads to project team dispute; and therefore
selecting the “right” people to be engaged and subsequently manage their expectation in 4P concept
become key success issues in this context (Zhang et al., 2015). Hence, given the long-term
contractual arrangement in the PPP scheme, Kumaraswamy et al. (2015) suggested implementing
the 4P concept to better integrate the project stakeholders. The informal relationship goes beyond
the structured partnership between the stakeholders to better deal with uncertainty. Given the PPP
is long-term contractual, arrangement is needed as even to achieve closer relationship rather than to
provide more sustainable PPP projects.

Apart from the above limitation, the current PPP concept has provided a good solution in
overcoming the traditional construction project procurement through the Best Value (BV) concept.
However, this PPP scheme is not a panacea for all problems and a solution for any project (Cheung
et al., 2012). A PPP requires some conditions in order to be successfully implemented. According
to Aziz (2007), successful implementation of PPPs requires the availability of diverse skills and
different areas of expertise in procurement, legal, and financial management. These include
knowledge of various PPP procurement methods, multistage contractor selection processes,
assessment and evaluation methods for multi-criteria proposals, assessment of financial, legal, and
tax issues, and negotiation strategies. As such, a comprehensive understanding of how PPP toll

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 20
road projects can be delivered successfully is very important. Therefore, the theory of project
success is reviewed next.

2.3. Project Success

Project success is often discussed in the project management literature, but researchers still have
not reached an agreement regarding the success definition (Baccarini, 1999). One of the reasons is
that project success is an ambiguous concept as it involves people‟s perceptions where each
individual can have a different perception of success (Chan et al., 2002). Therefore, to get a
comprehensive understanding of the concept of toll road project success, the comprehensive project
success theory is reviewed with regard to its concept, success criteria, and success factors.

2.3.1. The Concept of Project Success

In simple terms, success is the degree to which the project's achievements and expectations can be
met (Chan et al., 2002). However, with this definition, there is still a question from whose
perspective are the expectations that have been met, given the project usually involves many
stakeholders? Project stakeholders are individuals or organizations who have a vested interest (in
terms of power, legitimacy, and urgency) in the success of the project and the environment within
which the project operates (Olander, 2007). Defining project success is difficult because project
success is about perceptions and every project stakeholder can have a different perspective and
perception about the success criteria (Baccarini, 1999). A project sometimes can be perceived
successful for one party, but this same project can be thought to fail by other parties.

Generally, the success perceptions of the project depend on several perspectives, such as the
stakeholder types, time horizon and project hierarchy level. With regard to stakeholder type, a
successful project can have a different meaning for an architect, consultant, and the client, or users.
For example, for a developer or contractor, a successful project is where it can be delivered within
the allocated time and budget as well as meets the quality specification. However, the perception of
success for the client perhaps is different where they focus on satisfaction, and time, cost and
quality criteria. Likewise, the time dimension also influences the perception of success as a project
may be considered a success now in a specific project phase, but later it can be said to be a failure
in another project phase. Regarding the project hierarchy perspective, a project which is considered
to fail at the project management level because of overruns in terms of cost and time as well as not
meeting the quality specification, may in the end still be perceived as successful as it achieves
higher organizational level objectives.

In light of the above, measuring success should be conducted by involving all stakeholders‟
perceptions throughout the project life cycle at all levels in the management hierarchy (De Wit,

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 21
1988). Therefore, a more comprehensive project success definition by De Wit (1988, p.165) is
appropriate to be adopted here where “ a project can be considered an overall success if the project
meets the technical performance specification and/or mission to be performed, and if there is a high
level of satisfaction concerning the project outcome among key people in the parent organization,
key people in the project team and key users or clientele of the project effort”.

Ideally, the project should deliver satisfaction to all stakeholders, even though in real cases this
seldom happens (Lim and Mohamed, 1999). However, it is almost impossible to deliver overall
satisfaction to stakeholders as success criteria are sometimes in the conflict between stakeholders
(Baccarini, 1999). Therefore, there should be trade-offs which should be agreed between parties
before a project is started (De Wit, 1988). In a project where many stakeholders are involved, there
should be a prioritisation of the success fulfillment to the stakeholder which has the most influence
on the project which means the higher the stakeholders‟ stake, the higher the satisfaction level that
should be delivered to that particular type of stakeholder.

Based on the need to fulfill every stakeholder‟s needs, it is very important to identify success
criteria for every stakeholder, in addition to the stakeholder type identification. It is difficult to
deliver the stakeholders‟ satisfaction without defining their interest and expectation as the
stakeholders have diverse aspirations. As such, it is necessary to compare the project criteria
between the success standard and the real performance to measure the success level (Chan et al.,
2002). The success criteria must be set up prior to the project execution.

2.3.2. Project Success Criteria

“Success criteria” are often perceived as similar to and used interchangeably with “success factor”
in the literature. However, these two terms should be distinguished, as these two terms are actually
different (Lim and Mohamed, 1999; Müller and Turner, 2007). Lim and Mohamed (1999) posited
that criteria are principles or standards to judge something. Therefore, success criteria are perceived
as dependent variables, which measure the project success (Müller and Turner, 2007). Meanwhile,
a factor is any circumstance or influence or thing that contributes to the result (Lim and Mohamed,
1999). As such, success factor can be defined as independent variables of the project success and
which are the elements of a project that can influence or increase the project success likelihood.
The review of the project success factor concept is presented in Section 2.3.3.

In this research, success criteria can be seen to derive from general project contexts and PPP
projects. With regard to success criteria, De Wit (1988) asserted that the project objectives are
actually the most appropriate criteria. In general projects, cost, time and quality have long been
used as the project success criteria (Atkinson, 1999; Chan et al., 2002). However, measuring

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 22
success only from these three criteria is not sufficient from an overall, comprehensive,
stakeholders‟ perspective (Olander, 2007; Li et al., 2013). In several cases, projects may have met
all three criteria, but they are still considered failures by not being widely accepted by the
stakeholders, especially the end users. Conversely, there are also projects that can be categorised as
a success even though they are delivered with over cost and budget as well as not satisfying quality
standards. The Sydney Opera House is often used as a good example of a successful project, in the
long-term, as it has now become a famous landmark that can attract tourists even though it was
considered as a failed project that required three times the planned time and almost five times the
original budgeted costs (Shenhar et al., 2001).

Considering these limitations, several researchers have proposed the use of other criteria for
measuring project success, in addition to the three traditional criteria that have long been used. For
example, Baccarini (1999) proposed that project success should distinguish between project
management success and comprehensive project success or otherwise known as product success.
Project management success focuses on the project process with regard to cost, time and quality
performance which is called “The Iron Triangle” by Atkinson (1999). Baccarini (1999) added
another two criteria for this project management success, namely (1) quality of the project
management process, and (2) satisfying project stakeholders that are related to the project
management process. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 10006 is one of the
guidances for assessing the project management quality (Baccarini, 1999). In relation to the project
phase, the focus of project management success is usually in the construction phase. This project
management success is often related to hard aspects which are objective, tangible and measurable.
A project team such as a developer, or a contractor usually gives more attention to this project
management aspect.

Meanwhile, regarding product success, Baccarini (1999) stated that this success is related to the
project‟s goal, the project‟s purpose, and stakeholder satisfaction. The project‟s goal is related to
how the project can support the enterprise‟s mission that is with respect to the impact of the project
results with regard to project owner's strategic organizational objectives. The project‟s purpose is
related to how the project can fulfill real users' needs. Regarding stakeholder satisfaction, the
project should provide satisfaction to the customer/user with regard to the project goal and project
purpose. In principle, Baccarini (1999) stated that project management success is actually
subordinate to product success. That is the reason why a project that is considered a failure in
project management performance can then be categorised as a success because the product success,
as the higher-level objective, can be achieved.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 23
Lim and Mohamed (1999) proposed that project success should be viewed from the success scope,
that is, according to different stakeholders‟ perspectives such as owner, developer, contractor, user,
and general public or community. In this case, success can be seen from both micro and macro
perspectives. The micro perspective deals with a smaller component level in the short-term, which
in a specific project context is usually in the construction phase. This micro perspective is usually
related to the developer, contractor and consultant stakeholders which are more focused on cost,
time and quality as the success criteria. As long as these criteria have been satisfied these parties
usually consider the project is a success.

Lim and Mohamed (1999) added that the macro perspective perceives success over the long-term
period in the overall project phases from conception to the operational phase. This perspective is
dealing with the project concept or goals that can be achieved. Therefore, this macro success
perspective is usually that of customer or user satisfaction. Therefore, with this perspective, people
usually say that as long as the users or customers are happy or satisfied, the project can be
considered as successful. Project management success or the micro perspective can be seen shortly
after the project is completed while the product success or the macro perspective can be seen in the
longer term of the project life cycle.

Shenhar et al. (2001) presented four success criteria, namely project efficiency, impact on the
customer, business success, and preparing for the future. In addition, Chan et al. (2002) divided the
criteria according to a project life cycle consisting of pre-construction (past), construction (present)
and post-construction (future). Meanwhile, Müller and Turner (2007) proposed success criteria of
end-user satisfaction, supplier satisfaction, team satisfaction, other stakeholders' satisfaction,
performance in terms of time, cost, quality, meeting users‟ requirements, project achieves its
purpose, customer satisfaction, re-occurring business and self-defined criteria. Furthermore, Al-
Tmeemy et al. (2010) proposed success criteria from a construction project contractor‟s perspective
consisting of three categories - project management success, product success and market success.
Recently, Serrador and Turner (2015) used project efficiency as a similar term to project
management success and project success to represent meeting wider business and enterprise goals
as defined by key stakeholders. Meanwhile, Duncan and Liman (2006) proposed success criteria in
the context of road projects. Success criteria that have been identified over time from the published
literature are summarised in Table 2.1.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 24
 Table 2.1. Project Success Criteria (Part a)

No. Source Project Success Criteria

1 Baccarini (1999) A. Project Management Success
1) Meeting time, cost and quality
2) Quality of project management
3) Satisfying project‟s stakeholder‟s needs
B. Product Success
1) Meeting project owner‟s strategic organizational objectives (project
goal)
2) Satisfaction user‟s needs (project purpose)
3) Satisfaction of stakeholders‟ needs
2 Lim and A. Micro Perspective (developer and contractor‟s perspectives)
Mohammed 1) Time
(1999) 2) Cost
3) Quality
4) Performance
5) Safety
B. Macro Perspective (user and other stakeholders‟ perspectives)
1) Project completion
2) Utility
3) Operation
3 Shenhar et al. A. Project Efficiency
(2001) B. Impact on Customer
C. Business Success
D. Preparing for the Future
4 Chan et al. A. Pre-construction phase (the past)
(2002) 1) Objective criteria (hard success, for example: time, cost, health,
safety, and profitability)
2) Subjective criteria (soft success, for example: quality, performance,
satisfaction of the key project participation, functionality, aesthetic
image, educational, social and professional aspects and environment
sustainability)
B. Construction phase (the present)
1) Objective criteria (hard success, for example: time, cost, health,
safety, and profitability)
2) Subjective criteria (soft success, for example: quality, performance,
satisfaction of the key project participation, functionality, aesthetic
image, educational, social and professional aspects and environment
sustainability).

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 25
 Table 2.1. Project Success Criteria (Part b)

No. Source Project Success Criteria

C. Post-Construction phase (the future)
1) Objective criteria (hard success, for example: time, cost, health, safety,
and profitability)
2) Subjective criteria (soft success, for example: quality, performance,
satisfaction of the key project participation, functionality, aesthetic
image, educational, social and professional aspects and environment
sustainability)
5 Takim and A. Project efficiency
Akintoye (2002) 1) Time
2) Cost (budget)
3) Technical specification
4) Safety
5) Profitability
6) The absence of any legal claims and proceeding
B. Project effectiveness
1) User satisfaction
2) Use of the project
3) Fitness for purpose
4) Free from defects
5) Value for money
6) Pleasant environment
7) Social obligation
6. Chan et al. (2004) A. Objective Measure
1) Construction time
2) Speed of construction
3) Time variation
4) Unit cost
5) Percentage net variation over final cost
6) Net present value
7) Accident rate
8) Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) scores
B. Subjective Measure
1) Quality
2) Functionality
3) End user‟s satisfaction
4) Design team‟s satisfaction
5) Construction team‟s satisfaction

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 26
 Table 2.1. Project Success Criteria (Part c)

No. Source Project Success Criteria

7 Duncan and A. Should attract sufficient traffic so project benefit will exceed project cost.
Liman (2006) B. Lowered vehicle-operating costs and reduced journey times.
C. Had major impact on communities served which contribute to increase
incomes and employment as well as social services?
D. At the national level, it contributes to transport cost and time saving that
support economic growth, poverty reduction, employment and government
revenues.
8 Müller and Turner A. End-user satisfaction
(2007) B. Supplier satisfaction
C. Team satisfaction
D. Other stakeholders' satisfaction
E. Performance in terms of time, cost, quality
F. Meeting user‟s requirements
G. Project achieves its purpose
H. Customer satisfaction
I. Reoccurring business
J. Self-defined criteria
9 Al-Tmeemy et al. A. Project Management Success
(2010) 1) Adherence to quality target
2) Adherence to schedule
3) Adherence to budget
B. Product Success
1) Customer satisfaction
2) Functional requirements
3) Technical specifications
C. Market Success
1) Revenue and profit
2) Market share
3) Reputation
4) Competitive advantage
10. Serrador and A. Project efficiency (Project Management Success)
Turner (2015) 1) Cost
2) Time
3) Scope goals
B. Project Success (Product Success)
1) Meeting business and enterprise goals as defined by key stakeholders

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 27
According to Table 2.1, generally, researchers have agreed that cost, time and quality aspects or
what is often known as the Iron Triangle are not comprehensive enough to measure the overall
project success, even though they are considered as very important criteria. Success perceptions are
dynamic or changing according to time horizon (project life cycle), stakeholder perspectives and
dimensions to be used in perceiving the success (economic, environmental or social).

Stakeholders‟ satisfaction is also recognised as important success criteria. Atkin and Skitmore
(2008) posited that the success of a project depends on the achievement of expectations of all
stakeholders throughout the project cycle. Stakeholder satisfaction is defined as the achievement of
stakeholders' pre-project expectations in the actual performance of each project stage (Li et al,
2013). Stakeholder satisfaction can be achieved by gauging the level of the discrepancies between
the goal level as the level that is set and performance level which is the level that is achieved
(Leung et al., 2004).

In addition to the above, toll road project success criteria can also be seen from a PPP project
success perspective. Regarding PPP projects, several sets of success criteria for infrastructure
projects under PPP schemes have been presented. Recently, Liyanage and Romero (2015)
investigated the three sustainability components against project management success criteria in toll
road projects. Success criteria in PPP projects are summarised in Table 2.2.

Table 2.2. PPP Project Success Criteria (Part a)

No. Source PPP Project Success Criteria
1 Zhang (2006a A. Transfering risk
and 2006b) B. Reducing the size of public borrowing via off-balance-sheet
financing
C. Benefit to the local economy
D. Early project completion
E. Acquisition of a fully completed and operational facility
F. low project life cycle cost
G. Reduce public administrative cost
H. Reduce dispute and claims
I. low tariffs/tolls
J. Long project life span
K. Optimize resource utilization
L. Additionally
M. Utilization of private managerial skills and technologies
N. Environmentally friendly
O. Transfer of technologies

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 28
 Table 2.2. PPP Project Success Criteria (Part b)

No. Source PPP Project Success Criteria

P. Increased project development and operation efficiencies
Q. Improved constructability and maintainability
R. Additional financial sources of priority projects
S. Technical innovation
T. Additional facilities
Modular and repeatable design/construction
2 Yuan et al. A. Acceptable quality of project,
(2009) B. Quality public service,
C. Within budget or saving money in construction and operation,
D. On-time or earlier project completion,
E. Satisfying the need for public facilities,
F. Provide timely and more convenient service for society,
G. Solving the problem of public sector budget restraint life
cycle cost reduction
H. Introducing business and profit-generating skills to the public
sector
I. Transferring risk to private sector,
J. Making profit from public service, promoting local economic
development,
K. Improving technology level or gaining technology transfer,
public sector can acquire additional facilities/services beyond,
L. Requirement from private sector,
M. Private sector can earn government sponsorship,
N. Guarantees and tax reduction.
3 Ng et al. (2010) A. High quality of the service.
B. Prompt, stable and reliable delivery.
C. Reasonable service cost.
D. Construction time-saving.
E. Construction cost saving.
F. Inovative solution in the project.
G. Private sector can meet output requirements specified in the
contract.
H. The project creates business opportunities for the private
sectors.
I. Reasonable revenue can be generated for the private sector.
J. A good relationship can be built between the public and
private sector.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 29
 Table 2.2. PPP Project Success Criteria (Part c)

No. Source PPP Project Success Criteria

K. The procurement procedure is fair, open and transparent.

L. There is a level playing field in the market between similar
projects.
M. There is an efficient channel of communication between the
community and the service provider
4 Aziz et al. A. Oganization reputation
(2011) B. Project reputation
C. Early completion
D. On-time completion
E. Value-for-money
F. Cost certainty
G. Quality workmanship
H. Transfer of financial risks
I. Transfer of delay risk
J. Innovation in design
K. Obtaining lowest development cost
L. Obtaining technical expertise
M. Transfer of defect risks
N. Obtaining marketing expertise
O. Transfer of cost overrun risk
P. Transfer of sales risk and
Q. Obtaining capital for development
5 Liyanage and A. Project management perspective (time, cost and quality)
Romero (2015) B. Stakeholder perspective (public, private and user) and
contract management perspective (contract, process, and
results). They also stressed that in measuring project success
it is important to accommodate all stakeholders‟ point of
view.

According to Table 2.2, the previous researchers agreed that successful PPP infrastructure projects
are generally measured using the Best Value (BV) Concept (Zhang, 2006; Yuan et al., 2009; Ng et
al., 2010). The BV is analyzed using a Public Sector Comparator (PSC) method using quality,
efficiency/effectiveness, Value for Money (VfM) and performance standards as the main backbone
(Zhang, 2006). This concept of BV is more related to economic and environmental value which is
more tangible rather than intangible value, such as the social aspect. This intangible aspect does
receive less attention in measuring PPP project success (Ng et al., 2010).

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 30
These previous success criteria that have been presented provided a great contribution to the body
of knowledge on how to measure project success. However, even though the project success can be
measured using the criteria, the success performance is also influenced by what are the success
factors. Understanding success factors as the enabling factors that influence the success
performance are also very important in order to comprehensively understand the overall success
system. This brings the factor to a proactive way of thinking to better predict success‟ performance
and also to know how to better achieve it (Almahmoud et al., 2012). As such, it is important to link
success criteria and success factors together (Ika, 2009).

2.3.3. Project Success Factors

A success factor was defined previously as an event or circumstance that is internal or external to
the project that influences the project performance (Ameyaw and Chan, 2016). The term Critical
Success Factor (CSF) is often used in addition to success factor in the literature. In simple terms, a
critical factor is an extremely important factor (Lim and Mohamed, 1999), therefore, a CSF can be
articulated as an extremely important success factor.

Project success factors can also be seen from the perspectives of general construction projects and
PPP projects. From the construction project literature, long lists of success factors have been
presented where researchers came with different factor lists and where every factor consists of
several sub-factors. This is not surprising as every project has a different context and characteristics
(Ika, 2009). For example, Pinto and Slevin (1987) proposed ten success factors that consist of:
o Project mission;
o Top management support;
o Project schedule/plan;
o Client consultation;
o Personnel;
o Technical tasks;
o Client acceptance;
o Monitoring and feedback;
o Communication; and
o Troubleshooting.

Meanwhile, Belasi and Tukel (1996) divided the success factors into four categories, namely:
Factors related to the project; Factors related to the Project manager and team members; Factors
related to organization; and Factors related to the external environment. Chua et al. (1999)
categorised success factors into four major themes, which were: Project Characteristics,
Contractual arrangements, Project participants and Interactive process. Meanwhile, Chan et al.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 31
(2004) classified the success factors into five, namely Project management actions, Project
procedures, Project-related factors, External environments and Human-related factors.

In addition to that, Kwak (2002) outlined ten factors that influence the success of an international
construction project, namely: political; legal; cultural; technical; managerial; economic;
environmental; social; corrupt; and physical aspects. Various sets of success factors that have been
identified from the literature are summarised in Table 2.3. According to the table, generally these
success factors can be grouped into six major classifications, namely:
o Project characteristics;
o Project participants or human-related factors (project manager, team member, supplier, clients,
sub-contractors and the like);
o Project management/organization;
o External environment;
o Project procurement/contractual arrangements; and
o Interactive process.

Table 2.3. PPP Project Success Factors (Part a)

No. Source Project Success Factors
1. Pinto and A. Project Mission
Slevin B. Top Management Support
(1987) C. Project Schedule/Plan
D. Client Consultation
E. Personnel
F. Technical Tasks
G. Client Acceptance
H. Monitoring and Feedback
I. Communication
J. Troubleshooting

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 32
 Table 2.3. PPP Project Success Factors (Part b)

No. Source Project Success Factors

2. Belassi and A. Factor related to the project manager
Tukel 1) Ability to delegate authority
(1996) 2) Ability to trade off
3) Ability to coordinate
4) Perception of his role and responsibilities
5) Competence
6) Commitment
B. Project team members
1) Technical background
2) Communication skills
3) Troubleshooting
4) Commitment
C. Factors related to the project
1) Size and value
2) Uniqueness of project activities
3) Density of a project
4) Life cycle
5) Urgency
D. Factors related to the project organization
1) Top management support
2) Project organizational structure
3) Functional managers‟ support
4) Project champion
F. Factors related to the external environment
1) Political environment
2) Economic environment
3) Social environment
4) Technological environment
5) Nature
6) Client
7) Competitors
8) Sub-contractors

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 33
 Table 2.3. PPP Project Success Factors (Part c)
No. Source Project Success Factors
4. Chua et al. (1999) A. Project Characteristics
1) political risks; 2). economic risks; 3). impact on public; 4) technical
approval authorities; 5) adequacy of funding; 6) site limitation and
location; 7) constructability; 9) pioneering status; 10) project size.
B. Contractual arrangement
1) realistic obligations/clear objectives; 2) risk identification and
allocation; 3) adequacy of plans and specifications; 4) formal dispute
resolution process; 5) motivation/incentives.
C. Project participants
1) PM competency; 2) PM authority; 3) PM commitment and
involvement; 4) capability of client key personnel; 5) competency of
client proposed team; 6) client team turnover rate; 7) client top
management support; 8) client track record; 9) client level of service;
10) Capability of contractor key personnel; 11) competency of
contractor proposed team; 12) contractor team turnover rate; 13)
contractor top management support; 14) contractor track record; 15)
contractor level of service; 16) capability of consultant key personnel;
17) competency of consultant proposed team; 18) consultant team
turnover rate; 19) consultant top management support; 20) consultant
track record; 21) consultant level of service; 22) capability of
subcontractors‟ key personnel; 23) competency of subcontractors
proposed team; 24) subcontractors‟ team turnover rate;
25) subcontractors‟ top management support; 26) subcontractors‟ track
record; 27) subcontractors‟ level of service; 28) capability of suppliers‟
key personnel; 29) competency of suppliers proposed team;
(30) suppliers‟ team turnover rate; 31) suppliers‟ top management
support; 32) suppliers‟ track record; 33) suppliers‟ level of service.
D. Interactive Processes
1) formal design communication; 2) informal design communication;
3) formal construction communication; 4) informal construction
communication; 5) functional plans; 6) design complete at construction
start; 7) constructability program; 8) level of modularization; (9) level
of automation; 10) level of skilled labor required; 11) report updates;
12) budget updates; 13) schedule updates; 14) design control meetings;
15) construction control meetings; 16) site inspections; 17) work
organization chart; 18) common goal; 19) motivational factors;
20) relationships.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 34
 Table 2.3. PPP Project Success Factors (Part d)
No. Source Project Success Factors
5. Kwak (2002) A. Political factor
B. Legal factor
C. Cultural factor
D. Technical factor
E. Managerial/organizational factor
F. Economical factor
G. Environmental factor
H. Social factor
I. Corruption factor
J. Physical factor
6. Chan et al. (2004) A. Project management actions
1) Communication systems
2) Control mechanism
3) Feedback capabilities
4) Planning effort
5) Developing an appropriate organization structure
6) Implementing and effective quality assurance program
7) Control of sub-contractors‟ work
8) Overall managerial actions
B. Project procedures
1) Procurement method
2) Tendering method
C. Project related factors
1) Type of project
2) Nature of project
3) Number of floors of the project
4) Complexity of the project
5) Size of the project
D. Human related factors
1) Client‟s experience means whether they are a sophisticated or
specialized client.
2) Nature of client means whether they are privately or publicly
funded.
3) Size of client organization.
4) Client‟s emphasis on low construction cost
5) Client‟s emphasis on high quality of construction
6) Client‟s emphasis on quick construction
7) Client‟s ability to brief

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 35
 Table 2.3. PPP Project Success Factors (Part e)
No. Source Project Success Factors
8) Client‟s emphasis in making decision
9) Client‟s emphasis in defining roles
10) Client‟s contribution to design
11) Client‟s contribution to construction
12) Project team leader‟s experience
13) Technical skills of the project team leader
14) Planning skills of the project team leader
15) Organizational skills of the project team leader
16) Coordinating skills of the project team leader
17) Motivating skills of the project team leader
18) Project team leaders‟ commitment to meet cost, time and
quality.
19) Project team leaders‟ early and continued involvement in
the project.
20) Project team leaders‟ adaptability to changes in the project plan.
21) Project team leaders‟ working relationship with others.
22) Support and provision of resources from project team
leaders‟ parent economy.
E. External environment
1) Economic environment
2) Social environment
3) Political environment
4) Physical environment
5) Industrial relations environment
6) Technology advanced

Meanwhile, in the context of PPP projects, several previous studies have also presented project
success factors. For example, Jefferies (2006) found 23 success factors for the SuperDome project
in Sydney, Australia, using a case study with a qualitative approach. Success factors identified
from the PPP literature are summarised in Table 2.4.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 36
 Table 2.4. PPP Project Success Factors (Part a)
No. Source PPP Project Success Factors
1. Tiong et al. A. Entrepreneurship
(1992 and 1996) 1) Calculated risk-taker
2) Cultivating goodwill and relationship with host government officials
B. Pick the right project
1) Accurate prediction of critical need for project
2) Lack of funds by host government
3) Ideal candidate for privatization
4) Potential to achieve near-monopolistic advantage
5) for the products/services provided
C. Strong team of stakeholders
1) Form a multidisciplinary and multinational team of stakeholders
2) Leadership from a key entrepreneur or corporation
3) Perseverance and financial strength for protracted
4) Negotiations
D. Imaginative technological solution
1) Simplicity
2) Functional
3) Innovative
4) Cost-effective
E. 5. Competitive financial proposal
1) Low construction costs
2) Reasonably high debt/equity ratio
3) Acceptable tariff levels
4) Short construction and concession periods
5) Forecasts of future demand
F. Special features of bid
1) Imaginative elements that demonstrate altruism toward host
government
2) Contractual provisions to address specific concerns of government
2. Li et al. (2005) A. Strong private consortium
B. Appropriate risk allocation and risk sharing
C. Available financial market
D. Commitment/responsibility of public/private sectors
E. Thorough and realistic cost/benefit assessment
F. Project technical feasibility
G. Well-organized public agency
H. Good governance
I. Favourable legal framework

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 37
 Table 2.4. PPP Project Succcess Factors (Part b)

No. Source PPP Project Success Factors

3 Zhang (2005)
J. Transparency in the procurement process
K. Political support
L. Competitive procurement process
M. Sound economic policy
N. Multi-benefit objectives
O. Stable macro-economic environment
P. Government involvement by providing guarantees
Q. Shared authority between public and private sectors
R. Social support
A. Favorable investment environment
1) Stable political system
2) Favorable economic system
3) Adequate local financial market
4) Predictable currency exchange risk
5) Predictable and reasonable legal framework
6) Government support
7) Supportive and understanding community
8) The project is in the public interest
9) Predicable risk scenarios
10) The project is well suited for privatization
11) Promising economy
B. Economic viability
1) Long-term demand for the products/services offered by the project
2) Limited competition from other projects
3) Sufficient profitability of the project to attract investors
4) Long-term cash flow that is attractive to lender
5) Long-term availability of suppliers needed for the normal operation
of the project
C. Reliable concessionaire consortium with strong technical strength
1) Leading role by a key enterprise or entrepreneur
2) Effective project organization structure
3) Strong and capable project team
4) Good relationship with host government authorities
5) Partnering skills
6) Rich experience in international PPP project management
7) Multidisciplinary participants
8) Sound technical solution

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 38
 Table 2.4. PPP Project Succcess Factors (Part c)

No. Source PPP Project Success Factors

9) Innovative technical solution
10) Cost-effective technical solution
11) Low environmental impact
12) Public safety and health considerations
D. Sound financial package
1) Sound financial analysis
2) Investment, payment, and drawdown schedules
3) Sources and structure of main loans and standby facilities
4) Stable currencies of debts and equity finance
5) High equity/debt ratio
6) Low financial charges
7) Fixed and low interest rate financing
8) Long-term debt financing that minimizes refinancing risk
9) Abilities to deal with fluctuations in interest/exchange rates
10) Appropriate toll/tariff level(s) and suitable adjustment formula
E. Appropriate risk allocation via reliable contractual arrangements in
1) Concession agreement
2) Shareholder agreement
3) Design and construct contract
4) Loan agreement
5) Insurance agreement
6) Supply agreement
7) Operation agreement
8) Offtake agreement
9) Guarantees/support/comfort letters
4. Jefferies A. Approval process
(2006) B. Negotiation
C. Client brief/outcomes
D. Bid features
E. Business diversification
F. Business viability
G. Competition
H. Environmental impact
I. Innovation/complexity
J. Political stability/support
K. Existing alliances
L. Organisational resources

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 39
 Table 2.4. PPP Project Succcess Factors (Part c)

No. Source PPP Project Success Factors

M. Trust
N. Community support
O. Feasibility
P. Credit rating of investors
Q. Teamwork
R. Consortium structure
S. Existing infrastructure
T. Public funding
U. Delivery of asset
V. Investment growth
W. Project identification
5. Ng et al. A. Technical factors
(2010) 1) Project size is technically manageable by a single consortium
2) Possibility of innovative solutions (such as leading to time/cost
savings).
3) Availability of government experience in packaging similar PPP
projects
4) Availability of experienced, strong and reliable private consortium
5) Service quality can easily be defined and objectively measured
6) Contract is flexible enough for frequent change in output
specification
7) Project is not susceptible to fast-paced change (such as
technological changes)
B. Financial and economic factors
1) Project is more cost effective than traditional forms of project
delivery.
2) Project can be substantially self-funded on a non-recourse basis
3) Project value is sufficiently large to avoid procurement
disproportionate procurement costs
4) Project is of financial interest to the private sector
5) Project can attract foreign capital
6) Project is bankable and profitability of the project is sufficient too
attract investors and lenders
7) Economic environment is stable and favourable
8) Existence of a sound governmental economic policy
9) Competition from other projects is limited

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 40
 Table 2.4. PPP Project Succcess Factors (Part d)

No. Source PPP Project Success Factors

C. Social factors
1) There is long-term demand for the products/service in
the community
2) The community is understanding and supportive
3) Delivery of services is stable and reliable.
4) Level of toll/tariff is acceptable
5) Project can create more job opportunities
6) Project is environmentally sustainable
D. Political and legal factors
1) Project is not politically sensitive
2) Political environment is stable
3) There is political support for the project
4) The project is compatible with current statutory and institutional
arrangements.
5) There is a favorable legal framework (mature, reasonable and
predictable).
E. Other factors (staff issue and possible management actions)
1) Fairness of new conditions to employess
2) Possibility of significant redundancy
3) Existence of a resolution for any civil service staff redundancy
4) Supportiveness and commitment of staff to the project
5) Flexibility to decide appropriate risk allocation
6) Support from the government (for example guarantees or loans) is
available
7) Authority can be shared between public and private sectors
8) Possibility of an effective control mechanism over the private
consortium.
9) Matching government‟s strategic and long-term objectives
6. Meng et al. A. Project profitability
(2011) B. Asset quality
C. Fair risk allocation
D. Competitive tendering
E. Internal coordination within government
F. Employment of professional advisers
G. Corporate governance

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 41
According to Table 2.4, the success and failure factors in PPP projects can generally be classified
into ten main factors, namely: selection of appropriate project characteristics; stable political
conditions; stable economic conditions; a favorable social and environment; stable legal and
regulatory framework; transparent and competitive procurement process; good contract
management; government guarantee and support; good governance; and managerial skills and
experience of the operator.

Based on the review, it can be seen that success factors in a construction project are varied across
the project types where it depends on conditions such as project type, project phase, and the
stakeholder perspective. With regard to toll roads, this type of PPP project involves many
stakeholders with diverse interests and needs over project life cycles. Therefore, to better
understand the concept of PPP project success from a holistic perspective, it is important to review
the concept of PPP stakeholder.

2.4. Stakeholders in PPP Projects

It was reviewed in the previous section that the success of infrastructure should be measured from
the overall stakeholders‟ perspective, over the project life cycle. Several definitions of stakeholders
have been found in the published literature. For example, the Project Management Institute / PMI
(2008) defines project stakeholders are those individuals and organizations who are actively
involved in a project or whose interests may be affected as a result of project execution or
completion. In a more operationalised definition, Olander (2007) suggested that project
stakeholders are individuals or organisations who have vested interests (in terms of power,
legitimacy, and urgency) of the success of the project and the environment within which project
operates.

Several researchers have identified stakeholders in construction projects. For example, Newcombe
(2003) identified stakeholders in construction projects, as being: clients, project managers,
designers, sub-contractors, suppliers, funding bodies, users, owners, employees and local
communities. Atkin and Skitmore (2008) classified stakeholders into two types: internal and
external to the project. Internal stakeholders are the parties directly involved in the decision-making
process such as owners, customers, suppliers, employees. External stakeholders are parties which
are significantly affected by project activity, such as neighbours, the local community, the general
public and local authorities.

Garvare and Johansson (2007) divided stakeholders into two main types, namely, primary
stakeholders and secondary stakeholders. Primary stakeholders have direct control in the project
organization and their types depend on the context but may include customer, management, co-

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 42
workers, suppliers, shareholders, and government. Secondary stakeholders do not directly control
the project organization but have enough influence to consider them more than just interested
parties. Secondary stakeholders include non-government organisations (NGOs), academics, media,
fair-trade bodies, environmental pressure groups, and other individuals‟ organisations. The
secondary stakeholders can influence the primary stakeholders by withdrawing support if they
want, because their expectations are not fulfilled, so they can cause damage to or even cause the
project organisation to fail. However, the term “stakeholders” should be distinguished from
“interested parties” which are those who have an interest in the activities of the organization and its
output but have no influence on the organisation and its stakeholders.

Within the PPP context, Yuan et al. (2010) divided stakeholders in PPP projects into four groups,
namely the public sector (the government and public clients), the private sector (contractors, sub-
contractors, suppliers, designers, and consultants), the general public (consisting people who are
affected by PPP projects or are end users of PPP projects) and research group (consisting external
stakeholders who are observers and providers of suggestions related to PPP projects). Li et al.
(2013) classified stakeholders as: the government or project initiators; the general public or end-
users; pressure groups such as the NGOs and mass media; and all other project-affected people.
According to the above, because many stakeholders are involved, it is not easy to deliver the same
degree of satisfaction to all stakeholders. Ideally, the satisfaction should be delivered to
stakeholders according to the level of their stake to the project. With regard to the success in the
overall project life cycle, a toll road has a long project life cycle from initiation to demolition. As
such, toll road projects, being transport infrastructure, have great influence on many stakeholders
(Romero et al., 2015).

The existing success criteria of construction projects as well as PPP projects, including toll road
projects have not been viewed from a many stakeholders‟ perspective. The previous success of PPP
projects, including toll roads, is mostly seen from only an economic perspective which is close to
certain stakeholders such as government and the private sector. Meanwhile, another perspective
that related to the community has not obtained appropriate attention. As a toll road, as public
infrastructure involves many stakeholders in its implementation, its success should be intended to
provide a benefit not only to certain parties, but also as much as possible to all stakeholders. A
community who reside and become the toll road users is the key stakeholders of PPP toll road
projects which potentially become a vulnerable group. Indeed, a transport project has great
influence to the society because it has benefits or disbenefits to the overall population. The worst
effect is usually to the most vulnerable group (Lucas and Stanley, 2013) that is the community.
Therefore, given that a construction project has a wide and long impact on society and the
environment, the decision to design and perform construction activities should not only consider

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 43
the immediate impact on the stakeholders who are in the construction sector but anyone who is
affected by the project, including the community.

2.5. The Importance of the Community Perspective in the Success of PPP Toll Road Projects
The community who reside around the toll roads is one of the stakeholders that have a greater
influence on the PPP project success. A PPP infrastructure project is a temporary activity that aims
to develop a facility to serve and improve a community‟s life. As such, the community as the end-
user is the key stakeholder which is very important in infrastructure projects (Olander, 2007).
Therefore, failure to respond to and to meet community expectations can cause stakeholder
opposition and may cause project failure (El-Gohary et al., 2006; Majamaa et al., 2008). Indeed,
stakeholder opposition may be the main reason for project failure (El-Gohary, 2006; Ng et al.,
2013).

Unfortunately, as discussed earlier, the current practice of PPP project success perhaps only
partially accommodates stakeholders‟ satisfaction and that is close to the government and private
sector‟s interests. Meanwhile, less attention has been given to the community affected by transport
project development in the context of inefficiencies and inequities in the project concept, design,
and implementation. Consequently, the resulting development result can override community
aspirations (Lucas and Stanley, 2013).

Indeed, it is important to consider community interests and needs in this transport project
development and the community satisfaction should become its success criteria. A toll road should
maximise benefits and reduce or minimise negative impacts on the community. For example, a toll
road should improve the quality of life for people in their transport needs by reducing traffic
density, particularly in regular adjacent arterial roads. In addition, a toll road‟s existence should
also minimise other negative effects on the community in the form of air pollution, dust, noise,
vibration, and flooding. Accordingly, it is important to consider the community perspective as part
of the success of toll road projects to deliver their satisfaction.

2.6. Relating Project Success to Sustainable Development

Delivering toll road project success from the community perspective can be expected to satisfy the
community needs and interests. The community satisfaction can potentially reduce the stakeholder
opposition for achieving the overall project success. Indeed, the success of PPP projects should not
only be viewed from an economic perspective that focuses on the “Iron Triangle”, namely cost,
time and quality. But, it should be seen from many aspects holistically, from many aspects, for
overall stakeholders‟ perspective, and over project life cycle. To understand success from a
comprehensive perspective, the concept of sustainability is perhaps quite relevant to be brought

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 44
into project success because toll roads have a long project life cycle. This is because the concept of
sustainable development takes a long-term view that development is the process to fulfill human
needs in a comprehensive manner without sacrificing the future generations‟ resources (WCED,
1987). Therefore, it is very relevant to link sustainability concept to the project success theory
(Kumaraswamy et al., 2007).

From the sustainability perspective, it becomes essential for transport infrastructure projects to be
sustainable and the implementation of sustainability agenda should balance the three dimensions-
economic, environmental and social as affirmed by the United Nations (UN). Therefore, the project
success criteria discussed in Sub-Section 2.3.2 can also be seen from the three sustainability
dimensions. The economic and environmental aspects of sustainability are related to tangible
aspects which are quite easily quantified and are usually related to traditional project success
measures such as time, cost and quality. Meanwhile, the social aspect is more related to intangible
aspects which are more difficult to quantify because they are related to people‟s perceptions. Next,
the theory about sustainable development is reviewed to obtain a comprehensive understanding of
this concept.

2.7. Sustainable Development

Sustainable Development has become a familiar notion that is used in every aspect of life including
built environments. However, even though it is a popular and important concept, sustainable
development is not easy to define precisely or to measure (OECD, 2008). There has been a debate
about its definition, the concept and how to measure it. Therefore, the next section reviews the
definition, history, the concept and its application to the built environment.

2.7.1. Definition of Sustainability and Sustainable Development

According to OECD (2008), literally, the definition of sustainable development can be articulated
from two words - sustainable and development. Sustainable means as “can be continued” while
development can be defined as the way or how to increase the well-being of community members
over time. Therefore, sustainable development aims at meeting the community well-being in the
“forever”, or in the very long terms of several generations. Meanwhile, the Oxford Dictionary
(2016) defines sustainability as “able to be maintained at a certain level” or “conserving an
ecological balance by avoiding depletion of natural resources”. Du Plessis (2002, p.6) asserted that
sustainability is “the condition or state which would allow the continued existence of homo
sapiens, and provide a safe, healthy and productive life in harmony with nature and local cultural
and spiritual values”. Sustainable development is the development model that needs to be
conducted to achieve the state of sustainability (Du Plessis, 2002).

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 45
The idea of sustainable development was introduced by the World Commission on Environment
and Development (WCED) report in 1987 entitled “Our Common Future” or as it is widely known
“The Brundtland Report”. WCED is an independent body that is linked to but outside the control of
governments and the United Nations (UN) and which was established in 1983 through the UN
General Assembly (WCED, 1987). The concept of sustainable development was motivated by an
awareness of the impact of development causing a disparity between rich and poor countries and
resulting in world problems such as poverty, inequality and environmental destruction. As a result
of the report, there has been a stimulation of awareness for preserving the earth for the benefit of
future generations.

Sustainable development is a development which meets the present‟s needs and aspirations without
comprising the future generations ability to meet their needs (WCED, 1987). Nevertheless,
McKenzie (2004) argued that there has been much criticism regarding the vagueness of that
definition. In addition to that, the International Union for Conservation (IUCN, 1991, p. 10) defines
sustainable development as “the improvement of the quality of life within the carrying capacity of
supporting ecosystems”. However, Almahmoud and Doloi (2015) posited that the first part of this
definition potentially justifies every development which is aimed at improving quality of life.
Therefore, defining sustainable development is a challenging task and still much work needs to be
done about this definition (Liitig and Grießler, 2005). However, despite the concept definition is
still under debate, the idea of sustainable development is widely acknowledged as an important
concept that needs to be implemented to save the humans‟ future.

2.7.2. The Concept of Sustainable Development

To understand the sustainable development definition as stated in WCED, the concept of “needs” is
important to be explored. According to Littig and Grießler (2005), need is defined as a form of
relationship between society and nature that is mediated by work. Needs can be seen as basic
human fulfillments such as food, housing, clothing, sexuality, and a healthy environment which can
be extended to other aspects such as education, recreation, and self-fulfillment. To fulfill and create
opportunities to meet needs, societies have to come up with different functional systems, which can
be categorised into three types, namely economic, political and cultural. Therefore, to shape and
control the relationship between nature and society, the concept of sustainable development is
important to be proposed (Littig and Grießler, 2005).

Furthermore, Littig and Grießler (2005) posited there are two main concepts of sustainability,
namely the one and the three pillars concepts. The one pillar concept is mainly focused on the
ecological aspect of sustainability while the three-pillar concept highlights the equal
implementation of three sustainable dimensions, namely ecological or environmental, economic

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 46
and social goals. The current widely used concept of sustainable development is the three pillars
concept which was introduced by Elkington (1998) called “Triple Bottom Line (TBL)”. According
to the TBL concept, a business is sustainable when it relies on three pillars, namely economic
prosperity, environmental quality and social justice where each component is interrelated,
interdependent and partly in conflict with other components (Jeurissen, 2000).

With regard to this thesis, the three pillars of sustainability are used as the research framework as it
has been the most widely accepted for defining sustainability in the published literature. Indeed, the
term TBL has been critisised by researchers due to limitations of only three pillars in its concept.
For example, Littig and Grießler (2005) criticised the concept of sustainability because it is only
limited to three aspects despite it is being based on the UN Brundtland Commission. Likewise,
Vanclay (2004) argued that it should be appropriate to use terms of multiple bottom approaches for
sustainability rather than only triple bottom line. Therefore, researchers proposed to use term
“multiple pillars” to the sustainable development. For example, Lucas and Stanley (2013) proposed
four dimensions of sustainable development, namely economic, environmental, social and
governance performance. In addition, there is also a growing interest in considering cultural aspects
as part of sustainable development (Axelsson et al., 2013; Soini and Birkeland, 2014).

From the sustainable implementation experience, it is known that the fundamental problem of the
environmental destruction cannot be separated from the problem of poverty, hunger, and social
inequality. Therefore, there has been an opinion to shift from a “green agenda” that only focus on
the environmental concern into a “brown agenda” that is dealing with problems of poverty and
underdevelopment (Du Plessis, 2007). As such, in the future, the implementation of the sustainable
development agenda should comprise the implementation of three pillars of sustainability equally
in order to improve people‟s well-being comprehensively in both tangible and intangible aspects.

2.7.3. Sustainable Development Measurement

As a concept, it is important for sustainable development to be measured by several indicators to
understand its performance. However, it becomes a great challenge to translate the sustainability
agenda into a practical level. Ugwu et al. (2007) stated that the existing research attention on
sustainability is mostly focused on the strategic and upper level, while limited attention has been
given to the micro level with regard to how to transfer the sustainability agenda into practical
attributes or indicators.

Several sustainable development attributes have been developed to operationalise its concept into
the real world. For example, the OECD (2008) proposed to measure sustainable development from
the concept of well-being and measured by welfare in the Theory of Capital which is widely used

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 47
in economics. Welfare is often perceived as well-being even though they are not similar. Welfare is
close to the concept of wealth, while well-being goes beyond that as involving overall human
consumption such as goods, services, human rights and psychological needs. However, according
to classical development theory, wealth and well-being are similar concepts (OECD, 2008).
According to that, the Theory of Capital has become the backbone principle for measuring
development.

Furthermore, OECD (2008) stated that Capital Theory sees all goods and services that are produced
using capital that can generally be classified into five types, namely:
o Financial capital such as stocks, bonds, and currency deposits;
o Produced capital such as machinery, buildings and other infrastructure;
o Natural capital such as natural resources, land, and ecosystems;
o Human capital such as educated and healthy workforce; and
o Social capital which is a function of social networks and institutions.

According to the above concept, sustainable development can be assumed as non-declining per
capita wealth over time. As such, it can be measured by the parameter of total national wealth
which is a function of financial, produced, natural, human and social capital components.

At current infrastructure practice, the implementation of sustainability has been operationalised

through impact assessment methods, which covers Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and
Social Impact Assessment (SIA). However, due to a minor acknowledgment of the social element
in the project assessment, EIA and SIA implementation are often critisised and protested by
environmental associations and civil society organisations (Dendena and Corsi, 2015).

2.7.4. Sustainable Infrastructure Projects

Infrastructure facilities are part of the development activities to improve quality of life and to
influence economic growth. The community needs regarding public utilities (water supply, energy,
and the like), public works (roads, dams, and the like), transport (railway, ports, and the like) and
sanitation systems (such as sewerage, solid waste collection, and dams) are usually served by these
infrastructures (UNESCAP, 2006). As such, sustainable practice in the infrastructure area has
become very important as it automatically contributes to the sustainable development agenda as a
whole.

Sustainable toll roads can be viewed from three perspectives, namely sustainable infrastructure,
transport and construction projects. From a simple perspective, sustainable infrastructure is the
implementation of the sustainable development concept in infrastructure projects. UNESCAP

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 48
(2006, p.3) defined sustainable infrastructure as “infrastructure which is in harmony with the
continuation of economic and environmental sustainability”. According to the World Bank (1994),
infrastructure can contribute several benefits including economic growth, poverty alleviation, and
environmental sustainability when it is well managed to provide effective and efficient services.
Besides the infrastructure perspective, sustainable development in toll road projects can also be
seen from a sustainable transport perspective. Sustainable transport principles can be seen as an
adoption of a comprehensive perspective of sustainable development in the transport area that
balances the three pillars to satisfy the current needs or well-being of the stakeholders as well as
preserve the planet for the future generations.

Furthermore, toll road project sustainability can also be seen from a construction project
perspective. Sustainability has become a critical point for construction products, such as toll road
projects, as they have different characteristics to industrial products. This is because most of the
products of a construction project usually change the landscape and human civilization in the long-
term as they have an extended lifetime. In addition, unlike industrial products, a construction
project has a wide scope and a long impact on the environment (Presley and Meade, 2010). For
example, the selection of a particular construction material will have an impact on energy
consumption, health, and productivity. Accordingly, what is being developed now will also
influence the future generations and it is very important to ensure that an infrastructure project
which is developed using construction activities becomes sustainable.

The influence of the construction sector towards sustainable development has been well
demonstrated (Shen et al., 2007). Du Plessis (2002) posited that sustainable construction is the
concept where the principles of sustainable development are applied in the overall construction
process from the material extraction, planning, design, and building until the final deconstruction
and management of the resultant waste. This can be seen as a holistic process to maintain the
harmony between the natural and built environments that ensure human dignity and promotes
economic equity. Sustainable construction is an emergent field of science that seeks to include the
concept of sustainable development into conventional construction practice (Presley and Meade,
2010). For example, it is related to how the construction sector seeks to reduce or prevent pollution
such as reducing material waste, vehicle emissions, noise, and disposal of hazardous materials into
the air, soil, and water.

2.7.5. Shortcomings of Current Sustainable PPP Projects

According to sustainability perspective, it is highly essential for an infrastructure project to become
sustainable in all three aspects by balancing the economic, environmental and social (Shen et al.,
2010). To be economically sustainable, the project development must be conducted based on

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 49
efficiency and effectiveness principle as is usually the focus in infrastructure. The project must also
be environmentally sustainable by preventing of energy resource depletion and maintaining
environmental condition to avoid its degradation to be used by future generations. Meanwhile,
regarding the social aspect, it suggested that development should improve the quality of life, which
is by fulfilling basic needs, promoting equity of human rights and participation.

Indeed, in one aspect, as motorist transport, a toll road project potentially causes several
environmental and social problems either during its construction or operation phases. However, a
toll road can also contribute to sustainability practice. Toll road can potentially contribute to the
economic, environmental, and social sustainability. With regard to economic sustainability, the toll
road is usually developed under the PPP scheme potentially increases the project efficiency and
effectiveness that subsequently can contribute to the economic sustainability. In the Indonesian
context, the reason for toll road selection by the government is because this type of method can
generate funding for the infrastructure development by itself which cover the investment and
maintenance costs. As a consequence, the government does not need to use their budget to fund this
infrastructure and could allocate their funds to other projects and area where a project is not as
economically and financially feasible.

Regarding the environmental sustainability, toll road can positively contribute to the urban
environmental qualities by smoother traffic (less congestion) and reduced emissions even though
its performance is still below the satisfaction criteria according to three environmental
sustainability criteria, namely level of traffic risk, air pollution, and the level of congestion
(Handayani, 2008). Meanwhile, with regard to the social sustainability, as a toll road is aimed at
reducing congestion, it can deliver benefits to the community by providing smoother traffic
conditions than a regular road so it is expected to be less polluted than the comparable regular road,
which is often congested. As such, the toll road can improve the community‟s quality of life as one
aspect of the project social benefit.

However, the implementation of all three components of sustainability is still not balanced as still
less attention has been given to the social dimension of sustainability (Colantonio et al., 2009). Lee
and Chan (2008) stated that the implementation of urban renewal projects in Hong Kong is always
criticised for failing to improve social cohesion, stability and reduce inequality. A similar finding
was also reported by Shen et al. (2010) who investigated the application of sustainable practice in
construction projects in China during feasibility studies. They found that most attention is given to
economic performance attributes rather than environmental and social attributes. In addition,
Presley and Meade (2010) posited that the current practice of environmental sustainability in
construction is only limited to an attempt to realize green construction, that is, in terms of how the

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 50
final results and process in construction activities throughout the project life cycle comply with
environmental sustainability. As a result, the current concept of sustainability has evolved from a
concept and strategy to be business competition among the companies.

In the area of PPP project success, previous researchers have presented attributes of success criteria
in the economic and environmental aspects of PPP projects (Yuan et al., 2009; Ng et al., 2010).
However, the current success criteria of a PPP infrastructure project are only characterized by
efficiency and effectiveness as well as satisfactory services for the users. Meanwhile, there is less
attention in measuring PPP project success from the social aspect and it is perhaps because this
intangible aspect is not easily quantified as project value (Ng et al., 2010). Indeed, it is not
sufficient to just use the current Best Value (BV) perspective as the only basis for defining the
success of a PPP project as it only considers economic and environmental aspects of sustainability.
The current performance of BV attributes is only related to risk, quality, efficiency/effectiveness,
Value for Money (VfM) and performance standards are only related to economic and
environmental aspects. However, not all these measurements are enough to deliver or guarantee
community satisfaction as the root cause for the failure of sustainability practice is about poverty.
As such, the focus on success should also be extended to intangible forms such as social aspects.

According to the above, it should be highlighted that in addition to economic and environmental
aspects, the social aspect is also very important to be considered and which is other than just
community satisfaction in order to achieve a sustainable project development. It has been agreed by
many researchers that all these three dimensions of sustainable development are all important
aspects that should be considered in the overall project success criteria in order to achieve the
holistic success of infrastructure projects.

Indeed, social component is very important to be considered and overlooking these aspects in
projects can lead to the abortion of the PPP scheme that subsequently undermines the government‟s
credibility (Ng et al., 2010). As such, Shen et al. (2010) and Li et al. (2013) emphasised the
importance of social aspect as success criteria of long-term infrastructure projects. Abednego and
Ogunlana (2006) provided the case of Cipularang Toll Road Project in Indonesia as an example of
how a project can be regarded as successful because it delivers benefits to the community. In that
case, the toll road project‟s existence delivered social benefit to the community in terms of
presenting economic benefits to the local citizens with regard to the generation of employment
opportunities, local business activity growth such as restaurants, accommodation, and
transportation services. It is therefore quite relevant to bring social sustainability in toll road project
success.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 51
2.8. Social Sustainability
As has been revealed social sustainability is equally important to the other two dimensions of
sustainable development - economic and environmental sustainability. However, even though the
concept has been acknowledged alongside with the other two aspects, social sustainability
principles still have not been agreed by researchers. As the boundary between the three components
of sustainability is not clear, Colantonio et al. (2009) asserted that there has been no agreement on
the criteria and perspectives that can to be used to measure social sustainability. Therefore, the
concept of social sustainability will be reviewed in the following sub-section.

2.8.1. Definition of Social Sustainability

In practice, social sustainability is strongly linked to the concept of Corporate Social Responsibility
or CSR (Doloi, 2012). The concept of social sustainability is still evolving (Vasquez and Klotz,
2013). Dempsey et al., (2009) posited that social sustainability should be considered as neither
absolute nor constant, but it is a dynamic concept, which will change over time and depends on the
place it is applied. As such, even though the notion of social sustainability itself has been
acknowledged; its definition is still fuzzy and has not been agreed by researchers (Colantonio, et
al., 2009). Several definitions of social sustainability have been introduced, as can be seen in Table
2.5. However, it can be seen that researchers still have not reached an agreement on the social
sustainability definition.

Table 2.5. Social Sustainability Definition (Part a)

No Source Definition
1 Littig and Grießler Social sustainability is a quality of societies. It signifies the nature-society
(2005) relationships, mediated by work, as well as relationships within the society.
Social sustainability is given if work within a society and the related
institutional arrangements:
o Satisfy an extended set of human needs; and
o Are shaped in a way that nature and its reproductive capabilities are
preserved over a long period of time and the normative claims of social
justice, human dignity and participation are fulfilled.
2 Enyedi (2002) Social sustainability could be defined as such a kind of progress that entails
harmonic of development of local society, shapes such a surrounding that
ensures that the various social groups, also those of different cultural origin
can live peacefully together; enhance their integration and finally improves
the living conditions of all groups of citizens.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 52
 Table 2.5. Social Sustainability Definition (Part b)
No Source Definition
3 McKenzie (2004) Social sustainability occurs when the formal and informal processes, systems,
structures and relationships actively support the capacity of current and future
generations to create healthy and liveable communities. Socially sustainable
communities are equitable, diverse, connected and democratic and provide a
good quality of life.
4 Colantonio et al. Social sustainability concerns how individuals, communities, and societies
(2009) live with each other and set out to achieve the objectives of development
models which they have chosen for themselves, also taking into account the
physical boundaries of their places and planet earth as a whole.

This lack of agreement is, perhaps, because less attention is given to the social sustainability
definition, even though many definitions have been provided regarding sustainable development
(Dempsey et al., 2009). The fuzziness of social sustainability happens because this concept was
motivated by the synergy between the emergence of awareness of the importance of environmental
sustainability in the 1960s with an interest to satisfy human needs in the late 1970s. Initially,
sustainable development only referred to environmental aspects, then as the economic efficiency
awareness grew that was added and sustainable development eventually was completed by the
social aspects (Dempsey et al., 2009). As a result, the social aspect, at present under-theorised
compared to the other dimensions.

The "social" theme is quite diverse and complex (Murphy, 2012). According to The Oxford
Dictionary (2016), social is defined as “something relating to society or its organisation”.
UNDESA (2001 and 2007) identified some issues included in this theme such as equity, health,
education, housing, security (combating crime), population/demographics, poverty, and
governance. The European Commission (2007) noted that the word “social” involves several
aspects such as inclusion, public health, demography, and good governance. Meanwhile, the OECD
(2009) refers this theme to issues of economic self-sufficiency, equity, health, and social cohesion.
By referring to the sustainability definition of The Oxford Dictionary above, literally social
sustainability can mean “the ability to maintain the society and something related to it at a certain
rate or level”. However, as there are difficulties in determining social aspects‟ boundaries, it is
sometimes better to define social sustainability from the other aspects‟ boundaries - economic and
environmental (McKenzie, 2004).

2.8.2. Social Sustainability and Impact Assessment

Colantonio et al. (2009) stated that in the beginning of its development, social sustainability is
related to “hard” social aspects, that is related to material aspects such as employment and poverty

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 53
alleviation. But it has been expanded to “soft” or intangible aspects such as happiness, safety,
security and the like. Within the concept of social sustainability, it is argued that development
should improve people‟s well-being in terms of not only material aspects but also intangible
aspects because humans are social creatures that need to be fulfilled physically and
psychologically.

Actually, before the term sustainable development was introduced in 1987, Impact Assessment
(IA) was used as a method for managing the impact of the development in the 1960s. “Impact
Assessment, simply defined, is the process of identifying the future consequences of a current or
proposed action” (IAIA, 2017). It is a generic term with several impact assessment tools such as
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), Social Impact Assessment (SIA) and Health Impact
Assessment (HIA) (Vanclay, 2004).

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was the first method of IA which was introduced
formally by the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) (1969) of the USA. This concept
was raised as the effects of the environmental destruction due to development activity were
becoming evident. The term environmental itself sometimes became a source of debate as to
whether it only covered environmental aspects or also considered social within its concept.
However, although the EIA concept was meant as the overall concept that includes environmental
and social aspects, it was considered to be a failure due to the social weight often being perceived
as marginalised compared to the biophysical aspect, and therefore, SIA was developed in the 1970s
(Vanclay, 2004).

Originally, SIA was a technique that was used for predicting the social impact which postulated
that social, economic and biophysical impacts are related each other and interconnected. "SIA
includes the processes of analysing, monitoring and managing the intended and unintended social
consequences, both positive and negative, of planned interventions (policies, programs, plans,
projects) and any social change processes invoked by those interventions. Its primary purpose is to
bring about a more sustainable and equitable biophysical and human environment" (Vanclay, 2003,
p.5).

A good SIA should provide information that could be understood by decision-makers and also the
community (Benoit and Niederman, 2010). As such, it should be developed using a bottom-up
approach by involving the stakeholders as much as possible because there is no general consensus
on which indicators must be used and how the assessment of social impacts should be conducted.
However, after several years of its implementation, SIA still has been considered as not
successfully implemented. Practically, SIA is often ignored in decision-making as it is perceived as

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 54
subordinate to EIA and is not strictly enforced by legislation (Dendena and Corsi, 2015). Vanclay
(2004) stated that both EIA and SIA have been perceived as failing to consider positive outcomes
of development and in the case of SIA it emphasised more the individual impact rather than on
society as a whole.

Following EIA and SIA, Strategic Impact Assessment (SEA) was raised in the late of 1980s and
became a new trend as a tool that can be applied at the policy level as the implementation of EIA
and SIA is mainly at the project level (Vanclay, 2004). SEA is more policy-oriented and examines
the possible development problems at this policy level in the earlier stage of development planning
(Tang, 2007). In addition to that, recently there is a tendency to integrate EIA and SIA concepts
into a single one called Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) that gives equal
attention to both environmental and social aspects (Dendena and Corsi, 2015). However, although
it has been implemented by multiple donors, international agencies and lending institutions, this
approach still has missed out on a scientific foundation as fewer publications have been released
about it (Dendena and Corsi, 2015).

Meanwhile, social sustainability which is evoluting as part of the Triple Bottom Line (TBL)
concept is related to how a project can deliver social benefit to the community at large (Doloi,
2012). However, Vanclay (2004) critisised that TBL is not a new concept and it is substantially
similar to SIA and therefore, TBL should not ignore its existence. Vanclay (2004) added that while
the concept of the TBL was proposed to balance the three components of sustainability, social
sustainability is perceived as having a similar problem to SIA, in that unequal attention given to the
social aspect compared to the other two elements.

Indeed, SIA and the social sustainability concept have different perspectives. Landorf (2011)
argued that traditional social attributes that are related to some tangible aspects such as
unemployment, and crime, are different from sustainability attributes, which can be considered as
multi-dimensional that measure long-term impact on the quality of life. In this case, SIA is more
related to a passive viewpoint in terms of how to minimise the impact of the development on the
society. Meanwhile, social sustainability is an active point of view regarding how to deliver social
satisfaction to the community through the development by maximasing the positive benefits and
minimising the negative impacts.

Furthermore, because of the emphasis on the social aspect of sustainable development, the concept
of Social Cost Benefit Analysis (SCBA) has been proposed to assist decision-making which
involves intangible social aspects in infrastructure project feasibility rather than only being based
on subjective judgment (New Zealand Government, 2015). However, even though it has been

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 55
widely used, SCBA is critisised for how it can accurately quantify social aspects in monetary
values (Doloi, 2012). As a consequence, currently, several methods to overcome SCBA‟s
limitations have now been developed in construction management practice (Doloi, 2012; Li et al.,
2013; Almahmoud and Doloi, 2015). However, besides the importance of developing methods to
assess subjective aspects, such as social performance, there is also a need to develop criteria to
measure project social sustainability in specific contexts, such as toll road projects.

2.8.3. Social Sustainability Criteria

Similar to the definition of social sustainability, with no established concept of social sustainability,
it is not surprised there is still disagreement as to its methodology and indicators (Landorf, 2011).
Different to economic and environmental aspects, at the micro level, the social aspect of
sustainability is difficult to identify and measure (Vanclay, 2004; Almahmoud at al, 2015)
considering this is somewhat intangible. As such, every research area has developed their own
social criteria and these are rarely applicable at the macro level (Oman, 2002). Currently, there is
still no generic criteria for all projects and what there are tend to project specific.

According to the literature review, each scholar has a different main principle for social
sustainability. For example, Bramley et al. (2006) asserted several dimensions that are significant
to sustain a local community, namely interaction in the community/social networks, community
participation, pride/sense of place, community stability and security (lack of crime). Meanwhile,
Dempsey et al. (2009) stated that the social sustainability concept is often linked or overlapped
with the sustainable community concept which is underpinned by social equity and justice. Social
equity is about how the social capital as a national resource is not only owned by a nation but also
how this capital is distributed among the national citizens (OECD, 2008). Meanwhile, a sustainable
community has eight characteristics (Bristol Accord, 2005, p.7), being:
1. Active, inclusive and safe, well;
2. Well run;
3. Well connected;
4. Well served;
5. Environmentally sensitive;
6. Thriving;
7. Well designed and built; and
8. Fair for everyone.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 56
Later, Bramley et al. (2009) extended their work by proposing two main dimensions of social
sustainability, namely:
1. Social equity, which is related to access to services and opportunities from facilities:
o Access to local services such as shops, schools, health centres;
o Recreational opportunities;
o Public transport;
o Job opportunities; and
o Affordable housing.
2. Sustainability of the community:
o Pride in and attachment to neighborhood;
o Social interaction in the community;
o Safety/security;
o Perceived local quality of environment;
o Satisfaction with home;
o Stability (minimum turnover); and
o Participation in collective group/civic activities.

Murphy (2012) posited that the focus of the discussion of social issues in the area of social
sustainability has not been linked to environmental aspects. There are difficulties regarding the
identification of “purely” social issues, as considerable overlaps exist across sustainable
development‟s three pillars. In addition, by connecting social to environmental aspects, it can
further improve the understanding of the social pillar. Therefore, it is necessary to connect the
social pillar to environmental, international, and intergenerational dimensions with four principles
used, namely equity, awareness of sustainability, participation, and social cohesion.

Moreover, Murphy (2012) also added that several environmental issues associated with the social
pillar are related to the issue of climate change such as, raising awareness of protecting the
environment through education, community involvement in decision-making to support
environmental reform, and balancing the need for social interaction without causing a negative
impact on the environment, such as air pollution. A summary of social sustainability criteria in the
published literature is presented in Table 2.6.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 57
 Table 2.6. Social Sustainability Criteria (Part a)
No Source Social Sustainability Criteria
1. Littig and A. Satisfaction of basic needs and quality of life (income, poverty, income
Grießler (2005) distribution, unemployment, education, and the like.)
B. Social justice (equal opportunity)
C. Social coherence (integration into social networks, involvement in voluntary
activities, and the like).
2. McKenzie A. Equity
(2004) B. Diversity
C. Interconnectedness
D. Quality of life
E. Democracy and governance
3. Chan and Lee A. Satisfaction of welfare requirements
(2008) 1) Basic needs for disabled, elderly or children
2) Preserving social network
3) Sense of belonging to community
4) Provision of public facilities (health, educational and the like.)
5) Access to public facilities
6) Convenient facilities for pedestrian and public transport users
B. Conservation of resources and the surroundings
1) Green features of construction related
2) Green features of design related
3) Pollution controlling
4) Management of buildings, facilities, and spaces
C. Creation of harmonious living environment
1) Compatibility with neighborhood
2) Layout of building and streets
3) Promotion of local distinctiveness
4) Rehabilitation of building structures
5) Preservation of historical structures and features
6) Building design in terms of appearance, density, height, and mass
D. Provision facilitating daily life operations
1) Access to work
2) Availability of local employment
3) Proximity to business activities
4) Establishment of different business activities (for example: retail shops,
banks).
5) Convenience, efficiency, and safety for drivers

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 58
 Table 2.6. Social Sustainability Criteria (Part b)

No Source Social Sustainability Criteria

E. Form of development
1) Adaptability of the changing needs
2) Efficient use of land and space
3) Mixed development for various use
F. Availability of open space
1) Access to open spaces
2) Design of open spaces in terms of appearance, location, size, and use of
materials
3) Provision of open spaces, for example: parks, seating areas, and the like
4. Cuthill (2009) A. Social capital
B. Social infrastructure
C. Social justice and equity
D. Engaged governance
5. Colantonio et al. A. Demographic change (ageing, migration, mobility)
(2009) B. Education and skills
C. Employment
D. Health and safety
E. Housing and environment health
F. Identity, sense of place and culture
G. Participation, sense of place and culture
H. Participation, empowerment, and access
I. Social capital
J. Social mixing and cohesion
K. Well-being, happiness and quality of life
6. Murphy (2012) A. Equity
B. Awareness for sustainability
C. Participation
D. Social cohesion
7. Boström (2012) A. Basic needs (food, housing, income, recreation, self-fulfillment)
B. Inter and intra-generational justice (fair distribution of income and fair distribution
of environmental “bads” and “goods”
C. Equality of rights

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 59
 Table 2.6. Social Sustainability Criteria (Part c)

No Source Social Sustainability Criteria

D. Access to social infrastructure.
E. Employment and other work-related issues
F. Opportunity for learning and self-development
G. Community capacity for civil society development
H. Security
I. Health
J. Social cohesion, inclusion and interaction
K. Cultural diversity and tradition
L. Sense of belonging within community
M. Social recognition
N. Attracting housing and public realm
Quality of life, happiness and well-being

According to Table 2.6, the attributes of social sustainability varied and have not been widely
agreed by researchers. This is perhaps because the social sustainability concept is still in
development as a conceptual step rather than in practical application. According to Littig and
Grießler (2005), the selection of social sustainability attributes is often not constructed in the
theory, but rather from practical understanding and current political agendas as clear theoretical
concepts are still missing. Moreover, the relation between economic, environmental and social
aspects is quite unclear in many cases. In addition to that, there is a difficulty as a result of
multifaceted meanings of the word "social”. Therefore, there is still a lot of work to do to define the
social dimension more clearly as well as to determine each criterion of this dimension.

Indeed, presenting social sustainability attributes as part of the project success criteria is important
to achieving overall success. However, only providing these attributes is still not sufficient to
comprehensively understand the overall success concept. Success criteria are only an indicator to
measure the success performance, but it cannot be used to understand factors that influence the
success. Therefore, it is also necessary to conduct the investigation of the factors that influence the
social sustainability performance.

2.8.4. Previous Research in Social Sustainability

To provide a comprehensive picture of social sustainability as the basis concept of PSB in the built
environment context, several previous type of research in this topic were carefully reviewed. For
example, Commission for Architecture and The Built Environment (CABE) and Department of the
Environment, Transport and The Regions (DETR) (2001) investigated several indicators of project

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 60
benefits in UK urban design projects. Using a qualitative approach, that research investigated the
value of urban design in creating several project benefits consisting of economic, environmental
and social aspects.

Chan and Lee (2008) reviewed sustainable urban design concepts and investigated several critical
social sustainability indicators for urban renewal projects in Hong Kong. The data of 247
respondents were analysed consisting of practitioners in urban development projects, namely
architects, planners and property development managers and local resident citizens in the selected
districts. By utilising an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) technique, five key components of
social sustainability were found, namely satisfaction of welfare requirements, conservation of
resources and the surroundings, the creation of a harmonious living environment, provisions
facilitating daily life operations, the form of development and availability of spaces.

Colantonio and Dixon (2009) investigated social sustainability indicators and continued with
developing frameworks to measure social sustainability performance by involving four urban
regeneration projects in the Europe Union. According to the findings, ten critical attributes for
social sustainability were presented which are: Demographic change (ageing, migration and
mobility); Education and skills; Employment; Health and safety; Housing and environment health;
Identity, sense of place and culture; Participation; Empowerment and access; Social capital; Social
mixing and cohesion; and Well-being, happiness and quality of life.

Shen et al. (2010) proposed several indicators to measure construction performance with respect to
sustainable construction in the feasibility stage. The attributes embraced three components of
sustainability, which are economic, environmental and social indicators. The research was
conducted using a case study approach by collecting 87 feasibility study reports from 2008 to 2009
for various types of construction projects in Hong Kong. The study found that economical
performance attributes were given more concern rather than environmental and social attributes in
the feasibility study. However, this study did not focus on the social aspect of sustainability.

Doloi et al. (2012) presented a methodology to quantify the social performance of the infrastructure
projects by using Social Network Analysis (SNA) as it is very important for the public
infrastructure project to deliver social benefit to the overall project stakeholders. Several indicators
to measure project social performance were identified and subsequently used to demonstrate the
framework in the Architecture, Building, and Planning (ABP) Building at the University of
Melbourne, Australia. Shen et al. (2011) proposed Key Assessment Indicators (KAIs) to measure
sustainable infrastructure project performance in China. That research also demonstrated Fuzzy Set

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 61
Theory to perform analysis in combining the respondent‟s responses that are subjective and
involving fuzziness.

Yung and Chan (2012) investigated critical factors for enhancing the social sustainability of the
conservation of built heritage projects in Hong Kong. The research was conducted in the context of
a Police Station Building as a built heritage that involved 265 valid respondents consisting of
selected citizens against several criteria. The data was analysed using EFA and found four social
sustainability main components, which are: Education and local cultural promotion means;
Meaning of the place; Social inclusion and psychological needs; and Public participation and
opportunity for skill development.

Li et al. (2013) conducted research on stakeholders‟ satisfaction which embraced social

sustainability attributes for major infrastructure and construction (MIC) projects and used to
develop a model which involves stakeholders‟ participation in the decision-making process.
Recently, Almahmoud and Doloi (2015) proposed a social sustainability assessment in construction
projects that is called a Social Sustainability Health Check (SSHC) in the Saudi Arabian context
using Social Network Analysis (SNA). The research involved three stakeholders‟ criteria, namely
industry, users and neighborhood communities to investigate important criteria of social
sustainability for building projects. The SSHC was then developed using the criteria and then was
demonstrated using one project case study to validate the model. In the context of road projects,
Lim (2009) developed several sustainability criteria that consist of economic, environmental and
social aspects. By utilising a Delphi Method as the main analysis, the study found 26 sustainability
criteria for road projects in Australia.

2.8.5. Factors Influencing Social Sustainability Performance

Currently, there is still limited research conducted to identify factors that influence social
sustainability performance. However, there are some previous researches which recognise that
social sustainability performance is influenced by several factors or constructs. A construct is a
latent variable that can be defined in conceptual terms but cannot be measured directly and needs to
be measured by several indicators attached to it (Mooi and Sartstedt, 2014).

According to the literature, social sustainability can potentially be achieved through Project Design
Construct. This can be achieved by presenting social and environmental values such as creating
well connected, inclusive and accessible new places, delivering mixed-use environments with a
broad range of facilities which available to all (CABE and DETR, 2001). Likewise, Vavik and
Keitcsh (2010) stated that there is potentially a relationship between project design and social

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 62
sustainability or project social benefit because a good project design can simplify everyone‟s life as
many as possible with little or no extra cost.

In addition to project design, stakeholder or community participation is also believed to have an

influence on achieving social sustainability. Through participation, the interests of various
stakeholders can be captured and built in a project to improve its long-term viability and benefit to
the community (Li et al., 2013). Ozerol and Newig (2008) asserted that community participation
will cause several benefits such as increasing awareness, increasing quality of the decision,
developing shared understanding, wider acceptance, and building of trust in institutions.

Furthermore, it is also important to investigate the factors that influence community participation
and project design. According to several authors, the performance of community participation and
project design in infrastructure and urban design is potentially influenced by the government‟s role.
The government has an important role in project design from their position as a project initiator
(CABE and DETR, 2001). As such, the government has authority on how public infrastructure
projects should be provided (Ng et al., 2012a). Besides that, the government also has an important
role in the community participation process, because whether the stakeholders‟ participation in
project planning is effective or not depends largely on their role as the client or owner (Li et al.,
2013). This research aims to investigate the three constructs that potentially influence social
sustainability, namely Project Design (PD), Community Participation (CP) and Government‟s Role
(GR).

2.9. Chapter Summary

This chapter provides the review of existing bodies of literature that are the theoretical basis for this
research. The result of the literature reviewed in this chapter can be explained in five parts. The
first part of the review pertaining the concept of toll roads as the research object. A toll road is part
of the transport management system in the form of road pricing to alleviate congestion by charging
a price to users to recover the construction and maintenance costs. In addition, based on its
characteristics, a toll road can be seen from the perspective of a PPP project that involves the
private sector as the concessionaire and it attracts many stakeholders by virtue of being public
infrastructure.

The second part of this chapter revealed that it is essential to deliver community satisfaction in an
attempt to minimise stakeholders‟ opposition during toll road project implementation. It is possible
that the problem of stakeholders‟ opposition would occur if the infrastructure project development,
such as a toll road project, fails to deliver project benefit to the community, even it causes many
social and environmental problems. To deliver a successful toll road project, it is important to view

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 63
the project success comprehensively from the overall stakeholders‟ perspective not only in the
short-term but also in the long-term due to its long project life cycle. Short-term success is usually
related to project management success while long-run success is related to product success which
becomes the parameter to measure community satisfaction.

Third, with regard to long-run success, the concept of a sustainable PPP infrastructure or
construction project is very relevant to be brought into the toll road context. However, while the
economic and environmental sustainable dimensions have been receiving attention, there is still
limited research conducted into the social aspect in the context of infrastructure project
development. It was found that the current success of a toll road project as PPP infrastructure
transport is mostly viewed from the economic dimension while little attention has been given to the
environmental dimension and almost no attention has been given to the social dimension. Social
sustainability is also very important to be incorporated as the toll road project success criteria in
order to provide that social dimension.

Fourth, the definition of social sustainability has not been settled as this concept is still being
approached from different areas of study. Nevertheless, the existence of the social sustainability
concept has been acknowledged in the sustainable development theory and it is also very important
to complement the other sustainability pillars. Social sustainability is potentially useful in
addressing social problems in infrastructure development such as toll road projects and
incorporating this concept into project success theory could potentially improve the understanding
of the overall infrastructure project success criteria. However, there has been limited attention
given to the current research on social sustainability to the toll road context, therefore research
needs to be conducted to fill this gap in the body of knowledge.

Several factors or constructs that potentially influence achieving social sustainability were also
identified in this chapter. According to the literature review, project design, community
participation and government‟s role are considered to have the potential for influencing social
sustainability performance. Yet, little if any research has investigated the relationship between
these constructs in the context of toll road projects. Therefore, this research was conducted to
address this research gap by investigating the relationships between these constructs.

The next chapter provides the theoretical framework to review the theory behind these constructs.
The concept of project social benefit which is part of social sustainability is proposed and defined
to provide an understanding of this concept. Following that explanation, the concept of project
design, community participation and government‟s role performance were also presented to
provide the theoretical basis for the conceptual model‟s development.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 64
 CHAPTER 3
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND CONCEPTUAL MODEL DEVELOPMENT

3.1. Introduction
Having identified a research gap in the literature, this chapter presents the theoretical framework as
the basis for developing a conceptual model to address the research objectives and the research
questions. This research adopted a positivistic paradigm that utilised a quantitative approach to
address the research questions and to achieve the research goal. The reason for using a quantitative
approach and the detailed explanation of the research process are described in Chapter 4 Research
Methodology. In a quantitative approach, the theoretical framework is a conceptualisation of the
theory as a lens used to address the research problem (Kumar, 1997). So in this theoretical
framework, the research constructs are clearly defined.

This chapter explains the four research constructs applied to this research, namely Project Social
Benefit (PSB), Project Design (PD), Community Participation (CP) and Government‟s Role (GR).
These four constructs are necessary to be defined as currently these four constructs have not been
defined clearly in the context of toll road projects. Therefore, this chapter reviews the concepts,
identify the principles and subsequently determine the attributes to allow for the measurement or
testing the constructs.

In overall, there are six sections in this chapter after the Introduction. Section 3.2 explains the
concept of PSB Construct followed by PD, CP and GR Constructs in Section 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5
respectively. The research conceptual model is developed in Section 3.6 that is accompanied by the
research hypotheses to be tested by empirical data. Finally, the chapter is closed by the chapter‟s
summary in Section 3.7.

3.2. Project Social Benefit (PSB) Construct

This research adopted the term “Project Social Benefit” or PSB as part of the social sustainability
concept that refers to the built environment or construction management project context. The PSB
is used because currently, social sustainability has not been agreed by researchers being still under
development. In the current literature, social sustainability and the built environment has been
mostly dealing with urban planning and urban design related to how to alleviate poverty and reduce
social inequality. With regards to this research, the focus of PSB is regarding how the toll road
project can deliver this value that contributes to achieving social sustainability or sustainable

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 65
community. Indeed, theoretically, the principle is adopted from social sustainability and therefore
in this research, the terms PSB and social sustainability are sometimes used interchangeably.

3.2.1. Definition of Project Social Benefit

As reviewed in Chapter 2, a toll road as in infrastructure project should provide benefits to diverse
stakeholders. In PPP toll roads stakeholders can generally be classified into three categories,
namely public sector or government, the private sector and general public or community. Indeed, in
current practice, a toll road often gives more benefits for the users who live outside its location
rather than the immediate local community. However, as public infrastructure, toll roads should not
only provide benefits to their users but also can provide benefits to the local community who feels
the direct impact of the toll road‟s existence in their area. Affected communities are stakeholders
who feel the greatest negative impact of the presence of the toll road. It is clear from the social
equity principle that no one should sacrifice their interest for others in the process of the
development (Tang, 2007).

With regard to this research, social sustainability is defined as “a kind of progress that entails the
harmonic development of local society, shapes such a surrounding that ensures that the various
social groups, also those of different culture origin, can live peacefully together; enhance their
integration; and finally improve the living conditions of all groups of citizens where it is reflected
in the easing of inequalities and social cleavages” (Enyedi, 2002, p. 142). Meanwhile, the benefit is
defined as “a measurable advantage owned by a group of stakeholders incurred by changing the
current state through project management mechanism” (Badewi, 2016). Therefore, PSB is defined
as “the positive benefits relating to society that can be perceived by people who reside around the
toll roads due to its project existence in the overall project life cycle that leads to a harmonious
living environment, reduces social inequality, maintains social cohesion and improves the quality
of life in general”.

3.2.2. Principles and Attributes of Project Social Benefit Construct

With the definition above regarding PSB, several principles of the social sustainability concept
were then adopted as the main backbone for this construct. From criteria or attributes that were
examined in Chapter 2, sixteen attributes were deemed suitable and adapted in the context of toll
road projects to measure the PSB Construct that can generally be categorised into main six
principles. These main principles are explained in Section 3.2.2.1 up to section 3.2.2.6.

3.2.2.1. Fulfillment of Basic Needs and Quality of Life

It is argued that people only start to address environmental concerns in sustainable development
when they have already met the basic needs (Vallance et al., 2011). Therefore, basic needs and

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 66
quality of life are essential to human life and an important aspect of social sustainability. Quality of
life is a major social attribute of people‟s well-being (Yung and Chan, 2012). With a better quality
of life, people feel more comfortable and it can improve their liking of the place and subsequently
increase their sense of belonging to the place and community itself.

Basic needs are all important aspect of human life, either for physical or psychological needs of
individuals. Basic needs can also mean subjective measures of related issues towards the quality of
life such as health, well-being, and safety. Several attributes for basic needs and quality of life have
been proposed such as individual income, level of poverty, income distribution, unemployment,
education and further training, housing conditions, health, security, subjective satisfaction with
work, health, housing, income and the environment (Littig and Grießler, 2005). Meanwhile,
Landorf (2011) posited that basic needs are related to objectively measured issues such as food,
shelter, and education.

Provision of social infrastructure can also be considered as fulfillment of basic needs. Social
infrastructure and public amenities are also essential to improve community well-being and quality
of life (Lee and Chan, 2010). Cuthill (2009) stressed that provision of basic needs is not always
possible to address through “hard” infrastructure, but less tangible or “soft infrastructure” is also
required to enhance the well-being of the community. For the communal interest, this can be
provided by public amenities such as schools, medical centres, sports facilities and also community
centres which are vital to the community well-being (Chan and Lee, 2008). In relation to that,
public infrastructure in general, including toll roads, usually aims to deliver several benefits to the
community in terms of improving quality of life by overcoming community problems such as
congestion, air pollution, and flooding.

3.2.2.2. Social Justice

Social justice or equity has become a fundamental characteristic of sustainable development
(Murphy, 2012). In line with that, Landorf (2011) posited that besides basic needs, social equity is
a fundamental theme of social sustainability. If the basic needs issue is dealing with resources and
opportunities available to the community, social equity is dealing with issues regarding whether the
resources and opportunities are equally distributed to the community (Landorf, 2011). As such,
both these two themes are important for social sustainability as they complement each other.
Sufficient basic needs without equity are not fair and equity without sufficient basic needs also
cannot satisfy the individuals in a community.

Social equity is related to the equal treatment of groups of people in the community regardless of
their physical ability, age or gender in every aspect of life such as politics, economics, education,

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 67
health and so on. The concept of social equity has a foundation in the concept of social justice
which states that there should not be exclusion or discrimination of people economically, socially
and politically to allow equal participation in society (Dempsey et al., 2009). This concept also
emphasises the fairness of the distribution of welfare goods and life chances in national,
international and intergenerational contexts (Murphy, 2012).

Generally, Cuthill (2009) proposed a framework for social justice that includes four principles,
which are equity, rights, access, and participation. Cuthill (2009) posited that it is essential to
consider “accessibility” while considering social justice and equity in the whole population.
Accessibility can be seen as an equal opportunity for groups of people who are still in poverty and
have less advantage. As such, accessibility to economic resources is commonly recommended as
the key measure of social equity (Dempsey et al., 2009). This access is related to services,
facilities, and opportunities (Landorf, 2011). At a practical level, provision of job opportunities and
affordable housing are examples of the social equity principle (Bramley et al., 2006).

3.2.2.3. Social Cohesion and Interaction

Social cohesion is central to the concept of social sustainability (Oman and Spangenberg, 2002;
Cuthill, 2009). In a community, people are linked to each other through common values and culture
which is commonly known as social cohesion. Social cohesion is an important part of the social
capital that can be used by the community in maintaining their existence and protecting against
future challenges.

It is argued that social capital provides positive impacts to the community in social, economic and
democratic outcomes that improve community well-being (Cuthill, 2009). In addition to that, social
cohesion greatly influences a strong, fair, and just society (Dempsey et al., 2009). Social cohesion
can be identified into five domains, namely: common values and purpose; social control and order;
social solidarity and wealth equity; social networks and social capital; and belonging and identity
(Landorf, 2011).

In a healthy community, a member has good social interaction and networking that is a reflection
of social cohesion. As such, the interconnection between community members becomes an
important characteristic which means they can be physically and non-physically connected.
Dempsey et al. (2009) related social cohesion to the sustainable community concept which has five
interrelated characteristics, namely social interaction or a social network in the community,
participation, community stability, sense of place, and safety and security. With regard to the sense
of place, people feel pride or a sense of place if they have vested interests in the area; and if they
feel pride, subsequently tend to stay living in that area and are willing to contribute to its continued

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 68
development (Bramley, 2006). In addition, social cohesion is also related to community stability
where people prefer to stay in a particular area because it is safe and secure.

3.2.2.4. Cultural Diversity

Cultural diversity is defined as “equality and valuing different cultural experiences, whether they
are due to ethnic identities, social or economic situations” (Yung and Chan, 2012, p.400). Cultural
diversity is a phenomenon that naturally exists within the community and it becomes cultural
enrichness. Therefore, this diversity should be seen as a positive aspect that is important and the
development process should be able to maintain this harmony condition within the community.

3.2.2.5. Accessibility
Accessibility is related to how people can move easily from one to another place to perform their
daily life activity regardless their age and physical condition (Chan and Lee, 2008). Yung and Chan
(2012) added that accessibility can be ascertained by how an individual can move easily and people
can reach facilities and services places from their living place with reasonable ease, cost and time.
Generally, people tend to live in an area where they can easily reach certain activity places for their
daily lives. Therefore, accessibility becomes significant to social sustainability because it improves
the community‟s quality of life in general.

3.2.2.6. Public Participation

Participation refers to the involvement in social and political activities within the community. It is
actually a manifestation of a sense of belonging to the community or place. Social cohesion is
represented by strong ties between an individual and the community and can be enhanced if an
individual is actively involved in group participation (Bramley, 2006; Landorf, 2011). Public
participation is one of the essential aspects of social sustainability because through this
participation or public engagement community social inclusion is increased that will lead to
improved social sustainability performance (Murphy, 2012). Participation is also a reflection of the
social equity implementation in the political context as every community member can have equal
access and rights to the decision-making process that will affect their lives. Public involvement can
be implemented in social gatherings, the election of a new leader, demonstration on some issues,
and also in the decision-making process. However, to allow an individual to actively participate,
there should be a guarantee that individual participation can influence a decision outcome (Landorf,
2011). According to above-explained principles, sixteen attributes are derived to measure the PSB
Construct in the context of toll road projects which can generally be classified into six main
categories as can be seen in Table 3.1. All attributes are also clearly defined and accompanied by
their literature sources to provide a better understanding of them in the context of PPP toll road
projects.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 69
 Table 3.1 Attributes for Project Social Benefit in Toll Roads (Part a)

No. Project Social Benefit Attributes Description Source

I. Fulfillment of basic needs and
quality of life
1. Provide safe public facilities for This attribute related to how a toll road and its supporting facilities can be utilised Chan and Lee (2008), Shen et al.
every group of people. safely by the community either for the users or the community that lives near toll (2010), Doloi (2012), Dimitriou
roads. Safe means this facility can minimize the negative effect of accidents either to (2006).
drivers or neighbours.
2. Provide secure public facility (lack Secure public facility refers to the conditions that make people feel free from fear in CABE and DETR (2001), Chan
of crime) performing their usual activities. However, sometimes project design creates insecure and Lee (2008), Shen et al.
areas along the toll road‟s corridor. For example, there is an insecurity problem when (2010), Doloi (2012).
an elevated toll road‟s construction creates an isolated area underneath which tends to
be very quiet which could potentially result in a crime-prone area. Therefore, a toll
road should be designed in such a way that it minimises insecurity problems and also
needs to be equipped with sufficient lighting to make it secure.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 70
 Table 3.1 Attributes for Project Social Benefit in Toll Roads (Part b)
No. Project Social Benefit Attributes
3. Convenient public facility
4. Provide facility for education and
training (skills development)
5. Improvement to health and
environmental condition (less
pollution)
Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads
Description Source
This attribute relates to how the toll road service quality is felt by the users of the toll Chan and Lee (2008), Shen et
road. Convenience is another attribute that needs to be satisfied among the al. (2010), Doloi (2012),
community when compared with the regular roads. One reason for developing toll Dimitriou (2006).
roads using PPPs is achieving value for money which ensures that the quality of
service provided by the project is better rather than if it is developed using traditional
schemes. Therefore, as users have to pay tolls for their usage, the toll road service
must meet the user‟s expectations and there should be more convenient than for an
ordinary road.
A toll road can be used as a facility to provide education and training when students Colantonio et al. (2009),
and researchers can obtain benefits from studying different aspects of the project. It is McCabe et al. (2011), Yung and
also common that a project becomes a training facility for young employees to Chan (2012), Doloi (2012).
develop their knowledge and skills through some new experiences.
Quality of life improvement also occurs when pollution levels on the toll roads and CABE and DETR (2001),
surrounding areas are more tolerable. It is expected that toll roads are smoother than Dimitriou (2006), Chan and Lee
ordinary roads thereby reducing air pollution. Toll roads should also be designed to (2008), Colantonio et al. (2009),
minimize negative environmental impacts, such as flooding, erosion, and landslide. Zhai et al. (2009), Shen et al.
Failure to properly address these type of project negative impacts will cause (2010), Doloi (2012).
dissatisfaction in the community who reside around the toll road and increases the
chance of the stakeholder opposition problem.
| 71
 Table 3.1 Attributes for Project Social Benefit in Toll Roads (Part c)

No. Project Social Benefit Attributes Description Source

6. Provide adequate open space Adequate open space is an important aspect of social sustainability. Open space with Chan and Lee (2008), Doloi
greenery can contribute to human well-being because they can contribute positively (2012).
to human health and stress-related conditions. Therefore, if the toll road passes
through residential areas, it needs to provide adequate space between the road and
surrounding settlements.
7. Present regulation compliance There is generally fewer regulations and laws in relation to offenses on toll roads as CABE and DETR (2001), Chan
condition opposed to public roads. For example, users follow the traffic rules so it makes the and Lee (2008), Shen et al.
toll road safer and more convenient. The regulatory compliance environment must (2010), Doloi (2012)
encourage a smooth traffic environment along the toll road and its connecting roads.
Sometimes traffic obstacles occur because of driver‟s behaviour not adhering to the
traffic regulations. This condition may be prevented by law enforcement in the
privately developed toll roads.
II. Social Equity
1. Provide economic benefit (welfare) Economic benefits to the local community can come from a rise in land prices due to CABE and DETR (2001), Zhai
to the local citizen the toll road development or stimulation of the business centres adjacent to an exit et al. (2009), Doloi (2012).
toll-gate. Furthermore, long construction phases can also stimulate economic activity
within a local area from material and equipment production as well as job creation.
Job opportunities can potentially minimise several social problems such as poverty,
social exclusion, and poor welfare.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 72
 Table 3.1 Attributes for Project Social Benefit in Toll Roads (Part d)

No. Project Social Benefit Attributes Description Source

2. Provide equal access opportunity To produce a good service, the road should provide equal access for all the CABE and DETR (2001), Chan
community. However, current practice in Indonesia is that only vehicles with more and Lee (2008), Yung and Chan
than three-wheels are allowed to use toll roads. Motorcyclists are not allowed to use (2012), Doloi (2012).
them for safety reasons as toll roads‟ design-speed is higher than for public roads.

3. Affordable tariff for any social As public infrastructure which aims to improve the community quality of life, it is CABE and DETR (2001), Yung
groups very important that a toll road can provide benefit to any social class of the and Chan (2012), Li et al.
community as long as they satisfy the requirement with regard to safety. As such, the (2013).
usage cost must be affordable to all the community in order to be accessible for all
community levels.
III. Social Cohesion and Interaction
1. Maintain social cohesion and Due to the importance of the social cohesion above, it should be ensured that every CABE and DETR (2001), Chan
networking development prevents community disaggregation and maintains this social capital and Lee (2008), Colantonio et
within the community. Among the problems often raised by communities affected by al. (2009), Zhai et al. (2009),
a toll road‟s existence is local transport connectivity. The local transport connectivity McCabe et al. (2011), Yung
problem is one of the significant issues that occur when the toll road separates the and Chan (2012), Doloi (2012).
area into segregated parts. So a toll road must be properly designed to overcome both
problems by maintaining local community access and preventing insecurity.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 73
 Table 3.1 Attributes for Project Social Benefit in Toll Roads (Part e)

Project Social Benefit

No. Description Source
Attributes
2. Provide pride and sense of Pride in the local place is an important aspect that can enhance the social cohesion of CABE and DETR (2001), Chan and
belonging to the place (unique the community. It can be raised by providing for the local culture of the Lee (2008), Colantonio et al. (2009),
local characters and identity) development. It is possible for the toll road to present pride and sense of place to the McCabe et al. (2011), Yung and
community because it has a unique design that shows local characters and identity. Chan (2012), Li et al. (2013).
IV. Accessibility
1. Reduce travel time The toll road should improve community access to centers of activity by reducing Lim (2009), Hardwicke (2005),
travel time from otherwise congested roads. Dimitriou (2006).
V. Cultural Diversity
1. Preserve cultural and natural Cultural or natural heritage is very important to society, therefore when a toll road Shen et al. (2010), Li et al. (2013).
heritage passes through such locations the design must consider the existence of such
heritage.
VI. Public Participation
1. Ensure community involvement It is undeniable that sometimes toll roads can cause negative community impacts Chan and Lee (2008), Colantonio et
in decision-making such as air pollution, flooding, traffic jams during its construction phase and al. (2009), Yung and Chan (2012).
disruption to community local access. To avoid such negative impacts it is important
to involve the community in decision-making processes through the community
engagement or participation. By this process, their aspirations can be listened to and
accommodated in decision-making process over the project life cycle.
2. Increase public support (less Public support is very important for an infrastructure project, including toll road. CABE and DETR (2001); Shen et
opposition) When community gives their support it can smooth the development process. al. (2010), Li et al. (2013).

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 74
3.3. Project Design (PD) Construct
Vavik and Keitcsh (2010) stated that there is a potential relationship between Project Design (PD)
and social sustainability. The PD may influence social sustainability by adding social and
environmental values as it creates well-connected, inclusive and accessible new places, delivers
mixed-use environments as well as its facilities which are available to all stakeholders (CABE and
DETR, 2001, p. 8). However, with regard to a toll road project, currently, there is a limited concept
and attributes that can be used to measure a good PD which aims to deliver the PSB to the
community.

In light of the above, the PD concept used in this research was adopted from several available
concepts that are close to or may be related to the toll road project context, namely Good Urban
Design, and Inclusive Design (also known as Universal Design or Design for All (DfA)). The
concept of Inclusive Design, Universal Design, and Design for All (DfA) are related to design for
social inclusion. It is a concept which is proposed to accommodate diverse people regardless their
physical ability. The next section reviews the above design concepts to obtain a clear understanding
of these concepts, how they relate each other and how they provide a basis for defining attributes
for the construct.

3.3.1. The Project Design Concept

Before coming to the definition of the several design concepts, it important to examine the term
“design” because sometimes this term is used interchangeably with planning, even though they are
actually different. Rolley (1998) posited that planning related to programmes and policies which
are usually represented using things like tables, matrices and maps while design that is guided by
the planning idea combines places, materials and people in the form of line, colour, shape,
direction, texture, scale, and motion and it is represented through a series of drawings. Whyte et al.
(2005, p.2) defined design as “the purposive application of creativity to all the activities necessary
to bring ideas into use either as a product (service) or process innovations”.

With regard to good design, this is actually a design concept that is used in the context of urban
design. In a simple explanation, urban design is “the art of making places for people” (DETR and
CABE, 2000, p. 8). Meanwhile, in a more comprehensive definition, urban design is an area that
focuses on the relationship between people and places, movement and urban form, nature and the
built fabric, and the processes for ensuring successful villages, towns and cities (DETR and CABE,
2000).

According to Chan and Lee (2007), currently a similar definition of good design has not been
reached, and consequently every scholar and planner still has their own definition. DETR and

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 75
CABE (2000) proposed that good urban design goals actually deliver values of social sustainability
such as to stimulate economic life, maintain environmental condition and improve social
relationships by presenting special urban character, providing safe, accessible and convenient
public space for humans. In order to deliver benefit to the overall community, urban design stressed
that urban design products such as public infrastructure should be accessible to any individual
regardless their needs and physical ability. Accessibility is an appropriate parameter to measure the
social equality which is one of the backbones of social sustainability. As such, every individual
should be ensured of having access to the public facilities as it is very essential to the community
(Hwangbo et al., 2015).

Meanwhile, as noted earlier, the concept of Inclusive Design, Universal Design and Design for All
(DfA) are related to design for social inclusion. The term “Universal Design”, “Inclusive Design”
and “Design for All (DfA)” are used interchangeably in several papers (Abascal and Nicolle,
2005). However, Heylighen (2007) asserted that they refer to a similar goal which is design that
proposes equity and social justice in the design. The term Inclusive Design is known as Universal
Design in USA and Japan, and Design for All in Continental Europe (Heylighen and Bianchin,
2012).

The term Universal Design was coined by Ron Mace in the 1970s and is defined as “the design of
products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the
need for adaptation or specialized design” (Centre for Universal Design, 2013). Meanwhile,
according to Clarkson and Coleman (2013), Inclusive Design is the concept that is more familiar in
the UK and which aims to link design and social need related to ageing, disability and social
equality. It was introduced in the 1990s and defined as “a general approach to designing in which
designers ensure that their products and services address the needs of the widest possible audience,
irrespective of age or ability” (Clarkson and Coleman, 2013, p.1). Inclusive Design intends to
include as many as possible customers by understanding their diversity which covers needs,
capabilities and aspirations (http://www.inclusivedesigntoolkit.com). By considering a design
standard that meets all users‟ requirements, it can serve everyone equally (CABE, 2006).

The concept of Inclusive Design is very essential with regard to a product being successful by
accommodating a wider range of potential users. The Inclusive Design concept is basically to
promote product design by extending the product coverage to provide better access to the widest
part of the population. Meanwhile, Design for All (DfA) is defined as “design for human diversity,
social inclusion and equality” (http://dfaeurope.eu/what-is-dfa/). This is a holistic and innovative
approach that challenge all planners, designers, entrepreneurs, administrators and political leaders
to provide equal opportunities to all people to participate in every aspect of society. As such, every

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 76
product that is designed must be accessible, convenient for everyone in society to use and
responsive to human diversity. To speed the implementation of this concept, DfA targets the
political decision-makers beside the designers and architects because without government policy it
will take longer or even cannot be implemented (Bendixen and Benktzon, 2015).

According to the above review, the concept of Good Urban Design, Inclusive Design, Universal
Design and Design for All actually have similarities because they share common goals of providing
an equality or presents social inclusivity for the community. However, this concept does not mean
that the design of the product can addresses the entire population, but it is aimed at providing
guidance to appropriate responses to diversity so that a design could have the best possible cover of
the population (Waller et al., 2013).

Inclusive Design or Universal Design can be applied to any product or environment, and it is
expected when the concept of Inclusive Design is applied, products and environments can meet the
needs of potential users with the widest variety of characteristics (Burgstahler, 2012). Products or
environments that have been created should accommodate the people with any types of disability,
body size, gender, age, ability and so forth. In the context of the built environment, the concept of
Inclusive Design has also been used in construction projects. Kadir and Jamaluddin (2012)
investigated the use of Universal Design in several public buildings in Malaysia and found that
they have met most of the criteria of Inclusive Design.

In order to deliver such design inclusivity, the concept of Inclusive Design perhaps can be related
to the concept of “Participatory Design” which aims to involve all stakeholders in the design
process. Participatory Design is a concept that actively involves the end user in the decision-
making process with other stakeholders such as designers, engineers, decision-makers and the like
to better understand their needs (Sanders and Rim, 2002). This concept born in Scandinavian
countries during the 1960s and 1970s, was called cooperative design (co-design) in the area of
computer systems design. It is a shift in concept from design for users to design with users. With
this design concept it is believed that every stakeholder is an expert in their field and could
contribute in the design process through the creative environment if they are given appropriate
tools to express themselves (Sanoff, 2007). Dalsgaard (2012) revealed that Participatory Design
can accommodate the values that are considered important for stakeholders in the development of
large-scale public projects, such as a city library.

Sanders and Rim (2002) asserted that in the Participatory Design, stakeholders are involved in the
design‟s development process. This concept is different to the user-centered design process that
emphasises the thing being designed and then finding a way to present the user needs. In this

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 77
Participatory Design Concept, the design is coming from what the people say, think, do, use, know,
feel and dream to obtain comprehensive information about a design‟s use. This concept acquires
user needs through not only something which is stated, but also something which is thought, felt,
dreamed, feared and aspired.

In summary, a good design is a process which involves the designer as well as the user. Designers
cannot judge good design for themselves without accommodating the users‟ perspective as it can
otherwise misinterpret users‟ perception. Therefore, good design is unreasonable without being
inclusive and you cannot have Inclusive Design without it is being good (Heylighen and Bianchin,
2012). As such, it can be concluded that good design is actually similar to Inclusive Design
(Rosetti, 2006; Langdon et al., 2013).

With regard to this research, the term Project Design (PD) was adopted hereafter to simplify the
construct‟s name. As noted earlier, the notion of Good Urban Design, Inclusive Design, Universal
Design and Design for All (DfA) are used interchangeably and actually refer to a similar concept.
PD refers to a design which accommodates the principles of Good Urban Design, Inclusive Design,
Universal Design and Participatory Design in a built environment project that stresses the concept
of providing individuals with similar access regardless their age, gender and physical ability. The
construct refers to the toll road project design that aims to deliver the PSB to the community.

3.3.2. Several Steps in Project Design

With regard to Universal Design (UD), Burgstahler (2012) stated the several steps of UD consists
of:
1. Identify the application;
2. Define the universe;
3. Involve customers;
4. Adopt guideline or standards;
5. Apply guidelines or standards;
6. Plan for accommodation;
7. Train and support; and
8. Evaluate.

Meanwhile, according to (http://www.inclusivedesigntoolkit.com), generally, there are four main

phases in Inclusive Design, namely:
o Explore: To determine the needs;
o Create: To find the ideas of “how can the needs be met”;

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 78
 o Evaluate: To determine and evaluate “how well the needs met”; and
o Manage: To decide “what should we do next”.

3.3.3. Principles and Attributes of Project Design

Several principles of Good Urban Design have been presented in the literature. For example, DETR
and CABE (2000) proposed seven main principles of Good Urban Design which include:
1. Character: That is a place that has special features and is different to other places;
2. Continuity and enclosure: A place that clearly distinguishes between public and private areas;
3. Quality of public realm: Attractive and successful place for all community members including
disabled and elderly people;
4. Ease of movement: Place that provides accessibility and connectivity between community
members so they can easily move through;
5. Legibility: Clear image of the place and easy to understand;
6. Adaptability: Place which responds easily to social, technological and economic change; and
7. Diversity: Place with a variety of choices available that fulfill local needs.

In addition, Inclusive Design has several key principles that guide how the design process should
be conducted. CABE (2006) highlighted five key principles of Inclusive Design as follows:
1. Inclusive design places people at the heart of the design process;
2. Inclusive design acknowledges diversity and difference;
3. Inclusive design offers choice where a single design solution cannot accommodate all
users; and
4. Inclusive design provides for flexibility in use.

Meanwhile, the Universal Design consists of seven principles that are (Burgstahler, 2012):
1. Equitable use: The design is useful and marketable to the people with diverse abilities;
2. Flexibility in use: The design accommodates a wide range of individual preference and
abilities;
3. Simple and intuitive: The design is easy to understand regardless of the users‟ experience,
knowledge, language skills and current concentration level;
4. Perceptible information: The design could communicate necessary information effectively
to the users regardless their sensory abilities;
5. Tolerance for error: The design minimizes hazards and adverse consequences of accidents
or unintended actions;

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 79
 6. Low physical effort: The design can be used efficiently, comfortably and with a minimum
of fatigue; and
7. Size and space for approach and use: The design has appropriate size and space for
approach, reach, manipulation and use regardless the users‟ body size, posture or mobility.

According to the above review, generally, the PD principle is related to how the design can deliver
social inclusivity and involve the stakeholders in the toll road project design process. In the context
of public infrastructure such as toll roads, it is very important that the design process involves
many stakeholders to better accommodate their needs and interests. As infrastructure facilities
should be accessible to all community members, community participation is essential, such as
when communities are involved in urban design so the finalized design proposal is very likely to
meet their needs and interests. In addition, through this process, the community may feel that they
are part of the project stakeholders and their senses of belonging are also enhanced (Chan and Lee,
2008). From the above principles, eight attributes were proposed to measure the PD Construct that
are presented in Table 3.2. The overall attributes are also defined to provide a better understanding
of them in the context of PPP toll road projects.
T

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 80
 Table 3.2. Attributes for Project Design (Part a)

No. Project Design Attributes Description Source

1. Appropriate to the community needs The design of the toll road and its supporting facilities should Center for Universal Design (2013), Rio Charter
accommodate as much as possible, stakeholders needs and interests. (2004), Burgstahler (2012)
2. Easy to understand The design of the toll road and its supporting facilities are easy to Center for Universal Design (2013, Rio Charter
understand, regardless of the user‟s experience, knowledge, language (2004), Burgstahler (2012)
skills, or current concentration level. The design can communicate
necessary information effectively to the user, regardless of ambient
conditions or the user‟s sensory abilities.
3. Environmental friendly The design of the toll road and its supporting facilities provides a Center for Universal Design (2013), Rio Charter
positive impact on the environment. (2004), Burgstahler (2012)
4. Safe design The design of the toll road and its supporting facilities can minimize Center for Universal Design (2013), Rio Charter
hazards and the adverse consequences of an accident or unintended (2004), Burgstahler (2012)
actions.
5. Resulting in less fatigue for the user The design of the toll road and its supporting facilities are able to be Center for Universal Design (2013, Rio Charter
used efficiently, comfortably and with a minimum of fatigue. (2004), Burgstahler (2012)

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 81
 Table 3.2. Attributes for Project Design (Part b)

No. Project Design Attributes Description Source

6. Appropriate space for the user The design of the toll road and its supporting facilities are able to Center for Universal Design (2013), Rio Charter
provide appropriate size and space for approach and use. (2004), Burgstahler (2012)
7. Involving the community in the design The community is actively involved in the design process of the toll Vavick and Keitsch (2010)
process road and its supporting facilities.
8. Aesthetic The design of the toll road and its supporting facilities are desirable as Inclusive Design Toolkit, Cambridge University
aesthetics or pleasant. (2013)

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 82
3.4. Community Participation (CP) Construct
The terms stakeholder participation, public participation, citizen participation, community
participation, people‟s participation, stakeholder engagement, stakeholder involvement and so on
are often used interchangeably in the literature even though they sometimes refer to a similar
concept. For example, Bozhesku (2012) stated that the terms of stakeholder participation,
engagement or involvement are used interchangeably as they encompass a variety of participation
types such as cooperation, consultation, and communication in the context of Strategic
Environmental Assessment (SEA).

However, it is also possible that a researcher sometimes chooses a different term such as public or
stakeholder participation to distinguish the scope of participation because they refer to different
forms of participation (Ozerol and Newig, 2008). For example, even though public and stakeholder
participation are often used interchangeably (Luyet et al., 2012), Reed (2008) explained that term
stakeholder participation is deemed more suitable when it refers to parties who are affected by or
can influence a decision-making. Here, it means that only the stakeholders are involved according
to their stake level which can be analysed through stakeholder analysis. However, if the term public
participation is used, it should be ensured that all members of the public have an equal opportunity
in the participation process. With regard to this research, the term “Community Participation” (CP)
is used instead of the other terms as the context of the participation process is related to the
community perspective. Sometimes the other participation terms are also used in this research, but
they refer to similar meaning to CP. Furthermore, the concept of CP, its principles and indicators
are reviewed next to better understand them.

3.4.1. Definition of Community Participation

There have been several definitions of participation. As noted earlier that the term stakeholders,
public, and community sometimes are used interchangeably. For example, participation is defined
as “a process through which stakeholders influence and share control over development initiatives
and the decision and resources which affect them” (World Bank, 1996, p.xi). Meanwhile, Andre et
al. (2006, p.1) defined public participation as “the involvement of individuals and groups that are
positively or negatively affected by a proposed intervention (for example: a project, a program, a
plan, a policy)”. CP is actually aimed at providing a channel or forum to ensure a transparent
decision-making process. It is expected that participation can improve the quality of the agreement
that has been made. Through the CP, all stakeholders can meet and discuss the problems and
subsequently resolve the conflict by prioritizing their concern to make a decision (Li et al., 2013).

Furthermore, Meshack (2004) asserted that participation is actually a communication process,

which means the process of sharing information, power, attitudes, and interests. CP basically shifts

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 83
the traditional decision-making process from being top-down to more of a bottom-up process.
Through CP several benefits can be obtained such as increasing awareness, increasing the quality
of the decision, developing shared understanding, wider acceptance, and building trust in
institutions (Ozerol and Newig, 2008). Therefore, participation is actually not only aimed at
achieving an agreement, but it is also a matter engaging people to change and adapt their daily
environment purposively and meaningfully (Sanoff, 2007). In this research, Community
Participation (CP) is defined as the process of involving community who is affected positively or
negatively by toll road as well as become toll road users in the decision-making process.

3.4.2. Advantages and Disadvantages of Community Participation

Community Participation can be implemented with regard to project design and project planning.
The involvement of the community in a planning process is often known as participatory planning.
Woltjer (2002) expressed that participatory planning in Dutch infrastructure projects, such as
airports, railways, and highways encapsulates such terms such as “open plan-making”, “interactive
decision-making” or “consensus planning”.

An advantage of CP in planning is that it contributes to the achievement of efficiency and

effectiveness because it can increase public support for the decisions made, so it can prevent
problems occurring during implementation (Woltjer, 2002). CP also potentially increases a plan‟s
legitimacy by being legitimated by the stakeholders (Li et al., 2012). A legitimate decision in the
project planning and implementation which is widely accepted by the stakeholders can potentially
avoid a social reaction. As such, it is believed that community responsibility during project
operation and maintenance can be realized if the stakeholders are involved in the planning and
implementation process (ICWE, 1992; Mirghani and Savenije, 1995).

Another advantage is that CP can also increase the community‟s satisfaction from having been
included in the decision-making process. The finalized plan and solution can be derived to
accommodate the community aspirations so the chance of project success can be increased (Ng et
al., 2012b). In the context of Impact Assessment (IA), CP is used as an integral part of the process.
An effective CP is required for successful Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA)
processes because it helps raise awareness of the environmental and social implications of road
projects as it can provide the necessary input to minimize the negative impacts of the projects
(ESCAP, 2001).

Nevertheless, CP is also critisised due to weaknesses. For example, it is time and resource
consuming, even though it gives a better understanding of the different parties involved, reduces
controversy and it gives legitimation to the government‟s decision (Ng et al., 2013). In addition,

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 84
there are also perceptions that CP can be very challenging as it may lead to conflict that can cause
social disorder. However, Li et al. (2013) argued that CP can become a good opportunity to resolve
the conflict as they can be better engaged in the decision-making process by prioritising their
concerns and maximizing their mutual satisfaction.

Indeed, it is unlikely that all community or stakeholders‟ needs and interests can be fulfilled as
their needs and interests are different and sometimes conflict with each other (Li et al., 2013).
Therefore, often there should be a trade-off between parties to obtain a win-win solution. As such,
the involvement of the community in decision-making is more related to the process of how their
interests can be handled, rather than the final outcome of the decision (DETR and CABE, 2000; Ng
et al., 2013). Therefore, CP is considered as one of the democratic rights as it is a matter of
improving people‟s understanding by sharing knowledge and information. Implementation of good
CP in the decision-making may contribute the community‟s support so can prevent problems
occurr during the implementation (Woltjer, 2002) and increase the legitimacy as the plan can be
legitimated by the community and finally increase the chance of project success.

3.4.3. Types of Community Participation

The impact of the CP program depends on which type of participation is implemented because not
all participation processes can be considered as real participation. Several CPs have been proposed
in the literature. However, from several types of participation, Arnstein‟ model of participation is
still considered as the best of the attempts that have been proposed to classify participation forms
(Woltjer, 2002).

Arnstein‟s (1969) proposed CP model, called a “ladder of participation”, is divided into eight rungs
which start from manipulation, therapy, informing, consultation, placation, partnership, delegated
power and citizen control. Manipulation and therapy are the lowest forms of participation where
they can actually be categorised as a “non-participation level”. Meanwhile, informing, consultation
and placation are categorised as being at the “tokenism level”. An ideal participation is the “citizen
power level” which consists of partnership, delegated power, and citizen control. As such, the
tokenism level of participation may not be enough to fully accommodate public views in the
decision-making process. The tokenism of participation makes it possible that people do not really
engage in the process as they know that their involvement does not influence the decision-making
process (Li et al., 2012).

Meanwhile, Bozhesku (2012), proposed five forms of real participation based on International
Association of Public Participation (IAP2), namely:

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 85
 1. Informing;
2. Consulting;
3. Involving;
4. Collaborating or co-operating; and
5. Empowering.

To deliver such a real participation process, it is very important that the participants should be
made aware that their involvement can influence the decision-making and is not just a formal
procedure. It means prior to involving participants it has to be ensured that they really have the
opportunity to influence the decision-making and they have the technical capability to engage in
the decision (Reed, 2008).

3.4.4. Method and the Level of Community Participation

To be successfully implemented, it is very important to determine the appropriate methods for CP
which is composed of several components such as the scope of participation, time of participation,
the level of participation, how to engage people in an appropriate way, and the appropriate time for
the participants to be involved (Reed, 2008). With regard to scope, Mirghani and Savenije (1995)
suggested that CP in a project should involve all community representatives. Meanwhile, regarding
the level of participation and method, the CP should be customised or adapted according to the
community‟s knowledge and ability to understand. Basically, the CP can be conducted through
available techniques such as presentations and public hearings, internet webpages, interviews and
questionnaire surveys, field visits and interactions, workshop participatory mapping, focus groups,
citizen juries, decision support systems, cognitive maps, role playing, multi-criteria analyses,
scenario analyses and conferences (Luyet al., 2012).

The method of how to engage community can generally be classified into several steps such as
community identification, community characterisation, community‟s structurisation, selection of
participation technique, implementation of the participation and evaluation of the participation. In
more detail, Ng et al. (2012b) proposed a framework to conduct CP which consists of three
techniques called “Who”, “What” and “How” throughout the process. First, “Who” is related to
identifying the appropriate community in the participation process by ensuring that those who are
involved can influence the project process or result. This is because it may not be possible to
involve every individual in the CP process, as well as some of them, may not be interested in being
involved. This technique consists of who should participate, who might provide opinions and who
makes the final decision. Second, the concept of “What” is related to how to set the participation
objectives with regard to what are the process constraints, what are possible solutions, what are the
potential outcomes, what the community‟s concerns are and what are the community‟s likely

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 86
reactions. Third, the concept of “How” pertains to the way to achieve the goals which comprise
how to target the right people, how to disperse the information, how to collect representative
opinions, how to analyse the data and how to build a consensus.

With regard to time, basically, the community should be involved at an appropriate level of
participation and project stage (Luyet al., 2012). The CP should also be conducted as early as
possible because the later the time of participation is left can affect the information or knowledge
that can be acquired by and from the community. Lucas and Stanley (2013) suggested the project
should involve the local community in the decision-making process through the CP in every stage
of the project implementation. Similar to that, Li et al. (2012) proposed that ideally participation is
conducted in all of a project‟s life cycle consisting of planning, design, construction, operation, and
demolition.

3.4.5. Principles and Attributes of Community Participation

The CP should be managed by a good mechanism according to the participation principles. Several
principles and attributes of the CP have been found in the literature. For example, Luyet et al.
(2012) proposed seven principles of successful CP, namely:
1. A fair, equal and transparent process that promotes equity, learning, trust, and respect for all
stakeholders;
2. Scientific and local knowledge is employed in the process;
3. Rule of conduct is established;
4. Stakeholders are involved from the earliest steps;
5. Stakeholders are integrated together;
6. An experienced moderator is proposed; and
7. Sufficient resources allocated, including time.

Meanwhile, Reed (2008) suggested eight key features of CP based on best practice, namely:
1. It should emphasise the empowerment, equity, trust, and learning;
2. It should be conducted as early as possible throughout the process;
3. Analysis of relevant community systematically;
4. It has clear participation objectives that should be agreed among the participants;
5. Appropriate method of participation by considering the objectives, participant type and their
engagement level;
6. Employ a highly skilled facilitator;
7. Integration of local and scientific knowledge in the process; and
8. Institutionalization of the participation process.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 87
In the context of PPP projects, a framework called Public Private People Partnerships (4P) is
proposed to involve end-user stakeholders such as the community in the decision-making through a
participation process from early stages of the project life cycle to achieve customer-oriented service
(Majamaa et al., 2008). This concept aims to overcome the existing limitation of PPP scheme
which is still considered not fully successful as they have not accommodated the end-user
perspective (general public) in the evaluation criteria for the decision-making process (Majamaa et
al., 2008). Currently, the PPP system is more focused to the contractual-based criteria as the
performance evaluation criteria without considering direct input from the end-user. On the other
side, the end-user needs and interests is highly important to be accommodated in the decision-
making process to deliver their satisfaction. Ng et al. (2013) also proposed 4P as a framework for
CP process in the context of PPP project improvement in Hong Kong. The framework is
characterized by four key features that adapted Bickerstaff et al. (2002), namely inclusiveness,
transparency, interactiveness and continuity.

Furthermore, the attributes used to measure CP for toll road projects that are derived from the
above principles can be seen in Table 3.3. Fifteen attributes of CP are presented based on Flannery
and Cinnede‟s (2012) classification which divided CP criteria into two types, namely the process
and outcome criteria. Eleven attributes belong to the CP process and four attributes are relevant to
CP outcomes. Attributes‟ definition and their sources are also presented to better understand them
in the context of PPP toll road projects.
T

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 88
 Tabel 3.3 Attributes for Community Participation (Part a)

No. Community Participation Attributes Description Source

I. Participation Process
1. Involving all the community‟s representatives The participation should ensure that every type of community member Blackstock et al. (2012), CANARI (2004),
has been represented in the participation process from the early project Bickerstaff et al. (2002), Luyet at al.
stages. (2012)
2. Establisment of rule of conduct As community participation usually involves many participant‟s, a rule Luyet at al. (2012), Carr et al. (2012)
of conduct is necessary to manage the participant‟s rights and
responsibilities so the process can be conducted in a conducive
environment.
3. Provision of sufficient information for Sufficient information is very important to be provided because with Blackstock et al. (2012), CANARI (2004),
community good information the community can better understand the project. Luyet at al. (2012), Carr et al. (2012)
With good understanding about the problem, the community
subsequently can give useful suggestions and feedback that can
improve the decision quality.

A transparent process Transparent process means that the process of participation is openly Blackstock et al. (2012), Bickerstaff et al.
conducted where every community member can easily access (2002), Luyet at al. (2012)
information about it.
5. Allowing sufficient time allocated There should be sufficient time for the community to receive, to Luyet at al. (2012)
understand and to respond to the information during the community
participation process.
6. Interactive process The participation process is conducted in a two-way dialogue where Blackstock et al. (2012), Bickerstaff et al.
the community can have the freedom to express their opinion and (2002)
feedback.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 89
 Tabel 3.3 Attributes for Community Participation (Part b)

No. Community Participation Attributes Description Source

7. All participants respect the process This is the sign that good participation is when participants can respect the CANARI (2004), Luyet at al. (2012),
process. Woltjer (2002)
8. Continuous process The process is conducted throughout the project life cycle, not only in a CANARI (2004), Bickerstaff et al. (2002)
certain project stage.
9. Appropriate leadership (facilitator) The facilitator or mediator can guide the participation direction, so it is very Blackstock et al. (2012), Luyet at al. (2012),
important that the facilitator has good knowledge and leadership skill to lead Carr et al. (2012), Reed (2008)
the process.
10. Developing a learning process (capacity The participation should improve the community‟s knowledge or build their Blackstock et al. (2012), Luyet at al. (2012),
building) capacity to better understand the topic that is being discussed so they can Flannery et al. (2012)
subsequently provide better feedback and suggestions.
11. Building partnerships and a level of The process of participation is actually a good discussion where all Blackstock et al. (2012)
understanding between group members participants can communicate and share their idea and knowledge. As such,
it would be very useful to understand and respect different perspectives
among the participants.
II. Participation Outcome
1. A comprehensive result The participation result has considered any perspective from many aspects. Blackstock et al. (2012)
2. Accepted by wider communities (legitimate Most of the stakeholders can accept the participation result. Blackstock et al. (2012), Carr et al. (2012)
decision)
3. Outcome is distributed equally to all The result is equally distributed to all stakeholders. Blackstock et al. (2012)
communities
4. Outcome is implementable The participation result can be implemented in real practice. Blackstock et al. (2012)

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 90
3.5. Government’s Role in PPP Projects (GR) Construct
In the context of infrastructure projects such as PPP toll road projects, the public sector or
government has an important role in the project success (Kumaraswamy and Zhang, 2001; Kwak et
al., 2009). Government plays an important role in creating a favourable investment environment to
attract the private sector to the PPP project development because their position is better than any
other party for reducing private sector risks and attracting their involvement in PPP projects
(Zhang, 2005a). The government is also responsible for selecting appropriate PPP projects
(Birgonul and Ozdogan, 1998; Ng et al., 2012a), for conducting competitive procurement (Li et al.,
2005a; Kwak et al., 2009) that results in the best project developer (concessionaire), for simplifying
the bureaucracy (Chen and Doloi, 2005) and always to monitor and to control the process (Qiao et
al, 2001; Wibowo and Mohamed, 2010).

The performance of Project Design (PD) and Community Participation (CP) in infrastructure and
urban design projects are potentially influenced by the Government‟s Role (GR) performance. The
government has an important role in the CP process because whether that CP in the project is
effective or not depends largely on the GR as the client or owner (Li et al., 2013). The government
has authority over how public infrastructure projects should be provided (Ng et al., 2012a). In
addition, the government has also an important role in project design from their position as project
initiator (CABE and DETR, 2001).

3.5.1. The Concept of Government’s Role

Government is defined as the group of people with the authority to govern a country or state or a
particular ministry in office (Oxford Dictionaries, 2016). Government is obliged to better the
community (Mintrom, 2012). According to Heywood (1999), government institutions are
responsible for creating, implementing and interpreting the rules (laws) and the whole system of
government includes three functions, namely legislation, execution of legislation and legal
interpretation (courts).

Meanwhile, a role is defined as “the function assumed or part played by a person or thing in a
particular situation” (Oxford Dictionaries, 2016). Role is a dynamic status that is attached to every
individual in society (Turner, 2002). Therefore, in this research, GR can be defined as the function
that is played by the government in particular situations which cannot be done by a person or a
small group of people. Government‟s role can be categorized as at least nine activities, namely
market-making, taxes, subsidies, regulation, direct service supply, funding and contracting,
partnering and facilitating, information and social marketing frameworks, and strategies (Mintrom,
2012).

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 91
3.5.2. Government’s Role in Infrastructure Project Development
The government has an important role in the success of PPP projects because success or failure of a
PPP project is dependent on the legal, and political and economic conditions which are pre-
requisites to implementing this scheme (Kumaraswamy and Zhang, 2001; Kwak et al., 2009).
Zhang (2005a) asserted that the government has a better position than any other party to reduce any
risks related to law, and political and economic conditions by creating a favourable environment
for PPP infrastructure development. Meanwhile, the willingness of the private sector to take part in
PPPs heavily depends on the environment where the project operates, which is influenced by the
GR.

With regard to that, Kumaraswamy and Zhang (2001) reported several instances of unsuccessful
PPP projects in Bangkok, Thailand and Lao Peoples Democratic Republic (PDR) because of
improper GR. In addition, Sanghi et al. (2007) reported a qualitative assessment by the Public-
Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility (PPIAF) and the World Bank of eight PPP units around the
world (Bangladesh, Jamaica, the Republic of Korea, the Philippines, Portugal, South Africa, the
United Kingdom, and the Australian state of Victoria). Based on this qualitative assessment, the
lessons learned can be drawn that less effective governments tend to have less effective PPP units,
that is a unit set up to effectively manage the PPP programs. Accordingly, it can be concluded that
the GR performance will influence the PPP project performance as well.

Some previous researchers have investigated the GR in PPP projects. For example, Birgonul and
Ozdogan (1998) identified several roles of the Turkish government in PPP projects, namely
determination of project viability, tender evaluation, contractual arrangements to allocate risk and
measurement of project success. In addition, Kumaraswamy and Zhang (2001) believed that
government has significant roles including the win-win principle, an adequate legal and regulatory
framework, managing the political environment, state credibility, developing a domestic capital
market, competitive bidding, land acquisition and options for governmental guarantees.

Meanwhile, Kwak et al. (2009) proposed several roles for government, namely a creating favorable
investment environment, establishing an adequate legal/regulatory framework, establishing a
coordinating and supportive authority, selecting a suitable concessionaire, and being actively
involved in the overall project phases. Finally, Zhang (2005a) specified that several GR as being:
an adequate legal and regulatory framework, having a central coordinating governmental authority,
having supportive governmental authorities, and a clear division of responsibilities.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 92
In the context of PPPs in Indonesia, there has been limited research that specifically identified the
GR. Research conducted by Tamin and Rostiyanti (2011) and Bustaman and Ramayandi (2012)
discussed the GR as being limited to overcoming the existing barriers to PPP. In addition, Tamin
and Rostiyanti (2011) suggested the importance of institutional arrangements and the re-evaluation
of laws and regulations. Meanwhile, Bustaman and Ramayandi (2012) highlighted the need for the
empowerment of the institution responsible for coordinating the implementation of PPP programs
in Indonesia what is referred to in Indonesia as the PPP Central Unit (P3CU).

3.5.3. Principles and Attributes of Government’s Role in Infrastructure Projects

There are attributes of the GR which have been presented in the context of infrastructure projects.
In general, the government‟s role in infrastructure project including PPP toll road projects can be
categorized into six major roles, which are: Appropriate project selection and planning, Provision
of favourable investment environment, Establishment of adequate regulatory framework and
appropriate support, Establishment of good bureaucracy, and Selection of appropriate
concessionaire and Supervise project implementation. The next sub-section reviews these six main
roles to better understand them in this research context.

3.5.3.1. Appropriate Project Selection and Planning

The government needs to select projects that are suitable to be implemented by the PPP scheme
(Birgonul and Ozdogan, 1998). Not all projects can be successful with a BOT or PPP mechanism
(Kumaraswamy & Zhang, 2001). As such, the government should be able to choose the right
projects to be offered in the PPP scheme (Birgonul and Ozdogan, 1998). It is necessary to ensure
that there is a public need for the project, whether the market request can ensure the continuity of
performance of the project with the long-term financing, whether this project is acceptable, whether
the project is consistent with environmental issues, and so on (Birgonul and Ozdogan, 1998).
Accuracy in selecting the project will be able to attract foreign investors as they are much more
interested in the projects that are profitable businesses (Qiao et al., 2001). Besides, the government
needs to integrate these PPP projects in their development plans, otherwise, it would result in a
negative impact on project revenues (Zhang, 2005b).

3.5.3.2. Provision of a Favourable Investment Environment

For almost all businesses, including PPP toll road projects, conducive political and economic
conditions are a prerequisite for the success of PPP projects (Kumaraswamy and Zhang, 2001). The
willingness of private parties to be involved in the PPP project greatly depends on the environment
in which the project will be operated (Kwak et al., 2009). Indeed, investors will always consider
political and economic conditions of any host country because PPPs are long-duration partnerships

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 93
which increase business risk levels. Therefore, the government needs to provide a favourable
environment for investment, covering the political, economic, social and environmental conditions.

3.5.3.3. Establishment of an Adequate Regulatory Framework and Appropriate Support

Beside the economic and political conditions, the private sector‟s willingness to be involved in
infrastructure development depends on legal certainty because the absence of this condition would
increase the business risk. This can be achieved by providing an adequate regulatory framework
because a lack of adequate legal and regulatory framework can lead to corruption and bribery.
However, too many rules may lead to difficulties in the implementation of the PPP scheme
(Kumaraswamy & Zhang, 2001). Therefore, the government must develop an appropriate
framework to better implement PPP projects which subsequently attract the investors‟ interest
(Zhang, 2005b).

An adequate regulatory framework can also minimise the problems related to social issues which
are usually referred to as the land acquisition processes and community protest due to
environmental impact. These social problems can happen in PPP projects and when they do this
causes the project implementation to suffer time and cost overruns. Therefore, the government
needs to be actively involved to help the land acquisition process, so it can be conducted smoothly.
Likewise, the government also needs to address the environmental issues (Ng et al., 2012a) by
ensuring that the project will not cause environmental damage or even if there was an impact, the
damage can be mitigated as much as possible so it will not heavily affect the community and the
environment. Therefore, social problems related to the community protests can be minimised.

The government also needs to provide appropriate support to the private sector. A PPP project has
many risks associated with the political and economic conditions. As such, the government needs to
provide appropriate support to minimize the risk to private parties in the PPP (Kumaraswamy &
Zhang, 2001). The government support can be realised through policies such as providing tax
relief, exchange rate differences and flexibility in toll tariff adjustment.

3.5.3.4. Establishment of a Good Bureaucracy

The successful implementation of PPPs requires skills and expertise in the procurement, legal
issues and financial management (Aziz, 2007). However, the performance of these aspects cannot
be separated from the quality of the bureaucracy in the host country. As such, a good bureaucracy
is important to the success of PPP projects (Li et al., 2005a). In light to the above, the government
must ensure that their bureaucracy is straight forward and responsive which can speed the
administration needed in PPP projects.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 94
A good bureaucracy is characterised by components such as defining clear responsibilities within
government bodies (Zhang, 2005b), effective coordination within government institutions (Meng,
et al., 2011), simplified bureaucracy procedures (Ozdoganm and Birgonul, 2000); providing
appropriate access to project data and information (Zhang, 2005b), establish an uncorrupted
bureaucracy (Chan et al., 2010) and good public decision-making (Li et al., 2005b). In the case of
the bureaucracy not being familiar with the PPP scheme, the above capabilities can be obtained by
establishing PPP units and improving government personnel skills.

3.5.3.5. Selection of an Appropriate Concessionaire and Supervise Project Implementation

A suitable concessionaire which is strong private consortium determines the success of a PPP
project (Li et al, 2005a). The government has to conduct a fair and competitive bidding process
because from this process can be selected a concessionaire that best meets the criteria. A tender
process in a PPP project is more expensive than for traditional projects (Kumaraswamy & Zhang,
2001), even though PPPs provide superior performance in both the cost and time dimensions
(Raisbeck et al., 2010). Competitive tendering then should also be followed by providing a clear
contract and that accommodates fair risk allocation (Zhang, 2005a). Risk should be allocated to the
party who is best able to manage risk appropriately for the successful implementation of the PPP
(Li et al., 2005a).

However, selecting the right investor and successful transfer of the project to the concessionaire is
only the first step of government involvement (Meng et al., 2011). In addition to that, the
government still needs to be actively involved in the entire project life cycle in order to ensure that
quality, efficiency, and user satisfaction can be realized through that life (Kumaraswamy & Zhang,
2001; Kwak et al., 2009). It is not sufficient for the government to just select the Concessionaire
and transfer as many as possible risk to them. The government needs to supervise the private sector
performance appropriately. Intensive communication with the private sector (Chan et al., 2011) is a
key aspect in the project supervision because by maintaining good communication between them, a
potential conflict can be minimised that subsequently influences better project implementation.

As for the previous constructs, twelve attributes were derived from the above main principles
which can be classified into five main categories as seen in Table 3.4. The five main categories are
Appropriate project selection and planning, Providing a favourable investment environment,
Establishment of an adequate regulatory framework and appropriate support, Establishment of
good bureaucracy, and Selection of an appropriate concessionaire and supervise the project
implementation. All attributes are also defined to provide better understanding of them in the
context of PPP toll road projects.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 95
 Table 3.4 Attributes for the Goverment‟s Role (Part a)

No. Government’s Role Attributes Description Sources

I. Appropriate Project Selection and

Planning
1. Selection of a feasible PPP project Government needs to select an appropriate project that is feasible to Tiong et al., (1996); Birgonul and Ozdogan (1998);
offer to the private sector using the PPP scheme, that is a project Qiao et al. (2001), Zhang (2005a); Jefferies (2006);
which can generate income to return the investment that has been Ng et al. (2012).
made for the project.
II. Providing a Favourable Investment
Environment
1. Provision of stable and conducive The government should provide a stable and conducive political Ozdoganm and Birgonul (2000); Qiao et al. (2001);
political environment environment as the investors need to have this to run their business. Kumaraswamy and Zhang (2001); Li et al. (2005a);
For example, there is no violation due to political dispute due to Kwak et al. (2009), Chan et al. (2010); Ng et al.
political election result. (2012)
2. Provision of stable and conducive The government should provide a stable and conducive economic Ozdoganm and Birgonul (2000); Kumaraswamy and
economic conditions condition in addition to the political condition. This is related to Zhang (2001); Qiao et al. (2001); Li et al. (2005a);
stable monetary condition where the interest rate is stable and can be Kwak et al. (2009); Chan et al. (2010); Doloi (2012b).
easily predicted for better business calculation.
III. Establishment of an Adequate Regulatory
Framework and Appropriate Support
1. Smooth land acquisition process The government should provide adequate regulations for the land Kumaraswamy and Zhang (2001); Li et al. (2005b);
acquisition process, be consistent in implementing the regulations as Wibowo and Mohamed (2010); Abednego and
well as to appropriately approach the community for smoothing the Ogunlana (2006); Ke et al. (2009); Xu et al. (2010);
process. Doloi (2012b).

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 96
 Table 3.4 Attributes for the Goverment‟s Role (Part b)

No Government’s Role Attributes Description Sources

2. Minimum negative impact on The government should provide adequate regulations to minimise Ozdoganm and Birgonul (2000); Ng et al. (2012);
environment the negative impact of the project and consistently implement the Doloi (2012b).
regulations as well as communicate with the community regarding
their implementation.
3. Provision of appropriate government The government needs to provide sufficient and appropriate support Ozdoganm and Birgonul (2000); Qiao et al. (2001);
support to the private sector to reduce their risk in the PPP scheme. For Kumaraswamy and Zhang (2001); Li et al. (2005a);
example, with regard to flexible tariff adjustment. Kwak et al. (2009); Chan et al. (2010).
IV. Establishment of Good Bureaucracy
1. Simplification of bureaucratic Simplification of the bureaucratic procedures is very important to Ozdoganm and Birgonul (2000); Li et al. (2005a);
procedures speed administrative that is related to permit and approval. The Chen and Doloi (2005); Ke et al. (2009); Xu et al.
bureaucratic procedure should be simple and fast as the regulation is (2010); Doloi (2012b)
adequate and clear.
2. Law enforcement It is very esensial that all regulations that have been issued are Chen and Doloi (2005); Zhang (2005b); Ke et al.
strictly enforced and there is a punishment to the rule offender. This (2009); Xu et al. (2010); Chan et al. (2011).
is very important to provide legal certainty which is highly needed
by the private sector to run their business.
3. Corruption eradication Corruption can threaten the law enforcement, delay administrative Chen and Doloi (2005); Zhang (2005b); Ke et al.
procedures as well as cause people to mis trustless to the (2009); Xu et al. (2010); Chan et al. (2011).
government. Finally, it makes the private sector less interested in
investing their money due to higher risk conditions. Therefore, it is
very important for the government to eradicate corruption and
provide a clear bureaucratic environment.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 97
 Table 3.4 Attributes for the Goverment‟s Role (Part c)

No Government’s Role Attributes Description Sources

V. Selection of an Appropriate
Concessionaire and Supervise the Project
Implementation
1. Selection appropriate concessionaire An Appropriate concessionaire is one key success of the PPP Birgonul and Ozdogan (1998); Ozdoganm and
through competitive tendering project. As such, it is very important that the selected concessionaire Birgonul (2000); Kumaraswamy and Zhang (2001);
has the capability in delivering the project successfully. The Zhang (2005b); Li et al. (2005a); Jefferies (2006);
Mechanisms to select an appropriate and qualified concessionaire is Kwak et al. (2009); Ng et al. (2012).
through a competitive tendering processs.
2. Supervision and control of the private Good supervision and control is important to ensuring that the Qiao et al. (2001); Li et al. (2005b); Wibowo and
sector performance project is implemented according to the design and planning. The Mohamed (2010); Meng et al. (2011).
supervision and control should be performed to ensure that the
project target and planning can be achieved over the life cycle.
3. Intensively communicate with private Project communication is very important as good relationships Xu et al. (2010); Chan et al. (2011); Doloi (2012b)
sector to minimize dispute between stakeholders can be formed through good communication.
A good relationship between the government and private sector can
subsequently make the project execution smoother by avoiding
misunderstandings and reducing the potential conflict.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 98
3.6. Conceptual Model and Hypotheses’ Development
The previous section has defined four research constructs that are the basis for this research as well
as determined, from the literature, attributes related to them. This section develops a conceptual
model that links the four research constructs as well as accompanying them with research
hypotheses that need to be tested using empirical data. A conceptual model is a theoretical model
that is usually represented using a diagram showing the relationships between research constructs.
According to the literature review and theoretical framework development, a conceptual model that
links the four research constructs can be developed as there, potentially, appears relationships
between Project Social Benefit (PSB), Project Design (PD), Community Participation (CP) and
Government‟s Role (GR).

Two options were available to conceptually model all underlying constructs using SEM, namely
mediation and moderation effects. According to Hair et al. (2010), mediating effect happens when
a third variable or construct influence or intervenes two other related constructs. Meanwhile, Baron
and Kenny (1986) posited that moderating effects is an occasion when a third variable/construct
affects the direction and or/ strength of the relation between two related variables/constructs. It
means the relationship between the two related constructs changes as a function of the moderator
construct. In general, while mediator construct explains why and how an effect of variable on
another variable happens, moderator construct specifies when certain effect will hold (Baron and
Kenny, 1986)

Before selecting the mediation and moderation types in the conceptual model, the relationship
among four constructs was explored. According to the research framework, the PSB can be
achieved by presenting a good toll road project design (PD). In this case, a good PD can provide
the community PSB by presenting facilities which are safe, secure, well connected as well as able
to maintain the social cohesion within the community (CABE and DETR, 2000). As such, there is a
potential relationship between PSB and PD (Vavik and Keitcsh, 2010).

In addition to the above, the CP also potentially influences the PSB. Previous researchers posited
that PSB can be achieved if there is an effort to engage the community in the process of decision-
making in every project stage from the earliest. Indeed, CP can influence the social outcomes
(McCabe, 2011) and it is believed that good PD can be obtained from good CP. Through a good
CP, the interest of various community can be captured and built in to improve a project's long-term
viability and benefit to the community (Li et al., 2013).

In the context of infrastructure projects such as PPP toll roads, the public sector or government has
an important role in the success of the project (Kumaraswamy and Zhang, 2001; Kwak et al.,

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 99
2009). Government plays an important role in creating a favourable investment environment which
attracts the private sector into the PPP project development. Moreover, the government position is
better than any other party for reducing private sector risks and attracting their involvement in PPP
projects (Zhang, 2005a). In the context of a toll road project, government, as the community‟s
representative, has to improve the community well-being through the development. The
government could deliver PSB by promoting the project that can overcome the community‟s daily
transport problems related to traffic congestion. The project can be delivered by maximizing the
positive benefits and minimising the negative impact on the community. Therefore, it appears that
the GR may influence the PSB performance.

The Government also potentially has an important role in PD and CP in PPP projects. In the
context of infrastructure projects, the government is a project stakeholder with strong power and
influence and has control of the facility that serves the public domain because the government is
the owner of the infrastructure project as well as the regulator. The successful implementation of
PD depends on a clear development plan that is implemented consistently as well as exercising
effective control. Likewise, as the regulator, the government has an important role to proactively
promote better PD and set the agenda through clear development policies (CABE and DETR,
2001). Therefore, the government should have a significant role in this policy implementation
(DETR and CABE, 2000). As the project owner, the government has a critical role in the
implementation or adoption of sustainable construction because usually their wants and needs will
form the product right from the construction project‟s initial phase (Gan et al., 2015).

In addition, the government has also an important role in the success of CP processes because the
effectiveness of the CP largely depends on the project owner or client, which is the government (Li
et al., 2013). The CP can increase the community‟s support in the decision-making process. A
legitimate decision in the project planning and implementation which is widely accepted by the
community can avoid social reactions and automatically increases the chance of project success.
Overall, it is expected that the better performance of GR will influence PD and CP that will
subsequently improve the PSB.

According to the above explanation, the PD and CP constructs in this research were more
appropriate to be represented as the mediator constructs rather than moderator construct between
the GR and PSB. In this case, PD and CP mediated between two constructs as the influence of the
GR to the PSB seemed to be an indirect relationship rather than a direct relationship. The research
conceptual model can be seen in Figure 3.3.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 100
 Figure 3.1. The Research‟s Conceptual Model and Hypotheses

Following the conceptual model, several hypotheses can be developed as follows:

H1 : Government‟s Role (GR) positively influences the Community Participation (CP);
H2 : Government‟s Role (GR) positively influences the Project Design (PD);
H3 : Government‟s Role (GR) positively influences the Project Social Benefit (PSB);
H4 : Community Participation (CP) positively influences the Project Design (PD);
H5 : Community Participation (CP) positively influences the Project Social Benefit (PSB); and
H6 : Project Design (PD) positively influences the Project Social Benefit (PSB).

3.7. Chapter Summary

This chapter presents the theoretical framework which is a lens to address the research question and
objective. The theoretical framework was developed to form the research‟s conceptual model and
six hypotheses to be tested in this research. Three research constructs have been defined related to
PSB, namely PD, CP, and GR. Defining the research constructs is a form of conceptualisation and
operationalisation of the related theories. Based on the theoretical framework, a conceptual model
that is accompanied by hypothesis has also been developed involving the four constructs. In
addition, attributes or indicators have also been proposed to measure the constructs. To explain the
research steps and methods used to answer the research question as well as to test the hypotheses in
the conceptual model, the next chapter presents the research methodology.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 101
 CHAPTER 4
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

4.1. Introduction
The literature review regarding theories underpinning this research was presented in Chapter 2.
Likewise, the theoretical framework and conceptual model that is the basis for developing the
hypothesis was developed in Chapter 3. Furthermore, this chapter presents the research
methodology that was adopted in this research. The terms of research methodology, research
approach, design and method are often used interchangeably as people sometimes have different
perceptions about them. In this research, the term research methodology was adopted as the
umbrella of all these terms.

Adam and Schvaneveldt (1991) defined research methodology as the use of scientific procedures to
find an answer for varying research questions which covers both methods and theory. Following
this introduction, the next Section 4.2 determine the research category as the basis selection for the
research design. Section 4.3 explains the process of selecting the research paradigm and approach
with reasons behind their selection. Research design principles are then presented in Section 4.4.
Finally, the stages and procedures within the research design are widely explored in Section 4.5.

4.2. Determination of the Research Category

This section aims to define research category to determine the basis selection of the research
design. However, before defining the research category, the concept of research and theory is
important to be defined in order to obtain similar understanding of them. Research is an activity
that is conducted based on several theories to produce science that will finally support, revise or
challenge a theory. Every research is started from theory and finally produces a theory as well.
Shoemaker et al. (2004) simply defined theory as “one‟s understanding about how something
works” and one of the important characteristics of a theory is that it is dynamic and always changes
as it can either be supported or challenged by other research.

A theory is constructed from a set of knowledge based on scientific principles and a science, in
simple terms is a way of knowing and is one source of the knowledge which is produced by
research activity. Neuman (2012) asserted that science can also be defined as “the system for
producing knowledge and the knowledge that results from the system”. Generally, science can be
classified as natural and social sciences. While natural science is usually dealing with physical

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 102
aspects and the material world, social science deals with the human socio-cultural life such as
beliefs, behaviours, relationships, interactions, institutions and so forth (Neuman, 2012).

According to the above science classification, this research has a foundation in social science
which is related to the human socio-cultural life. Social science theory is defined as “a system of
interconnected ideas or it can be also as type of systematic story telling that explains how some
aspect of the social works and why” (Neuman, 2012). However, unlike natural science which
automatically adopts a quantitative approach, social science research can be implemented in a
number of ways known as research approach and design. The selection of a research approach and
design is highly influenced by the researcher‟s perception of the world which is called a
philosophical worldview or paradigm.

4.3. Selection of the Research Paradigm and Approach

According to Creswell (2014), a paradigm is a set of basic beliefs that become the director in action
which is referred to as ontology and epistemology. Furthermore, Creswell (2014) explained that
ontology is regarding how we see the object of the research in the world out there, whether it is a
separate entity to us or it is part of us. There are basically two types of ontology, namely realist and
nominalist. A realist belief that the world is “out of there” which in it exists independently from
human intervention and interpretation; therefore, a phenomenon is seen as what it is. As such, when
realists see an object, they will perceive it according to their physical characteristics. Meanwhile,
nominalists see that a human never has a real experience in a real world; so our perception of the
real world happens through our lenses which come from our inner subjective interpretation. A
nominalist tends to see an object from something behind it which raises several questions such as;
What is behind this? Why it happens, What is it used for? and more other curiosity questions.

Meanwhile, epistemology relates to how we acquire the knowledge of the object and make claims
about it. Similar to ontology, epistemology types can also be classified into realist and nominalist
as this way of thinking follows from ontology. According to a realist perception, knowledge should
be acquired by very careful observation to get empirical evidence about the social world to
distinguish it from myth or illusion to produce knowledge. Meanwhile, a nominalist believes that
even though objective observations have been done, they still cannot make a researcher objective
as their interpretation is subjective and will influence the overall observation.

Neuman (2012) generally classified research paradigm into three forms, namely positivist,
interpretive and critical paradigms. First, a positivist paradigm sees social science research having
similarities with natural science, so to understand the phenomenon the investigator should be
objective and value-free to accurately measure the phenomenon using a set of statistical tools.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 103
Second, the interpretive paradigm or commonly known as constructionist has a contrary view
which assumes that a social phenomenon is different from a natural science one. A social
phenomenon is dynamic and the interaction between humans is usually based on belief rather than
an objective perspective. Third, the critical paradigm has some characteristics in common with the
interpretive approach which believes that social science research is not entirely free from values.
This approach combines a positivist or materialist perspective to see the reality of the social
constructions.

The research paradigm influences the researcher in selecting the research approach, which is the
strategy used by the researcher to conduct research. Generally, there are three research approaches
have been widely recognised, namely quantitative, qualitative and mixed approaches (Neuman,
2012). A quantitative approach follows the replication principle in natural science and assumes that
social reality is comprised of objective facts, so it can be precisely measured by researcher value-
free to test the causal theories. A positivist paradigm often uses this approach which focuses on
testing the theory based on deductive logical thinking starting from the general to the more specific
to confirm the hypothesis by employing hard data such as numbers. In contrast, qualitative studies
often speak about cases, context and cultural meaning which are dealing with soft data such as
words, sentences, photographs, and symbols. An interpretive paradigm often follows a qualitative
approach that uses inductive logical thinking that is more appropriate in the context of theory
building which begins with special observations and results in general conclusions in the end of the
research (De Vaus, 2001). Meanwhile, mixed methods or triangulation is a combination of both
approaches to complement and reduce the limitations of using a single approach (Walter, 2010) and
it is usually adopted by the critical paradigm.

With regard to this research, a positivistic paradigm was adopted that utilised a quantitative
approach that rests on deductive, logical thinking. The reason was a positivist paradigm with a
quantitative approach to investigate this particular topic is still limited. Using a mixed method that
involves both quantitative and qualitative approaches was also possible to complement each other
to improve the research strength. However, besides its advantages, a mixed method also adds
complexity and is more time consuming (Neuman et al., 2012). Therefore, it was decided to only
adopt a quantitative approach to this research.

4.4. Determination of Research Design Principle

To operationalise the research paradigm and approach selected above, a research design needs to be
formulated. In simple terms, a research design is a plan for collecting evidence that can be used to
answer the question (Vogt, 2007). This is an activity that comprehensively includes all aspects of
research such as the topic, the research aims and questions, and how to collect data (Walter, 2010).

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 104
Research design needs to be formed before making a work plan for collecting data through the
research method (De Vaus, 2001). The research method is part of a research design that includes
the data collection, analysis, and interpretation used in the research (Creswell, 2014). The research
design in this section is explained with regard to the research purpose, the main analysis techniques
selected, measurement, unit of analysis, type of data collected, and the method of data collection.

4.4.1. Research Purpose

All research has a specific purpose and it depends on the type of research question (Neuman,
2012). Yin (2014) stated that research questions consist of “what”, “who”, “where”, “why”, and
“how” types. The questions of “how many” or “how much” can actually be classified into the
“what” category. In a simpler classification, all these types of research questions can simply be
divided into two types, namely "What is going on?" and "Why is it going on?".

Neuman (2012) classified the research purposes into three types, namely exploratory, descriptive or
explanatory research. First, exploratory research is the type of research when the researcher is still
studying a new area to accurately formulate questions that will be answered in future studies.
Usually, this type of research is used when the research issues are still relatively new and there is
still little written about it. Second, descriptive research is when the primary objective is to describe
a picture using words and the ideas about social phenomenon idea about it has been well-
developed. The purpose of descriptive research is to describe the social phenomenon (Walter,
2010). It is often conducted as an initial study in order to stimulate the emergence of "why"
research questions for using explanatory research which is explained below. The research questions
such as “who”, “what”, “where”, “how many”, and “how much” are usually addressed using
descriptive research.

Third, explanatory research is a type of research where the objective is to explain reasons why
something occurs and look deeper for causes and reasons. The research questions of “how” and
“why” types are usually addressed using explanatory research. However, in practice, sometimes the
boundary between explanatory and descriptive research is blurred or not quite clear (Neuman,
2012). With regard to this study, the purpose of this research was more related to descriptive
research to answer a “What” type of research question by testing the theory. To achieve that
purpose, research hypotheses were developed to test the theory.

4.4.2. Selection of Analysis Method

As this research has determined to use a quantitative research approach, statistical techniques were
selected as the analysis method. Statistical analysis is a tool that is usually employed to solve
problems using quantitative information (Vogt, 2007) and it is one quantitative technique that is

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 105
widely used to study the real world by developing a model that best describes the phenomenon.
This is conducted by sets of procedures to collect, analyse, interpret, and present the data.
Therefore, statistical analysis was used in this research as it is perceived as the most appropriate
tool to generalise the findings from the survey‟s population. It is considered as the convincing way
to see the real world to answer the research question in this case.

Generally, there are two types of statistical technique, namely statistical parametric and non-
parametric. Statistical parametric techniques rely on the parametric assumption of normally
distributed data while statistical non-parametric techniques do not use that assumption or can be
categorised as an assumption-free test (Field, 2005). This research applied statistical parametric
techniques because after examination of the distribution, data can satisfy the requirement of a
normal distribution.

Two statistical parametric techniques are available to investigate relationships between research
constructs which can generally be classified into univariate and multivariate techniques.
Multivariate analysis is statistical parametric that was used to investigate relationships between
research constructs as the latent variable. Multivariate analysis refers to statistical techniques which
are used to simultaneously analyse relationships between two or more latent variables (Hair et al.,
2010). The reason for multivariate analysis because univariate analysis to investigate relationships
such as correlation, covariance and regression analysis cannot be used in this context as they can
only measure the relationship between a construct or latent variable. As noted earlier construct is a
variable which cannot be measured directly. Therefore, multivariate analysis was considered to be
the most appropriate technique to be used.

However, numerous types of multivariate analysis are available and the selection of suitable
analysis depends on the number of dependent and independent variables. As such it can generally
be classified into two major types, namely Dependent and Interdependent techniques. Dependent
techniques refer to technique to investigate the relationship between dependent variables that can
be predicted or explained by other variables which are known as independent variables (Hair et al.,
2010). It consists several techniques such as Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), Canonical
Correlation, Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA), Canonical Correlation Analysis with
Dummy, Multiple Regression, Conjoint Analysis, Multiple Discriminant Analysis and Linear
Probability Models. Meanwhile, Interdependent Technique is when there is no variable can be
identified as an independent or dependent variable (Hair et al., 2010). This involves Exploratory
Factor Analysis (EFA), Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), Cluster Analysis, Multidimensional
Scaling, and Correspondence analysis.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 106
The research finally selected both Dependent and Interdependent Techniques to achieve the
research goals. Dependent Technique using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was preferred to
investigate the multiple relationships between independent and dependent variables simultaneously.
The other Dependent techniques only able to investigate several dependent variables in a single
relationship and even only investigate one dependent variable in a single relationship. Regarding
the Interdependent Techniques, two analyses - EFA and CFA - were selected as inception analysis
to better prepare the model prior to the SEM application.

Indeed, SEM is a type of multivariate analysis which investigates multiple relationships

(interdependence) between several dependent and independent variables and provides a most
efficient estimation technique for a series of separate multiple regressions simultaneously (Hair et
al., 2010). SEM is an extension of path analysis, but it is for a more elaborate set of methods
(Vogt, 2007). Several previous type of research in the construction project management field have
employed SEM to analyse the relationships between dependent and independent variables. For
example, Jin et al., (2007) investigated the relationships between relational risk, relationship
building tools, “Hard” and “Soft” measures of success performance in building project
performance in China. Ng et al. (2010) examined the relationship between several evaluation
factors that are important in the project feasibility stage such as technical, financial, economic,
social, political, legal and others factor related to the project success in PPP projects in Hong Kong.

Doloi et al. (2011) applied SEM to investigating the relationships between factors of contractors‟
performance in project success within an Australian context. Relationships between several
contractor performances such as Soundness of Business and Workplace (SBW), Planning and
Control (PC), Quality Performance (QP) and Past Performance (PP) were examined and connected
to the Overall Project Success (OPS). More recently, Zhang and Ng (2013) conducted a study to
find out the factors affecting individual‟s knowledge sharing behaviour in Hong Kong using SEM
technique. From this explanation, it can be inferred that SEM is a research technique that has been
applied and is acceptable in the construction management area.

4.4.3. Research Conceptualisation and Operationalisation

Having determined the main research analysis, the next step is to perform measurement which is
related to obtain data for the analysis. Measurement is an activity to obtain the data and it is
conducted for both quantitative and qualitative research. In quantitative research, measurement is
conducted using numbers and the measurement steps should be carefully planned before the data
collection to obtain accurate data. Meanwhile, in qualitative research, measurement is conducted
with alternatives to numbers and the measurement step develops in conjunction with the data
collection process. The process is considered as inductive in which the measurement is conducted

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 107
simultaneously with the process of gathering data. However, different to natural science that deals
with material or dead objects, measurement in social research is dealing with people or humans
who think and react differently to the questions given them. Therefore, measurement in social
research is more difficult and complex and needs to be executed in such a way so can accurately
capture the social phenomenon.

According to Neuman (2012), measurement can be conducted in two major steps, namely
conceptualisation and operationalisation which are the bridges that connect the theoretical level
with the empirical level or real phenomena. Conceptualisation is defined as the process to bring the
abstract concepts from theoretical level into more concrete ideas called conceptual definition by
articulating them through specific words with a clear and unambiguous definition. On the other
hand, operationalisation is articulated as a process to transfer the conceptual definitions to a
procedure for data collection using several indicators or attributes.

Operationalisation is usually conducted through determining a technique for the data collection as
well as the instrument used to collect the data such as a survey. This is also related to developing a
set of attributes to measure the construct using interviews or questionnaires as well as how to
distribute them to the respondents. As such, a researcher lives in both theoretical and empirical
levels (Neuman, 2012). In the theoretical level, a researcher uses several theories to arrange the
relationship between constructs and subsequently represents them into a set of hypotheses in a
quantitative approach. Meanwhile, on the empirical level, the researcher should be dealing with
indicators or attributes for measurement activities. In this thesis, the terms attribute, indicator and
criterion are used interchangeably and they refer to having a similar meaning.

In this research, the conceptualisation and operationalisation have been conducted by defining the
research constructs as well transforming them onto an empirical level that can be measured
accurately through data collection. These two processes have been presented in Chapter 3 on the
Theoretical Framework and Conceptual Model Development.

4.4.4. Unit of Analysis

The unit of analysis states the level on which the data is measured. This is important in determining
what can be learned from the data (Mooi and Sarstedt, 2014). It is important to get to the lowest
level for the possible unit of analysis because the data at the lowest level can be used to get to
higher levels by aggregating the data. This research used the individual stakeholder as the unit of
analysis by measuring their perceptions regarding the research attributes.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 108
4.4.5. Data Required
As has been mentioned above, this research adopted SEM as the main tool for the data analysis.
Regarding the samples size using SEM analysis, there is no consensus on the amount considered
reasonable (Ng et al., 2010). However, Kline (2005) provided guidance by categorizing three
classifications of the sample, that is, less than 100 is small, 100-200 is medium, and more than 200
is large. Nevertheless, Hair et al., (2010) argued that too large a sample size (>400 samples) makes
the model becomes more sensitive and causes difficulty in achieving model fit. Therefore, they
suggested a number of between 100-400 samples is recommended with a not too complex model,
not too much missing data, and samples have a fairly good communality.

However, according to previous researchers who employed a SEM approach in the construction
project area, the samples around 100-200 are considered acceptable for use in the modeling (Jin et
al., 2007; Ng et al., 2010; Doloi et al., 2011). For example, Jin et al. (2007) had 116 respondents
comprising 34 project clients, 46 consultants, and 36 main contractors. Ng et al. (2010) conducted
an investigation that involved 181 respondents that consisted of three sector categories: 48
government staff, 80 private employees, and 53 general public.

Doloi et al.‟s (2011) study involved 97 respondents that were 37 project managers, 31 contract
administrators, 14 head contractors and 15 consultants or designers. Recently, Zhang and Ng
(2013) conducted a study that included 238 samples that comprised 60 project managers, 17 site
agents, 67 Engineers, 28 Quantity Surveyors, 4 Safety managers and 51 other positions within the
construction industry. According to the above explanation samples between 100-200 are actually
sufficient for the analysis. However, to provide better analysis result, this research tried to obtain as
close as 400 samples as possible the maximal range suggested by Hair et al. (2010).

4.4.6. Type of Data Collected

There are four data types available for this research, namely nominal, ordinal, interval and ratio
(Vogt, 2007). Nominal data is the data type that classifies categories into several variables such as
gender, race and religion. For example, a male is represented as 1 while a female is represented as
2. Ordinal data is the type of measurement that is represented using rank order such as the level of
strength. For example, 1 represents strong, 2 is stronger than 1, and 3 is stronger than 2 and so on.

Meanwhile, Interval data is a type of which has a characteristic of nominal and ordinal data plus on
equal distance between numbers. For example, it is used for measuring temperature where the
distance between 100C and 200C is equal to the distance between 300C and 400C. Finally, Ratio
data is the type of data that has all the previous measurement characteristics plus an absolute zero
point. In this type of data, division and multiplication can be performed in addition to addition and

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 109
subtraction. For example, 100 cm is twice a length of 50cm. This research data can be categorised
into ordinal type because it is obtained through people‟s beliefs and opinions, that is stakeholders in
PPP toll road projects.

In relation to that, three measurement types for this ordinal data is available, namely Likert Scales,
Semantic Differential, and Rank Order Scales (Mooi and Sarstedt, 2014). Likert Scale is the scale
which used to express the respondents‟ agreement and disagreement with the specific statement
using words such as “agree” to “disagree”. A Semantic Differential Scale is uses opposing pairs of
words such as high/low or strong/weak. Meanwhile, a Rank Order scale is utilised when a
respondent is asked to provide an answer in terms of their rank such as highest rank or the second
highest rank. Finally, Likert Scale was selected as the tool to obtain ordinal data based on the
stakeholder responses through their degree of agreement or disagreement.

Meanwhile, with regard to the types of scale provided, researchers tend to use balance scales with
either 5 or 7 point scales (Mooi and Sarstedt, 2014). As such, a 5 scale type was selected because it
is considered simpler for the respondents (1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neutral, 4=Agree,
and 5=Strongly Agree). Providing too many scale options can confuse respondent and make the
time to complete the survey longer (Mooi and Sartstedt, 2014). Actually, it is also possible to use a
4 or 6 point scale by deleting the “Neutral” choice to force respondents to be positive or negative.
However, it could bias the answers leading to validity issues. Therefore, provide a “Neutral”
category gives the respondents a more comfortable feel in participating in the survey. The detail of
the questionnaire form is explained in Sub-Section 4.5.6 and 4.5.7.

4.4.7. The Method of Data Collection

This section explains the general concept of the data collection method used in this research.
Meanwhile, the detailed data collections as well as several steps of data collections are explained in
Section 4.5.5 to 4.5.7. Several principles of data collection are explained in the following sections.

4.4.7.1. The Selection of The Survey Method

Regarding the method to collect the data for this research, generally it can be classified into five
types, namely; experiment, survey, archival analysis, history, and case study (Yin, 2014). An
experiment means to modify something in different situations and then compare modified the
outcomes between with the existing to know the phenomenon‟s causality (Neuman, 2012).
Furthermore, Yin (2014) notes that an experiment is usually preferred when the researcher can
manipulate behaviour directly, precisely, and systematically. It is usually performed in a laboratory
in the context of natural science.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 110
Furthermore, Yin (2014) explained that a survey has a different logic as it is conducted naturally
asssuming that the researcher cannot control and manipulate the human behaviour. In a survey,
many variables are asked about with similar questions to respondents to measure and test multiple
hypotheses simultaneously. Meanwhile, archival analysis is preferred when the research goal is to
explain an incidence or prevalence phenomenon. History is a type of method preferred when there
is virtually no access or control and usually when dealing with “the dead” past. Regading case
studies, this method is preferred when contemporary events are examined, but behaviour cannot be
manipulated. It has strength over history as can deal with full variety of evidence such as
documents, artefacts, interview, and observations.

Among the above available methods, survey and archival analysis potentially could have been
applied for this research as these two methods can address “what” type research question.
However, survey was perceived as the best method to be applied because the measurement used in
this research was related to people‟s beliefs, opinions, characteristics and past or present behaviour.
In addition, the SEM technique, as multivariate analysis requires a large amount of data.
Meanwhile, archival analysis was not suitable as the data related to the intangible aspect such as
people‟s perception do not exist in the field.

4.4.7.2. Selection of Purposive Sampling Method

Data collection can be obtained from the field through either census or sample. Census is a
technique to collect data from the entire population while a sample gets data from the population
that best represents their characteristics. However, census is rarely conducted because it is very
expensive and missing small amount of data can have a big influence on the data (Mooi and
Sartsted, 2014). As consequence, the sampling method is often used to collect and to generate the
information about the entire population. Therefore, this research was also utilised sampling method
to acquire the data due to time and budget limitation.

Walter (2010) asserted that sampling techniques can be conducted by either probability or non-
probability sampling. Probability sampling is a sampling technique based on probability theory
which aims to create an accurate representation of the population by giving similar chance to a
population member to be selected as a sample. This is the best sampling technique to collect data
when it is possible to be conducted. It consists of several variance techniques such as simple
random sampling, systematic sampling, and stratified sampling. Conversely, non-probability
sampling does not rely on the probability concept but it is still acceptable to be used whenever
probability sampling is not feasible or not possible to be conducted. These techniques consist of
convenience sampling, purposive sampling, snowball sampling, quota sampling and self-selected
sampling.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 111
From the above range of available sampling techniques, purposive sampling was used as the
sampling method. The reason was because the survey was conducted with only the potential
respondents that were willing to give a response as long as they meet the specified requirement that
is explained in Sub-Section 4.5.7.3 and Sub-Section 4.5.8.3. It was not feasible to conducted
probability sampling for several reasons. First, the overall population was not known since there
was no list of data regarding the people who have been involved in toll road project development in
Indonesia. Second, it was difficult to obtain responses from the targeted respondents based on the
probability concept.

4.4.7.3. The Selection of Cross-Sectional Data Collection

Regarding the point of data collection type, there are two types of survey, namely cross-sectional
approach and longitudinal (Adam and Schvaneveldt, 1991). Cross-sectional is usually conducted to
present a broad picture with analysis of a large group of multiple variables by collecting the data at
one point of time. In contrast, a longitudinal approach is performed over a period of time to
individuals or a small number of units, it focusses on the assessment of change and the
development of some process, such as weight, height or prejudice. This research adopts a cross-
sectional data collection method as it focuses on analysing a large group of respondents‟
perceptions and is not concerned with the investigation of change in object process.

4.5. Step and Procedure of the Research Design

According to the above review, a research design was then specified in this study. The overall
research steps can be depicted in Figure 4.1. The detail explanation of the process is in Section
4.5.1 to Section 4.5.10.

4.5.1. Literature Review

In this research, an extensive literature review was conducted and reported in Chapter 2 and this
section only decribes the method for conducting literature review as part of the research stage. A
literature review is very important in all research being the way to familiarize researchers with the
knowledge within the field being investigated (Walter, 2010). Information about the concept,
debates, what have been studied and possible research gaps can be obtained from the literature. As
such, it should be comprehensive, selective, current and critical (Neuman, 2012). It is important to
identify and examine the previous works that related to the topic and subsequently determine the
research boundary within the research area (Walter, 2010).

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 112
 Start

Topic Selection

Literature Review

Research gap, research question and

research objective

Conceptual Model and Hypothesis

Development

Development of the Data Collection

Instruments (Interview form and
Questionnaire Draft)

First Human Research Ethics

No
Is First Ethics
Approved?

Yes
Preliminary Survey
(Structured Interview)

Analysis of Structured Interview

Revise the Questionnaire Draft

Pilot Test

No Is the Questionnaire
Understable?

Yes
Second Human Research Ethics

Is Second Ethics No
Approved?
Yes
Main Survey

Data Preparation
(Coding, Checking and Cleaning)

No
Is the Data Ready to Analyse?

Yes
Descriptive and Comparative
Analysis

Attribute Classification
(Reliability and Validity)

Relationships Analysis (Measurement

and Structural Model Analysis In SEM)

Thesis Writing

Thesis Publication

End

Figure 4.1 Research Steps and Procedure

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 113
The research boundary was determined in the area of project success for toll road projects and
social sustainability as part of the sustainable development concept. Several academic literature
sources were searched and selected as suggested by Walter (2010), such as peer-reviewed journal
paper and conference papers, monographs and edited books, text books, research reports, media
pieces and internet sites. The selection was conducted using key words such as road project, PPP
project, mega-project, transport project, project success, sustainable development, social
sustainability, participation, design and government‟s role. Literature was reviewed until saturation
occurred where there were no new issues obtained from the literature (Walter, 2010).

4.5.2. Defining Research Objective and Question

Having reviewed the literature, the next step was to define research objective and research
questions. Research objective explains an intention or the major idea of the entire study while
research question narrows down the research objective and become a guidance about something
that will be answered or learned in the study (Creswell, 2014). As such, research objective and
question is very important to direct the research‟s direction (Walter, 2010). The research objective
and question should be clear, specific and informative (Creswell, 2014). Therefore, it should be
drafted carefully to easy to follow and avoid the reader lost from the context. Research objective
and research question for this study are explained in Chapter 1.

4.5.3. Theoretical Framework and Conceptual Model Development

A theoretical framework is a conceptualisation of the theory and lens that is used to solve the
research problem. The theoretical framework provides the meaning of the concepts, links terms to a
specific concept, identifies its dimension and the number of latent variables to be operationalised as
the questionnaire response. Meanwhile, a concept is defined as something which is created by
people who believe that some phenomena have something in common (Bollen, 1989) and
representation of the concept in a measurement variable is called latent variable. The detail of the
process of developing the theoretical framework and conceptual model was presented in Chapter 3.

4.5.4. Development of Instruments for Data Collection

Having developed the conceptual model and hypotheses, the next step was to prepare an instrument
for the data collection. The data collection would actually be conducted through the questionnaire
distribution in the main survey. However, prior the main survey, two initial steps were necessary to
be conducted to develop the questionnaire, namely a preliminary survey through structured
interviews and a pilot test. The detail explanations of the preliminary survey, pilot test, and main
survey are explained in Sections 4.5.6 to 4.5.8.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 114
4.5.5. Human Research Ethics Process
The instruments of the data collection that were developed for the preliminary survey and the main
survey must be approved through the University‟s Human Research Ethics process. This is a
requirement that must be met in any social science research conducted at the University of
Melbourne. In this study, the process was done before researcher began the fieldwork activity.

The process of human research ethics approval was conducted in two steps as there were two
different instruments. First was the preliminary survey or interview form and second was the main
survey‟s questionnaire form. The interview form was utilised once the ethics approval was initially
obtained. The questionnaire form for the main survey was finalised based on the interview results.
However, prior to the main survey, the questionnaire form was tested using a pilot test to determine
whether the content was well understood and accurately measuring the construct. The final
questionnaire form was developed after several amendments during the pilot test. It was then
resubmitted to the Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) for the ethics amendment and
received approval from the research ethics committee prior to the main survey.

4.5.6. Preliminary Survey through Expert Interview

The preliminary survey is explained related to its objective, instrument used, respondents, and
interview results.

4.5.6.1. Objective
The objective of the preliminary survey with experts was to verify the research attributes that were
identified from the literature. The reason was that prior to this research, there had been no research
utilising these research attributes in the Indonesian context. A preliminary survey was also the
method adopted by Ng et al. (2010) to verify the suitability of research variables with the local
condition and also to know the current practice in the field. As such, it is necessary to ensure that
the attributes were suitable to measure the constructs.

4.5.6.2. Instrument Used

Several methods were identified to investigate the research attributes‟ relevance with two
techniques, in particular being the Interview and Focused Group Discussion (FGD). An interview
is an interaction between the researcher and one or more persons for a specific purpose (Kumar,
1997). Meanwhile, FGD is an interview technique involving several groups of people on some
particular topic (Bryman, 2001) and is essentially an unstructured interview conducted collectively
with the group of respondents.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 115
In addition, in an FGD, researchers usually collect six to twelve people with a relatively
homogeneous background in a room that is guided by a moderator to discuss the issues (Neuman,
2012). The time needed is about 90 minutes and requires a moderator to naturally facilitate
discussion and does not direct or dominate the process. An FGD is required to be performed
several times until data is saturated and there is no longer a new topic discussion appearing in the
last FGD. The advantage of an FGD is that respondents can naturally express their opinions freely
so that researchers can determine how they discuss a topic.

However, FGD has a limitation because only a few topics can be discussed in a forum rather than
in individual interviews. In addition, FGD was considered difficult to be used in this context due to
time and budget limitations for inviting the experts for several meetings until the discussion was
saturated. Finally, the interview was selected as the method to verify the research attributes because
it gives flexibility for the researcher to explore issues around current toll road developments with
the experts. In addition, interviews usually have high response rate compared to the other
techniques (Neuman, 2012).

Kumar (1997) stated that there are two types of interview, namely unstructured and structured
interviews. Unstructured interviews are also known as in-depth interviews in which only request
the researcher or interviewer making a basic framework which is known as an interview guide. In
this interview model, researchers have freedom when doing the interview because there is no list of
specific questions that will be given to the respondent and, depending on the development of sub-
topics of discussion and what it wants to be, can be explored by the researchers. Meanwhile, a
structured interview is an interview when the interviewer asks all respondents some questions using
the same word (language) in the same sequence as the interview schedule. An interview schedule is
a written instrument which is prepared by the interviewer with either open-ended or closed-ended
question. The interview method can be conducted either by telephone or face-to-face interviews.

According to the above, the structured interview method was finally chosen. This technique guided
the researcher to explore the variables in detail considering a large number of variables used in this
study which comprised different themes. The instrument used for this structured interviews was
interview form that contained several lists of variables relevant to toll road projects that were
identified from the literature. During the interview session, the experts were asked to give a
Semantic Scale from 1-5 regarding the variable‟s relevance for the four constructs. The interview
form that was translated into Indonesian in order to be better understood by the respondent. In more
detail, the interview form used in this study can be seen in Appendix A. At the end, the interview
results were combined to get a ranking of the relevant variables.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 116
4.5.6.3. Respondents
The respondents in this preliminary survey (of interviews) were experts in the field of toll road
projects in Indonesia. The selection of the respondents based on the category of people who have
comprehensive knowledge and enough experience to be involved in toll road projects development.
For this purpose, the experts selected had at least five years experience in the field and were
representatives from all sectors of government, private and public.

The interview was conducted in two parts, where in the first part, the experts were asked to rate the
variables level of relevance of by choosing the previous Semantic Scale provided. The experts were
also requested to provide additional or new variables which were relevant in their opinion to
measure every construct. Based on the first part, two additional variables were obtained, namely:
Smooth traffic condition along the toll road and its connection road and Provide adequate toll road
service. These additional attributes were also confirmed back with all experts who had provided the
responses.

Based on the overall experts‟ response to all the variables, the analysis was conducted to determine
the average and ranking of the attributes. During this interview survey period, the researcher also
identified the potential respondents‟ contact information that could be followed up during the main
survey. A snowball method was also used to identify the contact details of potential respondents
that can be contacted for the main survey.

4.5.6.4. Preliminary Survey Results

Finally, twelve experts provided complete responses to be used in the analysis. The
numbers of experts (involved in this preliminary interview were considered enough for the
purpose of the initial variable determination. For example, Ng et al. (2010) and Doloi et al.
(2011) used four experts for their interview surveys. The preliminary survey results can be
explained with regard to the profile and the response of the experts.

 Profile of The Experts

The experts‟ profile is presented in Table 4.1. According to their sector, the experts consisted of
four experts from the government sector, five from the private sector and three academic positions
(university lecturer) who had a transportation background which was expected to represent the
community perspective. In terms of the education level, most of the experts had masters education.
All the experts had experience above than five years. Finally, majority experts had been involved
with at least three to four toll road projects.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 117
 Table 4.1. Experts‟ Profile from the Interview

Frequency
Group category Group type Percent % Cumulative
(experts)
Sector Academia (Community) 3 25.00 25.00
Government 4 33.33 58.33
Private 5 41.67 100.00
Education level Doctorate 0 0.00 0.00
Masters 11 91.67 91.67
Bachelor 1 8.33 100.00
Experience < 5 years 0 0.00 0.00
5-10 years 1 8.33 8.33
11-15 years 1 8.33 16.67
16-20 years 2 16.67 33.33
> 20 years 8 66.67 100.00
Numbers of toll road 1-2 projects 4 33.33 33.33
projects involvement 3-4 projects 3 25.00 58.33
5-6 projects 2 16.67 75.00
7-8 projects 0 0.00 75.00
9-10 projects 1 8.33 83.33
>10 projects 2 16.67 100.00

 The Experts‟ Response

The mean of the attributes relevancy and their Standard Deviation (SD) is presented in Table 4.2 to
4.5. The ranking is determined according to the attributes‟ mean. The higher the attributes‟ means
showed the more relevance the attributes to measure a construct. Three score (3.00) as the middle
score was used as the cut-off to determine the relevance of the attribute. This means the attribute‟s
mean should be higher than 3.00. to be considered relevant to measure the construct. Finally, total
50 attributes were considered relevant and then were used to develop a questionnaire for the main
survey. Meanwhile, three lowest attributes in the PSB constructs (in bold italics) were dropped due
to their means were lower than the cut-off.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 118
 Table 4.2. Experts‟ Response from the Project Social Benefit Attributes

No. Project Social Benefit Attributes Average SD

1 Provide safe public facility. 4.92 0.599

2 Reduce travel time. 4.83 0.577
3 Provide an economic benefit to the local citizen. 4.58 1.182
4 Convenient public facility. 4.58 0.515
5 Affordable tariff. 4.33 0.492
6 Smooth traffic condition along the road. 4.33 1.115
7 Regulation compliance of the traffic condition. 4.25 0.754
8 Availability of toll road service (safety car, etc.). 4.25 0.630
9 Secure (lack of crime) public facility. 4.08 1.068
10 Less polluted. 4.00 0.862
11 Increase community support (less opposition). 3.83 0.641
12 Maintain community social cohesiveness. 3.75 0.866
13 Adequate open space. 3.58 1.032
14 Equal access opportunity. 3.25 1.013
15 Community involvement in decision-making. 3.17 0.855
16 Provide pride and sense of belonging of the place. 2.92 1.240
17 Provide facility for education and training. 2.92 1.115
18 Preserve cultural and natural heritage. 2.25 1.215

Table 4.3. Experts‟ Response from the Project Design Attributes

No. Project Design Attributes Mean SD

1 Minimize hazards and the adverse consequences of an accident. 4.75 0.650

2 Able to be used with minimum fatigue. 4.50 0.522

3 Provide appropriate space for vehicle user. 4.42 0.961
4 Accommodates the community needs. 4.42 0.669
5 The design involves the stakeholders. 4.33 0.899
6 Environmentally friendly 4.25 0.754
7 Communicates necessary information to the user. 4.17 0.555
8 Aesthetics (pleasant). 3.92 0.494

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 119
 Table 4.4. Experts‟ Response from the Community Participation Attributes

No. Community Participation Attributes Mean SD

1 Appropriate leaderships (facilitator/moderator). 4.83 0.389

2 Transparent process. 4.83 0.389

3 The outcome is implementable. 4.58 0.669

4 The outcome is accepted by wider stakeholders (legitimate decision). 4.58 0.519

5 Provide sufficient information for stakeholders. 4.50 0.519

6 The outcome is distributed equally to all stakeholders. 4.50 0.522

7 Involving all stakeholders' representatives. 4.42 0.669

8 The outcome is comprehensive (considering all aspects). 4.42 0.669

9 Interactive process (constructive dialogue among stakeholders). 4.17 0.718

10 Sufficient time allocated for the stakeholder. 4.08 1.000

11 Continuous process. 4.00 0.707

12 Building a learning process (capacity building). 3.92 0.900

13 Building partnerships and level of understanding between stakeholders. 3.92 0.900

14 All stakeholders respect to the process. 3.92 1.038

15 Establishing rule of conduct. 3.58 0.751

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 120
 Table 4.5. Experts‟ Response from the Government‟s Attributes

No. Government’s Role Attributes Mean SD

1 Solving the problem of land acquisition. 4.83 0.389

2 Conducting open /transparent tender procurement. 4.75 0.452
3 Solving social problems (such as protest from the communities regarding 4.58 0.515
environmental impact).
4 Provide flexibility in tariff adjustment mechanism. 4.58 0.669
5 Controlling private performance to ensure good service. 4.58 0.515
6 Simplify bureaucratic procedures. 4.33 0.888
7 Law enforcement 4.25 0.622
8 Select a financially feasible project that attracts the private sector. 4.17 0.835
9 Intensively communicate to stakeholders to minimize dispute. 4.17 0.718
10 Realize stable and conducive economic environment. 3.92 0.669
11 Corruption eradication. 3.92 1.240
12 Realize stable and conducive political environment. 3.83 0.555

4.5.7. Pilot Test

The pilot test is explained with regard to its objective, the instrument used, respondents and pilot
test results.

4.5.7.1. Objective
After several relevant variables were obtained from interviews, the next step was to perform the
assessment of the variables through the questionnaire distribution in the main survey. However, to
ensure that the questionnaire was fully understood by the respondents and there is no problem with
the questions asked, a pilot test was conducted before the main survey. Ng et al. (2010) asserted
that a pilot survey is aimed at understanding the current state and verifies the suitability factor.
Therefore, conducting the main survey without a pilot test is not recommended. The pilot test was
conducted using the questionnaire‟s draft which was revised according to the preliminary survey
results.

4.5.7.2. Instrument Used

The pilot test was performed using a closed-ended model using Likert‟s Scale which is common to
be used to measure respondents‟ attitude and intensity toward an issue. As noted earlier, Likert
Scale is scale type which the category is named and the respondent indicates their agreement or

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 121
disagreement using specific statement (Kumar, 1997). In this research, the data collection was
conducted based on an ordinal scale using Likert Scale. Five scale measurement was adopted for
this pilot test, namely 1 (Strongly Disagree), 2 (Disagree), 3 (Neutral), 4 (Agree) and 5 (Strongly
Agree).

The questionnaire draft consists of three sections, namely Section 1 Introduction, Section 2
Research indicator assessment, and Section 3 Respondents, background information. Section 2
comprised four sub sections, namely Sub-Section A related to the PSB or community social
satisfaction, Sub-section B regarding CP, Sub-section C related to toll road design (PD) and Sub-
Section D regarding GR.

4.5.7.3. Respondents
The three stakeholder types (government, private and community sectors) was involved as the
respondent in the pilot test. These respondents were required to have similar qualifications to the
respondents in the main survey in which they have to understand the toll road‟s current condition or
performance as well as they having information regarding the community participation process
during the toll road‟s project development.

4.5.7.4. Pilot Test Results

A pilot test was conducted 11 times until it was decided that the questionnaire can be understood
by the respondents. After every use of the pilot test, the questionnaire draft was carefully evaluated
and improved according to the pilot test respondents‟ feedbacks for the next use. Finally, after the
pilot test had been conducted with 11 respondents, it was decided that the questionnaire was
deemed ready to be distributed to all potential respondents in the main survey.

4.5.8. Main Survey

The main survey is explained with regard to its objective, instrument used, respondents, sample
size, the object under study, the period of the survey and the main survey results.

4.5.8.1. Objective
The main survey was aimed at obtaining the stakeholders‟ perception regarding toll road projects
development performance based on the four constructs. The main survey is the core of this research
as from this survey, all data analyses are conducted to answer the research questions as well as to
test the research hypotheses.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 122
4.5.8.2. Instrument Used
The main survey was conducted using the final questionnaire that has been developed from the
pilot test results. The main survey was conducted using a questionnaire survey and it was preferred
than interviews due to the wide geographical distribution of the study‟s population (Kumar, 1997).
Like the interview form noted above, the questionnaire was also translated into Indonesian in order
to be understood by the respondents. A Plain Language Statement (PLS) was also included in the
questionnaire. The detail of the questionnaire that was used for the data collection can be seen in
Appendix B. Basically, questionnaire‟s format for the three stakeholders are similar except in
Section I regarding the Introduction. This section was aimed to be a screening part for the relevant
respondent. From the introduction part, it can be decided whether the potential respondents met the
criteria or not so if they did not meet the criteria it was not necessary for them to proceed to the
next section.

The main questionnaire was designed as positive statements stating the respondents‟ agreement
with good performance of the toll road. An example of a questionnaire statement is "Toll road
condition including its connecting roads is convenient”. Accordingly, if the respondents are
satisfied, the score should be at least 4.00 (Agree). Therefore, according to the results, it can be
concluded that the overall indicators‟ performance is still below the satisfactory level.

4.5.8.3. Respondents
The survey population is the stakeholder in toll road project which was classified into three
categories, namely government, private sectors, and community. However, there was a requirement
for the stakeholder to be selected as the respondent in this study. The targeted respondents were
only the stakeholders who have been involved or participated in the project environment over the
toll road project life cycle. Specifically, the respondents selected were required to meet two
categories of requirement. First, they must know about or have been involved in the community
participation process. In this research, the community participation is defined as the participation
process in one of the project phases from project initiation until project implementation and
demolition. Second, they must know about the toll roads‟ condition during the operation stage and
have experience as the toll road users. It is expected that the respondents involved in this study are
those who do have a complete or comprehensive understanding of how the project was built and
how it is performing during the operation stage.

In general, the stakeholders can be classified into three sectors that are the public or government,
the private and the community. Public sector consists of government‟s staff in the national to
village levels. Meanwhile, the private sector consists of the staff of the toll road operators, project
consultants, contractors, and subcontractors. Finally, the community sectors are the people who

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 123
have been resided near toll roads and feel their impact, as well as the toll road users and, have been
involved in the participation process. The questionnaire was delivered through three administration
methods, namely hand delivery, postal, and email delivery. Hand delivery was conducted to all
respondents in community sector due to there being no available information regarding the
community respondents‟ addresses. Meanwhile, all three methods were used for government and
private sector respondents.

4.5.8.4. Objects Under Study

As noted earlier, in this research, the term of the toll road is defined as road and its facilities which
require the user to pay a toll (tariff) for a specific route to cover construction and maintenance
facilities (Handayani, 2008). It refers only tolled motorways and does not include tolled bridges.
This research is focused to toll road projects that were developed after 1998 and they are in the
operational stage at time of the survey. The reason behind the selection is that in this research,
community participation was included as one of the research constructs in the conceptual model.
The reformation era that started in 1998 changed Indonesian from an authoritarian to a democratic
political system. In order to get evidence of the community participation process, there was a
chance to select from only small number of toll road project developments.

Based on the website of Indonesia Toll Road Authority or known as Badan Pengelola Jalan Tol
(BPJT), there are 18 toll road projects developed after 1998. However, after reviewing all the toll
road project characteristics, only eight projects had relatively similar characteristics that can be
studied and compared. All eight toll roads under study are located in Java Island which is the
location of most of the toll roads in Indonesia. Two toll roads categorized as Sea Bridge Toll Roads
(Bali Mandara and Suramadu Toll roads) were excluded from the study due to differences in
characteristics in terms of social impact to the community compared to ground-based toll road
projects above the ground based.

Another five toll roads were also excluded for having lengths less than 5 kilometres which were
considered as unfinished projects as they were actually a part of a full toll road path and usually
were not been fully operational. The project impacts and performances to the community may be
different to the projects that were fully operational. Meanwhile, the other two toll roads, are located
in Makassar in Sulawesi Island, were also not included in the study as they were considered having
different community characteristics to the other selected projects.

There were eight selected toll road projects involved in this research, namely Waru-Juanda,
Semarang-Ungaran, Kanci-Pejagan, Jakarta Outer Ring Road (JORR) W1, Ulujami-Serpong,
JORR E1, JORR E2 and Cipularang. The eight toll roads under study are all located in Java Island.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 124
General information of eight PPP toll road projects under with their code according to the above
figure study can be seen in Table 4.6. As seen from the table, the toll roads having minimum 8.10
Km‟s length (JORR E1) and maximum 58.50 (Cipularang). The projects were operated between
1999 to 2010. Five projects are located in Jakarta and its surrounding area or called as Jabodetabek
and West Java (Cipularang, JORR E1, JORR E2, JORR W1 and Ulujami-Serpong). Jakarta is the
capital and biggest city in Indonesia. Until now Jakarta and its surrounding area ( Jabodetabek) has
the largest toll road network. Meanwhile, two projects are located in Central Java (Kanci-Pejagan
and Semarang-Ungaran) and one project in East Java (Waru-Juanda).

Table 4.6. Toll Road Projects under Study

No. Code Toll Roads Name Length (km) Operation Year Location
1. A Cipularang 58.50 2005 Jakarta-West Java
2. B JORR E1 8.10 2005 Jabodetabek
3. C JORR E2 9.07 2001 Jabodetabek
4. D JORR W1 9.85 2010 Jabodetabek
5. E Kanci-Pejagan 35.00 2010 Cirebon, Central Java
6. F Semarang-Ungaran 11.00 2011 Semarang, Central Java
7. G Ulujami-Serpong 12.80 1999 Jabodetabek
8. H Waru-Juanda 12.80 2008 Surabaya, East Java
Source: BPJT (2016)

Even though all the selected toll roads are located in Java Island, it is considered represents the
Indonesian context, as mostly all the toll roads are located on the island of Java which has the
densest population in Indonesia compared to other areas (BPS, 2010). Therefore, eight toll roads
are deemed suitable to represent other toll road projects in Indonesia in terms of the toll roads‟
number and its complexity.

4.5.8.5. Period of Survey

Data collection was conducted from April to June 2014 for eight toll road projects under study.

4.5.8.6. Main Survey Results

Finally, 375 valid responses were obtained from the main survey and therefore it can be considered
sufficient for the statistical analysis using SEM. IBM Statistical Package for Social Science (IBM
SPSS) version 22 and Analysis of a Moment Structure (AMOS) Version 22 were used to perform
the analysis. This sub-section only explains the general method of the main survey analysis that
was used in this research. The details of the analyses and the results are directly presented for every
analysis in Chapters 5, 6 and 7. The reason is because several statistical analysis used in this

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 125
research required several assumptions and procedures that needed to be followed. Therefore, to
make it clear and easy to understand, the detail of the particular analysis and the procedure‟s reason
and justification are presented in the results chapters. Generally, data analyses were performed
using series of statistical parametric techniques, namely preliminary analysis, measurement scale
assessment and classification, and relationships analysis.

 Preliminary Analysis
Once the overall data was obtained from the main survey, the data was checked and prepared to be
used for analysing through the preliminary analysis. The objective was to ensure that the data used
in the analysis met the requirement. The preliminary analysis consists of data preparation,
descriptive analysis, and comparative analysis. The data preparation was aimed at obtaining
information about the data characteristics and to check whether they have met basic assumptions
for conducting multivariate analyses. Descriptive analysis was aimed at obtaining the data
characteristics as well as the stakeholders‟ perceptions on the research attributes. In addition, the
comparative analysis objective was to compare the perceptions of stakeholders.

 Measurement Scale Assessment and Research Attributes Classification

Following descriptive analysis, the measurement scale assessments were performed by checking
the reliability and validity to measure errors present from the scales used in the questionnaire (Hair
et al., 2010). Reliability is aimed at measuring consistency and it is usually assessed by using
Cronbach's Alpha parameter (Vogt, 2007). Meanwhile, validity is the degree of measurement
accuracy in the research (Hair et al., 2010). In this research, besides ensuring the reliability and
validity of the constructs, this measurement scale assessment was performed by classifying the
research attributes according to their characteristics to easily understand their meaning. As such,
the validity test was performed using Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA). The EFA is also known
as analysis that is usually conducted prior to the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) as part of the
Structural Equation Modelling (SEM).

 Relationships Analysis
Once the model has met both reliability and validity criteria using EFA, the model was analysed
using SEM which relates the independent to the dependent variables (Hair et al., 2010). The
analysis was performed by assessing the measurement model by using CFA test which was then
followed by examining the structural model using SEM.

4.5.9. Thesis Writing

The overall research activities and process were documented in the writing stage. For this PhD
study purpose, the numbers of words required are between 80,000 to 100,000.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 126
4.5.10. Research Publication
Several publications were also written during this research journey in conference and journal
papers. Three international conferences and one journal paper resulted from this research and were
published within area of project management. Additional journal papers are also currently being
prepared for publication.

4.6. Chapter Summary

This chapter provides the research methodology used in this research. According to the research
question and research objectives, this study adopted a positivist paradigm that employed
quantitative analysis as currently there is still limited research conducted pertaining to this topic.
Several principles of research design, as well as the specific steps in the research design, were also
presented to provide a clear explanation of how the research was conducted.

The purpose of the research can be classified as descriptive research to answer a “what” type of
research question to test the theory. Research measurement selected as part of the quantitative
approach was also determined by conceptualising and operationalising the theory. Regarding the
main analysis technique, this study employed statistical parametric analysis through Structural
Equation Modelling (SEM). Prior to SEM analysis, EFA and CFA were also required as a part of
the modeling process. The detail explanation and steps to conduct these techniques are explained in
Chapter 5, 6 and 7.

Ordinal data type was selected to be used to get the stakeholders‟ perception with regard to the
research attributes. Meanwhile, for the data collection method, this research adopted a survey
through a purposive sampling method which was conducted in eight toll road projects selected by
considering the available data in the field. In addition, cross–sectional method data was also
selected because this research focused on analysing a large group of respondents‟ perceptions
rather than changes in the object condition or process over time.

Finally, the detailed steps of the research design were also specified which started from the
literature review, defining research objective and questions, the theoretical framework and
conceptual development, development of instruments for data collection, the human research ethics
process, a preliminary survey, a pilot test, and the main survey. The interview results analysis, as
well as the pilot test, were presented as part of the research methodology chapter because they
were used to develop the questionnaire for the main survey. The data analysis techniques for the
main survey were explained in general to provide an overview of how the data was analysed.
Meanwhile, the details of the data analyses results are explained directly in Chapters 5, 6, and 7.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 127
 CHAPTER 5
PRELIMINARY ANALYSES

5.1. Introduction
This chapter describes the preliminary analysis of the data obtained from the survey before the
multivariate analysis was conducted. The objective here was to measure the general perceptions of
the respondents‟ background. The statistical tests performed involved data preparation and
screening, descriptive analysis, comparative analysis and the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) test.
The analyses were conducted using IBM Statistical Package for Social Science (IBM SPSS)
version 22.

After this introduction, Section 5.2 presents the data preparation and screening prior to the analysis.
Section 5.3 explains the descriptive analysis such as the respondents‟ background as well as the
analysis of stakeholders‟ perceptions regarding the research attributes using Mean and Ranking
analysis. Section 5.4 explains the comparative analysis of the existing groups in the sample and
Section 5.5 presents the comparison between perceptions using the ANOVA test. Section 5.6
presents a Posthoc test to clearly investigate the differences in perception between the stakeholders.
Finally, the chapter is closed with a chapter‟s summary.

5.2. Data Preparation and Screening

This step aimed to check or control the data quality to ensure that the data obtained from the survey
was ready to transfer to the computer. Data checking was performed by scrutinizing the
respondents‟ answers to the questionnaire; by checking whether there was an unclear answer or
there were missing responses. Prior to the analysis, the total research samples were cleaned and
filtered to ensure that the data was appropriate for statistical analysis. Data preparation and
screening consisted of several steps such as data coding, missing data analysis, outliers detection
and assessment of normality that are explained next.

5.2.1. Data Coding and Checking

The coding was conducted by entering respondents‟ answers in a computer using an Excel
spreadsheet. This process was conducted by creating a matrix consisting of the variables‟ name in
the columns and respondents‟ name in the rows. The variables consisted of background information
from the respondent and the variables‟ names. A respondent‟s answer was then assigned to an

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 128
Excel spreadsheet using a number from 1 to 5, according to the Likert Scale used in the survey.
Missing data from the respondents‟ answers were left blank in the spreadsheet cell.

Once all the data was entered into the computer, it was also needed to check the data in the
spreadsheet to ensure that there was no invalid or garbage data within the data set. This step was
important so as to avoid obtaining a wrong result from “garbage in, garbage out” as the computer
and its software was the only tool for data analysis. The results are certainly dependent on the
quality of the data that has been entered into the software.

5.2.2. Missing Data Analysis

Missing data is something which is common in research and can happen when a respondent does
not answer one or more questions in the questionnaire. Respondents do not answer because they
may forget to fill in the answer, not have the information to respond to the questions or other
reasons such as the question is of a sensitive nature (Field, 2005). Therefore, although researchers
try as much as possible to prevent missing data occurring, often missing data is unavoidable.
Likewise, the problem of missing data was also found in this study.

Generally, missing data in this research can be categorized into two types; missing data related to a
respondent‟s background, and missing data related to the research attributes. For missing data that
related to respondents‟ backgrounds, no treatment was conducted because it was considered that it
does not influence the modeling results as the respondents‟ background information was only
descriptively presented. Meanwhile, missing data associated with research attributes were
necessary to be carefully treated because they influence the modeling accuracy. However, before
treating missing data for the research attributes, it was necessary to check the amount of the
missing data to know whether the amount of missing data was still tolerable or not.

The analysis of the missing data values for all attributes can be seen in Figure 5.1. The total
number of attributes that had missing data was 13 or 26% of the 50 attributes. The number of cases
or missing samples was 13 or 3.467% of 375 respondents. Meanwhile, in overall, the missing data
were 21 samples or 0.112% of the total 18,750 data (across 50 attributes from 375 respondents). As
an overall percentage of the total number of data points, the number of missing data is actually very
small that was (well below 5%). Tabachnick and Fidell (2007) asserted that less than 5% can be
tolerated as it tends to be less of a serious problem and therefore, the dataset can be left as it is.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 129
 Number of Number of Number of data across attributes from
attributes respondents overall respondents

Figure 5.1. Summary of Missing Data Analysis

However, from every sector‟s perspective in this study, the amount of missing data can be
considered quite significant being above 5%. For example, the missing data from the government
sector was four, or 5.48% of the government‟s sample. The private sector had seven missing
samples or 9.20% of the private sector sample. Meanwhile, the amount of missing data for the
community sample was two samples or 0.88% of the community sector sample. As such, although
the percentage of missing data in the overall sample is very small (0.11%), this number is still
considered big if it is seen from the perspective of the government and the private sectors. The
largest percentage of the missing data in a particular sector in this study was 9.20% which was
above 5% and considered quite significant to the composition of the data for that sector‟s results.
As such, the missing data was not tolerable and cannot be ignored and therefore, the missing data
was necessary to be treated. In addition, statistical inference techniques that were used in this
research also required that the data is complete to be analysed.

According to Tabachnick and Fidell (2007), missing data treatment can generally be classified into
two options, namely deletion and replacement or imputation. The deletion technique is conducted
by removing cases or variables that have missing values. Meanwhile, the imputation technique is
used when the deletion technique‟s requirement is not fulfilled, such as when a significant amount
of missing data is found. However, the deletion method potentially violates the meaning of the data
due to the elimination of multiple samples. The technique is appropriate when missing data is only
concentrated in a small proportion of the dataset and does not have a high correlation to the other
complete attributes. Therefore, in this circumstance, the missing attributes do not have a great
influence on the analysis.

To select appropriate missing data treatment, (whether it should be deleted or imputed), it is

recommended to investigate the missing data types. Hair et al. (2010), missing data can be

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 130
classified into two types, namely Missing at Random (MAR) and Missing Completely at Random
(MCAR). Data can be said as MCAR when the pattern of missing data distribution is random
(unpredictable) and it is categorized as MAR if the lost data pattern can be predicted from the other
attributes in the data.

Little's MCAR test is one technique that can be used to determine the missing data types (Hair et
al., 2010). Based on the Little's MCAR test that was conducted on the samples, the data can be
categorised as MAR by looking at the p-value, which is less than 0.05, Chi-Square = 589.346,
DF = 434, Sig.= 0.000. According to the result, the deletion method cannot be selected as this
technique requires that the missing data is MCAR. Therefore, replacement or imputation method
was finally used in handling missing data in the sample.

With regard to the imputation method, actually, any method will produce a relatively similar output
if the missing data is below 10% (Hair et al., 2010). Nevertheless, the selection of the imputation
method also depends on the type of missing data, whether it is categorised as MAR or MCAR.
Treatment for missing data classified as MCAR type can be performed by mean substitution, hot
and cold deck imputation and regression analysis. Meanwhile, treatment for MAR data can only be
conducted using Expectation-Maximization (EM) and Multiple Imputation (Hair et al., 2010).

As based on Little‟s MCAR test the data is categorised as MAR, the imputation methods available
are EM and Multiple Imputation. Hair et al. (2010) posited that all available methods will produce
the same output if missing data below 10%. As this sample missing data was 9.20%, the EM
method was finally selected because according to Hair et al. (2010), EM is considered simpler
rather than Multiple Imputation. After the replacement, finally, a total of 375 complete data was
successfully obtained for the analysis.

5.2.3. Outliers Detection

Once the problem of missing data was solved, the next step is to detect the outliers in the data set.
Outliers are cases that are subtantially different from the other observations (Hair et al., 2010). The
existence of outliers can interfere the analysis so it is necessary to detect and overcome the outliers
values so that they will not lead to distortion in the data.

Several methods are available for detecting outliers such as frequency analysis, histogram, boxplot,
z-values checking and comparing the mean value with 5% trimmed mean. However, z-value
detection is a widely used method and therefore was employed in this research. In a large sample,
Tabachnick and Fidell (2007) posited that absolute z-values which are greater than 3.29 can be
considered as potential outliers. Meanwhile, Hair et al. (2010) proposed several different limits of

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 131
z-values to determine outliers which depend on the sample number. For a small sample (under 80
data) z-value limit is 2.5, and z equal to 4.00 for large samples. As this research sample is 375, a z-
value of 4.00 was used as the cut-off for detecting univariate outliers. In addition, this study also
compared the mean value with the mean value of 5% trimming mean method for determining the
outliers‟ values. By that comparison, it can be found whether the two means are greatly different or
not.

Table 5.1 to 5.4 shows the statistical parameters‟ analyses of the univariate outliers. According to
the analysis of the four constructs in this research, there was no indication of a z-value which was
greater than 4.00. In addition, it can be seen that the mean value of the delta or difference between
the mean value of the 5% trimmed mean was also not very different, ranging from 0.00 to 0.05.
Thus it can be concluded that there is no indication of outliers in the sample. With regard to the
analysis of the Government's Role (GR) Construct, the three attributes were combined into a single
attribute by averaging the data. The reason was these three attributes were designed to measure the
government‟s supervision in the construction and operation stages. The three attributes are GR9.
The construction activity did not interfere community activities, GR11 The quality of toll roads and
its connecting roads construction is good, and GR12 Maintenance of the entire facility along the
toll road connecting highway is well managed. Therefore, the GR Construct consisted of twelve
attributes.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 132
 Table 5.1. Statistical Parameters for the Project Social Benefit (PSB) Construct

Standard
Missing Cases 5%
Delta Std. Error of
No Attributes Values with │z│ Mean Trimmed Skewness Kurtosis
Mean Dev The
(%) > 3.29 Mean
Mean
1 Safe public facility 0.000 0.000 3.768 3.798 -0.030 -0.759 0.576 0.747 0.040
2 Secure public facility 0.003 0.000 3.549 3.557 -0.009 -0.643 -0.423 0.875 0.047
3 Deliver economic benefit to the community 0.000 0.000 3.625 3.661 -0.036 -0.496 0.008 0.931 0.050
4 Reduce travel time 0.006 0.000 4.193 4.215 -0.021 -0.041 -0.275 0.578 0.031
5 Maintain social cohesion 0.000 0.000 3.415 3.422 -0.007 -0.481 -0.320 0.879 0.047
6 Less polluted (minimum negative impact) 0.000 0.000 3.289 3.296 -0.007 -0.415 -0.483 0.903 0.048
7 Availability of open space 0.000 0.000 3.413 3.403 0.010 -0.377 -0.844 0.869 0.046
8 Community involvement in decision-making 0.000 0.000 3.500 3.543 -0.043 -1.054 0.719 0.866 0.046
9 Equal access for all community 0.000 0.000 4.003 4.059 -0.056 -1.187 2.226 0.725 0.039
10 Convenience public facility 0.000 0.000 3.731 3.756 -0.026 -0.704 0.523 0.721 0.039
11 Affordable tariff 0.000 0.000 2.974 2.971 0.003 0.052 -0.551 0.954 0.051
12 Smooth traffic along the toll road and its 0.000 0.000 3.198 3.170 0.027 0.095 -1.139 1.002 0.054
13 Regulation compliance 0.000 0.000 3.728 3.753 -0.025 -0.617 0.559 0.676 0.036
14 Provide adequate toll road services 0.003 0.000 3.940 3.965 -0.025 -0.848 2.507 0.587 0.031
15 Community support (less opposition) 0.000 0.000 3.648 3.653 -0.005 -0.403 0.143 0.647 0.035

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 133
 Table 5.2. Statistical Parameters for the Project Design (PD) Construct

5% Standard
Missing Cases with Delta
No Attributes Mean Trimmed Skewness Kurtosis Std. Dev Error of
Values │z│ > 3.29 Mean
Mean The Mean

1 Participatory design (community interest was 0.000 0.000 3.252 3.267 -0.015 -0.429 -0.590 0.913 0.049
accommodated in the project design)
2 Appropriate to the community needs 0.000 0.000 3.410 3.423 -0.014 -0.473 -0.219 0.770 0.041

3 Safe project design 0.000 0.000 3.607 3.619 -0.012 -0.557 -0.192 0.801 0.043

4 Resulting less fatigues for the user 0.000 0.000 3.759 3.788 -0.029 -0.984 1.134 0.694 0.037

5 Appropriate space for the user 0.000 0.000 3.848 3.887 -0.039 -1.210 2.468 0.627 0.034

6 The condition is easy to understand 0.000 0.000 3.963 3.959 0.004 -0.148 1.799 0.456 0.024
7 Aesthetic design 0.000 0.000 3.352 3.339 0.013 0.038 -0.498 0.844 0.045
8 Environmental friendly 0.003 0.000 3.394 3.398 -0.004 -0.430 -0.377 0.883 0.047

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 134
 Table 5.3. Statistical Parameters for the Community Participation (CP) Construct

Missing 5% Standard
Cases with Delta Std.
No Attributes Values Mean Trimmed Skewness Kurtosis Error of
│z│ > 3.29 Mean Dev
(%) Mean The Mean
1 All Community involved in the process 0.003 0.000 3.583 3.612 -0.028 -0.901 0.547 0.849 0.045
2 Transparent process 0.000 0.000 3.562 3.591 -0.029 -0.874 0.349 0.881 0.047
3 Rule establishment for the process 0.006 0.000 3.585 3.610 -0.025 -0.989 0.763 0.806 0.043
4 Adequate information provided for the community 0.000 0.000 3.573 3.597 -0.024 -0.870 0.443 0.836 0.045

5 Sufficient time allocated 0.000 0.000 3.461 3.473 -0.012 -0.610 -0.022 0.845 0.045
6 Constructive dialogue 0.000 0.000 3.499 3.518 -0.019 -0.756 -0.040 0.886 0.047
7 Appropriate moderator/facilitator 0.006 0.000 3.539 3.575 -0.036 -0.965 0.779 0.865 0.046

8 Improve community understanding about the project 0.000 0.000 3.616 3.642 -0.026 -0.824 0.503 0.824 0.044
objective
9 Improve cooperation between parties involved 0.000 0.000 3.596 3.623 -0.027 -0.809 0.397 0.851 0.046
10 Continuous process 0.000 0.000 3.009 2.989 0.020 0.125 -0.915 0.993 0.053

11 Comprehensive outcome 0.003 0.000 3.463 3.479 -0.016 -0.720 0.152 0.838 0.045

12 Acceptable outcome 0.003 0.000 3.523 3.549 -0.026 -0.904 0.594 0.811 0.043
13 Distribution of the participation outcome to all 0.000 0.000 3.673 3.705 -0.032 -1.152 1.347 0.775 0.041
communities
14 Implementable participation outcome 0.017 0.000 3.477 3.502 -0.024 -0.861 0.136 0.867 0.046

15 All parties involved respected the participation process 0.000 0.000 3.564 3.591 -0.026 -0.852 0.154 0.893 0.048

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 135
 Table 5.4. Statistical Parameters for the Government‟s role (GR) Construct

Missing Cases 5% Standard

Delta Std.
No Attributes Values with │z│ Mean Trimmed Skewness Kurtosis Error of
Mean Dev
(%) > 4.00 Mean The Mean

1 Provision of a stable political condition 0.000 0.00 3.93 3.97 -0.04 -1.23 3.65 0.58 0.03
2 Provision of a stable economic condition 0.003 0.00 3.81 3.85 -0.03 -1.23 2.33 0.62 0.03
3 Simplification of bureaucracy procedure 0.000 0.00 3.74 3.77 -0.03 -0.87 1.76 0.69 0.04
4 Corruption eradication 0.000 0.00 3.54 3.55 -0.01 -0.61 0.06 0.82 0.04
5 Law enforcement 0.000 0.00 3.55 3.56 -0.02 -0.60 0.50 0.77 0.04
6 Realization of smooth land acquisition process 0.000 0.00 3.32 3.33 -0.01 -0.33 -0.72 1.00 0.05
7 Solving community protes regarding the 0.000 0.00 3.48 3.51 -0.03 -0.88 0.35 0.89 0.05
environmental issues
8 Development good communication between 0.000 0.00 3.62 3.64 -0.02 -0.71 1.07 0.70 0.04
government and the concessionaire
9 Appropriate supervision 0.000 0.00 3.32 3.33 0.00 -0.23 0.79 0.62 0.03
10 Selection of the appropriate concessionaire 0.000 0.00 3.38 3.39 -0.01 -0.52 -0.15 0.88 0.05
11 Provision of appropriate government support 0.000 0.00 3.65 3.68 -0.03 -1.11 1.38 0.79 0.04
12 Selection of a feasible PPP project 0.003 0.00 3.89 3.94 -0.04 -0.81 0.95 0.74 0.04

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 136
5.2.4. Assessment of Normality
Some of the statistical parametric analysis used in this research required the data to be normally
distributed. Even though normality for each variable is not always required in every analysis, the
results are sometimes a little better if the data has normal characteristics for multivariate analysis as
a statistical inference technique (Tabachnick and Fidel, 2007).

Tabachnick and Fidell (2007) asserted that normality can be analysed using either statistical or
graphical test. In addition, Kolmogorov-Smirnov could also be used to check normality. However,
as a rule-of-thumb, data normality is more easily detected by looking at the shape of two
distribution parameters, namely the Skewness and Kurtosis (Hair et al., 2010). Skewness shows the
distribution form, whether it is symmetrical or there is any tendency to the left or right sides.
Positive Skewness reflects the distribution tending to the left, while negative distribution reflects
data skewed to the right. Meanwhile, Kurtosis indicates the level of sharpness and flatness of the
distribution compared with a normal distribution. With a more positive Kurtosis value the
distribution is more pointed or referred to as leptokurtic, while a more negative Kurtosis, the
distribution is the flatter or referred to as platykurtic. The limit is 2.58 (0.01 significance level) or
+1.96 for 0.05 error level. If the value of Skewness and Kurtosis exceeds the minimal cut-off it can
be said that the data is non-normally distributed (Hair et al., 2010).

The analysis results of the Skewness and Kurtosis assessments for the four constructs are presented
in Tables 5.1 to Table 5.4. According to the tables, it can be seen that the value of Skewness for
the PSB Construct is between -1.32 to 0.07, while the Skewness values for the PD construct are
between -1.17 to -0.01. The Skewness values for the CP Construct are between -1.18 to 0.09 and
finally, the Skewness for the GR Construct are between -1.23 to -0.23. Meanwhile, the Kurtosis for
the PSB attributes is between -1.08 to 2.52. The value for the PD attributes are ranged from -0.58 to
3.17. The Kurtosis value for the CP attributes is between -0.90 to 1.30. Finally, the Kurtosis values
for the GR attributes are between -0.72 to 3.65.

According to the results, most of the Kurtosis values are still below the critical point +/- 2.58,
except for some attributes in the PD and GR constructs. However, Kline (2005) posited that only
absolute Kurtosis more than 10.00 causes problems and values greater than 20.00 produce a more
serious problem. Therefore, as the Kurtosis values are still well below 10.00, the sample can still be
considered as normal. In addition, Hair et al. (2010) also asserted that the justification of the non-
normality cannot only base on the distribution shape, but also from the sample size. Therefore,
something which is considered unacceptable in a small size sample can have negligible effect with
a larger sample size (200 or more). As such, if a sample is large enough, a researcher should not be
too concerned with non-normal variables because the larger sample size has the effect of increasing

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 137
the statistical power by reducing sampling error and reducing the effect of non-normality (Hair et
al., 2010).

Tabachnick and Fidell (2007) also argued that in a large sample (over 200), the deviation of the
Kurtosis and Skewness values from 0 is not a serious problem. Therefore, with total sample 375,
this research data set can be considered as univariate normal. Meanwhile, the detection of
multivariate normality is more difficult to do rather than univariate normality. Therefore, in some
cases, univariate normality for all variables is considered sufficient and multivariate normality is
only performed if it is really needed (Hair et al, 2010).

5.3. Descriptive Analysis

Descriptive analysis is an explanation of the sample characteristics as well as examining the
indicators‟ performance according to the respondents‟ perceptions. Analysis of respondents‟
background gives information related to the characteristics of the respondents who have been
involved in this research. Meanwhile, the attributes‟ performance analysis provides understanding
regarding how the indicators were perceived by respondents as well as how they rank the
performance of toll road project development in Indonesia.

5.3.1. Description of the Sample

As mentioned before a total of 375 samples were obtained from the survey results across the three
stakeholder categories. These samples consist of 73 samples (19.47%) from the government sector,
76 samples (20.27%) from the private sector and 226 samples (60.26%) from the community
sector. The detail of the 375 respondents‟ characteristics from the eight toll road projects is given in
Table 5.5. Most respondents were from the community sector (60.26%). Waru-Juanda toll road
had the highest number of respondents (30.93%) while the least amount was for Kanci-Pejagan.
The highest numbers of respondents were Senior High School educated (34.40%) and least
respondents had a Doctorate level education. Most respondents were from a Non-Engineering
background (57.30%) while the Engineering background is as high at 38.90%. A total of 3.70% is
unknown because it was missing data. A detailed description for each group of respondents is in
the following section.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 138
 Table 5.5. The Respondents‟ Overall Background

Respondent’s Percent Percent

Group Category Group Type
Frequency (%) (Cumulative)
Sector Government 73 19.47 19.47
Private 76 20.27 39.74
Community 226 60.26 100.00
Toll Road Name Cipularang 46 12.27 12.27
Jakarta Outer Ring Road (JORR E1) 45 12.00 24.27
Jakarta Outer Ring Road (JORR E2) 34 9.07 33.34
Jakarta Outer Ring Road (JORR W1) 38 10.13 43.47
Kanci-Pejagan 20 5.33 48.80
Semarang-Ungaran 45 12.00 60.80
Ulujami-Serpong 31 8.27 69.07
Waru-Juanda 116 30.93 100.00
Education Level Doctorate 2 0.53 0.53
Master 54 14.40 14.93
Bachelor 103 27.47 42.40
Diploma 23 6.13 48.53
Senior High School 129 34.40 82.93
Junior High School 36 9.60 92.53
Primary School 16 4.27 96.80
Missing data 12 3.20 100.00
Education Missing data 14 3.70 3.70
Category Engineering 146 38.90 38.83
Non-Engineering 215 57.30 100.00

5.3.1.1. Government Sector

The Government Sector‟s Respondent Background is given in Table 5.6. Among the respondents
from the government sector, the biggest sample came from the district level with a percentage of
37.00%, followed by the provincial level with as much as 24.70%. The smallest proportion of the
sub-district level is 8.20%. Regarding their position, when these are classified into three levels such
as top management, middle management, and staff, the majority of respondents are from middle
management with 53.40% followed by staff with 30.10%.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 139
 Table 5.6. The Government Sector‟s Respondent Background

Respondent’s Percent
Group Category Group Type Percent
Frequency (Cumulative)
Institution Level Central 7 9.60 9.60
Provincial 18 24.70 34.30
District 27 37.00 71.30
Sub-district 6 8.20 79.50
Village 15 20.50 100.00
Position Top Management 11 15.10 15.10
Middle Management 39 53.40 68.50
Staff 22 30.10 98.60
Missing data 1 1.40 100
Work Experience >20 years 34 46.60 46.60
16-20 years 6 8.20 54.80
11-15 years 22 30.10 84.90
5-10 years 6 8.20 93.10
< 5 years 4 5.50 98.60
Missing data 1 1.40 100
Education Level Master 37 50.70 50.70
Bachelor 19 26.00 76.70
Senior High 11 15.10 91.80
Junior High 3 4.10 95.90
Elementary 1 1.40 97.30
Missing data 2 2.70 100.00
Education Category Engineering 45 61.60 61.60
Non-Engineering 28 38.40 100.00

Meanwhile, in terms of work experience, the largest number of respondents had more than 20
years‟ experience (46.60%), followed by 11-15 years with 30.10% with the smallest percentage
from top management (15.15%) and the remaining percentage is missing data (1.40%). From the
education level, the majority of respondents had graduated at Masters Level (50.70%) followed by
26.00% with a Bachelors degree and elementary school was the smallest with 1.40%. Most
respondents had an Engineering background with 61.60%.

5.3.1.2. Private Sector

Respondents‟ background from the private sector can be categorised according to their company
(institution), work experience, position, educational level and type of education as seen Table 5.7.
Based on the institution, the respondents can generally be divided into three group, namely toll

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 140
road developers (BUJT), consultants and contractors. The largest number of the respondent is
consultant which is 50% followed by BUJT with 34.20%. In terms of work experience, the largest
category of private sector respondents had more than 20 years with 43.40%, followed by both 11-
15 years and 16-20 years with the same percentage (17.10%). In terms of their positions, the
majority of respondents were from the middle management level which is 64.50%, while top
management and staff had an almost equal share 18.40% and 17.10% respectively.

Table 5.7. The Private Sector Respondent Background

Respondent’s Percent
Group Category Group Type Percent
Frequency (Cumulative)
Company Type Toll road developer 26 34.20 34.20
Consultant 38 50.00 84.20
Contractor 12 15.80 100.00
Position Top Management 14 18.40 18.40
Middle Management 49 64.50 82.90
Staff 13 17.10 100.00
Work Experience >20 years 33 43.40 43.40
16-20 years 13 17.10 60.50
11-15 years 13 17.10 77.60
5-10 years 12 15.80 93.40
< 5 years 5 6.60 100.00
Education Level Doctorate 2 2.63 2.60
Master 13 17.11 19.74
Bachelor 56 73.68 93.42
Diploma 3 3.95 97.37
Senior High 2 2.63 100.00
Education Category Engineering 69 90.80 90.80
Non-Engineering 70 9.20 100.00

From education level, a majority of private sector respondents are from the Bachelor level with
73.70%. Masters level ranked as second comprising 17.10% respondents. As for the other levels of
education such as Senior high school, Diploma and Doctorate these had only a small proportion of
respondents ranging from 2.60% to 3.90%. The smallest portion of the level of education in the
private sector is from Senior high school. In terms of educational background, nearly all of the
private respondents had an Engineering background with 90.80% while the only small proportion
of Non-Engineering background that is 9.02%.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 141
5.3.1.3. Community Sector
The Community Sector Respondent Background is presented in Table 5.8 and the respondents‟
characteristics were identified by their level of education and education background because other
information such as work experience or position was not significant in their perceptions in relation
to toll road project development. In terms of education, a majority of community respondents were
from Senior high school with 51.30% and the smallest level of education for the community was
Masters level (1.80%). No respondents hold a Doctorate degree and 6.20% is missing data. In
terms of education category, most respondents are from non-engineering with 79.60% and only
14.20% from engineering background while the remaining 6.20% is missing data.

Table 5.8. The Community Sector Respondent Background

Respondent’s Percent
Group Category Group Type Percent
Frequency (Cumulative)
Education Level Master 4 1.77 1.77
Bachelor 28 12.39 14.16
Diploma 20 8.85 23.01
Senior High 116 51.33 74.34
Junior High 33 14.60 88.94
Elementary 15 6.64 95.58
Missing data 10 4.42 100.00
Education Category Engineering 32 14.20 14.20
Non Engineering 180 79.60 93.80
Missing data 14 6.20 100.00

5.3.2. The Overall Perception of the Attributes’ Mean and Ranking

This analysis investigated the stakeholders‟ perceptions regarding the research attributes using
descriptive analysis. There are two options that are widely used for conducting this type of
analysis, namely Relative Importance Weight (RIW) and mean analysis. RIW is a method to rank
the attributes‟ score based on respondents‟ answers to the questionnaire (Frimpong et al., 2003;
Doloi, 2013). The RIW was calculated by summing the weight assigned to each attribute. A second
alternative is using the mean as part of the statistical analysis that is a tool that usually employed to
solve problems using quantitative information (Vogt, 2007). Mean analysis was finally selected to
understand the respondents‟ perceptions because this research adopted statistical techniques as a
tool that is usually employed to solve the problems using quantitative information (Vogt, 2007). In
addition, mean which is usually completed with the standard deviation parameter to show the
dispersion or distribution of the data from the mean, is also known as the most widely used method
to measure data‟s central tendency (Neuman, 2012).

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 142
In this section, the mean analysis only focuses on the overall sectors‟ perceptions. Meanwhile,
every sector‟s perceptions as well as the perception comparison among them are discussed in
Section 5.4. The mean analysis technique was used to understand the attributes‟ performance as
well as their ranking. The five-point Likert Scale used in the questionnaire was used as the
reference where one (1.00) represented “Strongly Disagree”, two (2.00) for “Disagree”, three
(3.00) for Neutral, four (4.00) for “Agree” and five (5.00) for “Strongly Agree”.

5.3.2.1. The Project Social Benefit Construct

The means of the fifteen Project Social Benefit attributes are presented in Table 5.9. The overall
sectors‟ perceptions vary from 2.97 to 4.20 with the mean 3.57. The five highest attributes were:
(1) Reduce travel time (mean 4.20), (2) Equal access for all community (mean 3.99), (3) Provide
adequate toll road service facilities (3.91), (4) Safe public facility (3.73), and (5) Convenient public
facility (3.70). Meanwhile, the five lowest attributes were: (5) Affordable tariff (2.97), (4) Smooth
traffic conditions along the toll road and its connecting roads (mean 3.19), (3) Less polluted
environment (3.27), (2) Availability of open space between the toll road with the surrounding
environment (3.39), and (1) Maintain social cohesion (3.40). It can also be seen that most attributes
scores were between 3.00 (Neutral) to 4.00 (Agree). Only one attribute (Reduce travel time)
obtained a score above 4.00 that was 4.21. Meanwhile, one attribute (Affordable tariff) received
2.97 score, which was slightly under 3.00 as the scale‟s midpoint.

Table 5.9. Attributes‟ Performance for the PSB Construct (Part a)

Overall Sector Government Private Sector Community

No Attributes
Mean Ranking Mean Ranking Mean Ranking Mean Ranking
4. Reduce travel time 4.21 1 4.52 1 4.64 1 3.96 1
9. Equal access for all community 3.99 2 4.41 2 4.32 3 3.74 3
14. Provide adequate toll road 3.91 3 3.90 6 4.16 5 3.83 2
services
1. Safe public facility 3.73 4 4.07 4 4.24 4 3.46 6
10. Convenience public facility 3.70 5 4.00 5 3.93 7 3.52 5
13. Regulation compliance 3.69 6 3.85 8 3.86 11 3.58 4
15. Community support (less 3.60 7 3.84 9 3.88 9 3.43 7
opposition)
3. Deliver economic benefit to the 3.58 8 4.12 3 4.37 2 3.14 11
community
2. Secure public facility 3.51 9 3.61 13 3.95 6 3.33 8
8. Community involvement in 3.46 10 3.87 7 3.74 13 3.24 10
decision-making

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 143
 Table 5.9. Attributes‟ Performance for the PSB Construct (Part b)

Overall Sector Government Private Sector Community

No Attributes
Mean Ranking Mean Ranking Mean Ranking Mean Ranking
5. Maintain social cohesion 3.38 11 3.41 14 3.59 15 3.29 9
7. Availability of open space 3.36 12 3.74 11 3.93 8 3.04 12
6. Less polluted environment 3.27 13 3.79 10 3.83 12 2.91 13
12. Smooth traffic condition along the 3.19 14 3.68 12 3.87 10 2.80 14
toll road and its connecting roads
11. Affordable tariff 2.97 15 3.33 15 3.68 14 2.61 15
Mean 3.57 3.88 4.00 3.33

According to Table 5.9, it can generally be seen that overall the sectors perceived that toll roads
have delivered PSB to the community. It was shown that most attributes‟ scores were larger than
3.00 (Neutral) as the mid-point score. Nevertheless, when the attributes were reviewed according to
the questionnaire statement, the minimum score for an attribute should be more than score 4.00
(Agree) to be considered as having good performance. As has been stated in Chapter 4. Research
Methodology, the main questionnaire was designed as positive statements stating the respondents‟
agreement with good performance of the toll road. An example of a questionnaire statement is
"Toll road condition including its connecting roads is convenient”. Accordingly, if the respondents
are satisfied, the score should be at least 4.00 (Agree). Therefore, according to the results, it can be
concluded that the overall indicators‟ performances are still below the satisfactory level. From a
total of fifteen attributes used, only one attribute obtained a score above 4.00 while fourteen other
attributes obtained scores under 4.00. The average score from the fifteen attributes of PSB is 3.57
which is still well below 4.00.

Therefore, to easily assess the performance of the above attributes, the score of the fifteen attributes
were classified into three groups. First, where the attributes that had means between 3.75-5.00
which could be categorised as “good performance”, the second group with means between 3.00 to
3.74 which were categorised as “fair performance”, and scores between 0.00-2.99 that could be
classified as “poor” performance. Based on the above classification, there were three attributes
which are classified as having “good performance”, that is Reduce travel time, Equal access, and
Adequate provision of toll road service.

Meanwhile, the second group of “fair performance” had eleven attributes with means between 3.19
and 3.73, namely Safety public facility, Convenience public facility, Regulation compliance,
Community support (less opposition), Deliver economic benefit to the community, Secure public
facility, Community involvement in decision-making, Maintain social cohesion, Availability of

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 144
open space, Less polluted environment and Smooth traffic condition along the toll road and its
connecting roads. Meanwhile, the third category “poor performance” had only one attribute which
was associated with an Affordable tariff.

5.3.2.2. The Project Design Construct

The means analysis of the Project Design Construct can be seen in Table 5.10. The overall sector
assessments varied from 3.24 to 3.93. The five highest attributes based on their means were: (1)
The condition is easy to understand (3.9), (2) Appropriate space for the user (3.82), (3) Resulting
in less fatigue for the user (3.73), (4) Safe project design (3.56), and (5) Appropriate for the
community needs (3.36). Meanwhile, the three lowest attributes with their means were: (3)
Participatory design (3.24), (2) Aesthetics design (3.33), and (1) Environmentally friendly (3.34). It
can also be seen from the eight attributes, all attributes overall scored between 3.00 (Neutral) to
4.00 (Agree) and no attributes scored either above 4.00 or under 3.00.

Table 5.10. Indicators‟ Performance of the PD Construct

Overall Sector Government Private Community

No Attributes
Mean Ranking Mean Ranking Mean Ranking Mean Ranking
6. The condition is easy to 3.93 1 4.01 1 4.12 2 3.85 1
understand
5. Appropriate space for the user 3.82 2 3.88 2 4.12 1 3.70 2
4. Resulting less fatigues for the user 3.73 3 3.88 3 4.07 4 3.58 3
3. Safe project design 3.56 4 3.82 4 4.08 3 3.31 4
2. Appropriate to the community 3.36 5 3.59 7 3.79 6 3.14 5
needs
8. Environmental friendly 3.34 6 3.64 6 3.83 5 3.08 8
7. Aesthetic design 3.33 7 3.70 5 3.70 7 3.09 6
1. Participatory design 3.24 8 3.40 8 3.55 8 3.08 7
Mean 3.54 3.74 3.91 3.35

The average for all attributes was 3.54 which is below 4.00 showing that respondents consider the
performance of project design was also not quite satisfactory. If the results of the above assessment
are divided into three criteria as has been determined in the project social benefits, the PD
indicators‟ performance can be classified into two criteria, that are “good” and “fair”. Good
performance is only related to the attribute of PD6 The toll road condition is easy to understand
with a mean at 3.93. Meanwhile, the second “fair performance” criteria contain seven attributes
which range between 3.24 and 3.82, namely Appropriate space for the user, Safe project design,
Appropriate to the community needs, Environmental friendly, Aesthetics, and Participatory design.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 145
5.3.2.3. The Community Participation Construct
The means analysis for the Community Participation Construct is presented in Table 5.11. There,
the five highest attributes with their means were: (1) The distribution of the participation outcome
to all communities (mean 3.65), (2) Improve community understanding about the project objective
(mean 3.58), (3) Improve cooperation between parties involved (3.56), (4) Rule establishment for
community participation (3.56), and (5) All community involved in the process (3.55). Meanwhile,
the five lowest attributes were: (5) Continuous process (2.99), (4) Sufficient time allocated (mean
3.42), (3) Comprehensive outcome (3.43), (2) Implementable participation outcome (3.44), and (1)
Constructive dialogue (3.46). It can also be seen that from 15 attributes, most attributes scored
between 3.00 (Neutral) to 4.00 (Agree).

Table 5.11. Indicators‟ Performance of CP Construct

Overall Sector Government Private Community

No Attributes
Mean Ranking Mean Ranking Mean Ranking Mean Ranking
13. Distribution of the participation 3.65 1 3.75 11 3.76 11 3.57 1
outcome to all communities
8. Improve community understanding 3.58 2 3.86 4 3.99 1 3.35 3
about the project objective
9. Improve cooperation between 3.56 3 3.86 6 3.93 2 3.34 5
parties involved
3. Rule establishment for the process 3.56 4 4.00 2 3.92 3 3.29 9
1. All Community involved in the 3.55 5 3.95 3 3.76 10 3.35 4
process
4. Adequate information provided for 3.55 6 3.86 5 3.92 4 3.32 6
the community
2. Transparent process 3.53 7 4.03 1 3.78 9 3.29 8
15. All parties involved respected the 3.51 8 3.82 7 3.92 5 3.27 10
participation process
7. Appropriate moderator/facilitator 3.50 9 3.74 13 3.83 7 3.31 7
12. Acceptable outcome 3.49 10 3.71 14 3.63 14 3.36 2
6. Constructive dialogue 3.46 11 3.81 8 3.74 13 3.26 11
14. Implementable participation 3.44 12 3.76 10 3.76 12 3.23 12
outcome
11. Comprehensive outcome 3.43 13 3.75 12 3.79 8 3.21 13
5. Sufficient time allocated 3.42 14 3.79 9 3.87 6 3.15 14
10. Continuous process 2.99 15 3.55 15 3.61 15 2.60 15
Mean 3.48 3.82 3.81 3.26

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 146
It was also found that in general, the respondents assessed that the community participation process
is also not quite good. The average of the overall attributes is 3.48 which is also still below 4.00.
No attribute had a score above 4.00 and even one attribute was scored just less than the mid-score,
that is 2.99, namely Continuous process. When the attributes were grouped into three categories as
for the previous constructs these results can generally be categorised as two types, “fair” and
“poor” performance. Fourteen attributes were categorised had fair performance and only one
attribute had poor performance, that is a Continous process.

5.3.2.4. The Government’s Role Construct

The mean analysis results for the Government's Role Construct can be seen in Table 5.12.

Table 5.12. Indicators‟ Performance of GR Construct

Overall Sector Government Private Community

No Attributes
Mean Ranking Mean Ranking Mean Ranking Mean Ranking
1. Provision of stable political 3.93 1 3.89 4 4.05 2 3.90 1
condition
12. Selection of a feasible PPP project 3.89 2 4.07 1 4.08 1 3.77 2
2. Provision of stable economic 3.81 3 3.89 5 3.88 3 3.77 4
condition
3. Simplification of bureaucracy 3.74 4 3.90 3 3.51 8 3.77 3
procedure
11. Provision of appropriate 3.65 5 3.93 2 3.67 4 3.55 6
government support
8. Development good 3.62 6 3.82 6 3.64 6 3.54 7
communication between
government and the
concessionaire
5. Law enforcement 3.55 7 3.73 8 3.49 9 3.51 8
4. Corruption eradication 3.54 8 3.64 9 3.20 11 3.62 5
7. Solving community protest 3.48 9 3.81 7 3.64 5 3.31 11
regarding the environmental issues
10. Selection of the appropriate 3.38 10 3.34 11 3.54 7 3.34 10
concessionaire
9. Appropriate supervision 3.32 11 3.62 10 3.42 10 3.19 12
6. Realization of smooth land 3.32 12 3.22 12 2.97 12 3.47 9
acquisition process
Mean 3.60 3.74 3.59 3.56

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 147
The five highest attributes and their means were: (1) Provision of stable political condition (3.93),
(2) Selection of a feasible PPP project (3.89), (3) Provision of stable economic condition (3.81),
(4) Simplification of bureaucracy procedure (3.74) and (5) Provision of appropriate government
support (3.65). Meanwhile, the five lowest attributes were: (5) Realization of smooth land
acquisition process (3.22), (4) Appropriate supervision (3.32), (3) Selection of the appropriate
concessionaire (3.38), (2) Solving community protest protest regarding the environmental issues
(3.48), and (1) Corruption eradication (3.54).

It can also be seen that from the 15 attributes, all attributes scored between 3 (Neutral) to 4 (Agree).
No attributes scored either above 4.00 or under 3.00. The overall sectors‟ assessment ranged from
3.32 to 3.93. When the above attributes were divided based on the previous criteria, the results can
be classified into two levels, namely “fair” and “good”. Three attributes were included in the good
performance, that is Provision of a stable political condition, Selection of feasible PPP projects,
and Provision of a stable economic condition. Meanwhile, the other nine attributes were
categorised as “fair performance” with mean values between 3.32 and 3.74.

5.4. Comparative Analysis

The previous mean analysis based on the overall sector perception has provided comprehensive
understanding regarding the overall research attributes. However, given that the respondents in this
study consist of three sectors, namely government, private and community, the perceptions of each
section need to be understood individually before being compared together. Comparison between
the three stakeholders was conducted by comparing the mean and the ranking of each attribute.

5.4.1. The Project Social Benefit (PSB) Construct

As previously depicted in Table 5.9 about the PSB Construct‟s performance, the government
sector means ranged between 3.33 and 4.52. Five attributes scored above 4.00, ten attributes rated
below and no attribute scored below 3.00. The private sector means ranged between 3.68 and 4.64
which is quite similar to the government‟s perceptions. Five attributes had means greater than 4.00
and ten attributes scored below 4.00 and no attribute was scored below 3.00. Meanwhile, the
community means ranged from 2.80 to 3.96 which showed that all attributes were scored below
4.00. Three attributes that even scored lower than a 3.00 score were Less polluted environment
(2.91), Smooth traffic along the toll road and its connecting roads (2.80) and Affordable tariff
(2.61).

Regarding the ranking, the three stakeholders had similar perceptions in only one of fifteen
attributes. It was regarding the "Reduce travel time" as their best attribute. Meanwhile, the
stakeholders ranked the other attributes differently, though two attributes were ranked similarly

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 148
within the five best attributes by the three stakeholders. The attribute Reduce travel time was
ranked in the first position by the three stakeholders and the attribute Convenience public facility
was ranked in the fifth, third and fifth positions by the government, private and community sectors
respectively. To obtain a more comprehensive picture of three stakeholders‟ perceptions, the mean
value of the three sectors perceptions were then depicted in Figure 5.2.

Figure 5.2. Comparison of the Three Sectors‟ Perceptions of the PSB Attributes

Attributes’ Legend:

1. Safe public facility 9. Equal access for all community

2. Secure public facility 10. Convenience public facility
3. Deliver economic benefit to the community 11. Affordable tariff
4. Reduce travel time 12. Smooth traffic along the toll road and its
connecting road
5. Maintain social cohesion 13. Regulation compliance
6. Less polluted environment (minimum 14. Provide adequate toll road services
negative impact)
7. Availability of open space 15. Community support (less opposition)
8. Community involvement in decision-making

The graph depicts the horizontal axis which shows the attribute numbers and the vertical axis
represents the Likert Scale used. Based on Figure 5.2, it can be seen that in general the government
and the private sectors had quite similar perceptions. The community had different perceptions
from the other two sectors being below the government and private sectors‟ perceptions. While the
government and private sector perceptions were quite similar, the private sector generally had
higher level perceptions. The government only had higher perceptions regarding three attributes,

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 149
namely the attributes PSB8 Community Involvement in decision-making, PSB9 Equal access for all
community and PSB10 Convenient public facility.

5.4.2. The Project Design (PD) Construct

The comparison of stakeholders‟ perceptions for PD can be seen in Table 5.10. Similar to the PSB
Construct, comparison of the perception of these variables can also be seen from the attributes‟
mean and the ranking. The government sector means ranged between 3.44 and 4.05. Only one
attribute scored above 4.00 and seven attributes ranked between 3.00 and 4.00. Meanwhile, the
private sector means ranged between 3.56 and 4.11 which was quite similar to the government
perception. Four attributes scored above 4.00 and four attributes ranged between 3.00 and 4.00.
The community perceptions‟ mean range from 3.09 to 3.89 which means that all attributes scored
below 4.00 though no attribute obtained a score below 3.00. Regarding the rankings, the three
stakeholders placed the attributes on different ranking.

The three stakeholders‟ perceptions on PD Construct, the mean value is depicted in Figure 5.3. As
shown in the figure, the community perceptions were different from the other two sectors. This is
quite similar to PSB Construct previously. Overall for the attributes, the community perceptions
were below the government and private sectors. However, in one attribute, the government had a
mean value which was slightly higher than the private sector, that is attribute 7, namely Aesthetic
design. The rest of the government mean values were below the mean values of the private sector.

Figure 5.3. Comparison of the Three Sectors‟ Perceptions of the PD Attributes

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 150
 Attributes’ Legend:

1. Participatory design 5. Appropriate space for the user

2. Appropriate to the community needs 6. The condition is easy to understand
3. Safe project design 7. Aesthetic design
4. Resulting in less fatigues for the user 8. Environmental friendly

5.4.3. The Community Participation (CP) Construct

The comparison of CP attributes for the three stakeholders is presented in Table 5.11. According to
the table, the government sector means ranged between 3.55 and 4.03. For them two attributes
scored above 4.00, thirteen attributes rated between 3.00 and 4.00. Meanwhile, the private sector
means ranged between 3.61 and 3.99 which can be said to be quite similar to the government
perceptions. Only one attribute obtained a score close to 4.00 and the rest of the attributed scores
ranged between 3.00 and 4.00. The community sectors‟ means range from 2.60 to 3.57 which
means that all attributes scored below 4.00. One attribute obtained a score below 3.00, that is CP 10
Continuous process while the rest of the attributes ranged between 3.00 and 4.00

Regarding the rankings, the three stakeholders agreed on only one of the fifteen attributes, that is
CP10 Continuous process which placed in the fifteenth position. For other attributes, the three
stakeholders ranked them differently. Even for the attribute CP2 Transparent process, the
government had a different ranking with the private and community sectors where the government
placed this attribute in ranking 1, while the private and community sectors respectively placed it at
rankings 8 and 9 respectively. This might have happened because the government, as the party who
becomes a facilitator in the process of community participation, had assumed that their role is good
enough in conducting a transparent participatory process, but it was not perceived as good enough
by both the private and community sectors.

To obtain more comprehensive understanding of the comparison between the three stakeholders‟
perceptions, the mean values are presented in Figure 5.4. Based on the figure it can be seen that the
community also has different perceptions compared to the other two sectors. The government and
private sectors perceptions tend to be similar. Only in two attributes, did the government have a
different perception from the private sector, that CP1 All community involved in the process and
CP2 Transparent process. The three stakeholders also had quite similar perceptions regarding
attribute CP10 Continues process where they perceived this attribute‟s performance was not quite
good. A such, this attribute was placed at the lowest point in the graph.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 151
 Figure 5.4. Comparison of the Three Sectors‟ Perceptions of the CP Attributes

Attributes’ Legend:

1. All Community involved in the process 9. Improve cooperation between parties involved
2. Transparent process 10. Continuous process
3. Rule establishment for the process 11. Comprehensive outcome
4. Adequate information provided for the 12. Acceptable outcome
community
5. Sufficient time allocated 13. Distribution of the participation outcome to
6. Two ways dialogue all communities
7. Appropriate moderator/facilitator 14. Implementable participation outcome
8. Improve community understanding about the 15. All parties involved respected the
project objective participation process

5.4.4. The Government’s Role (GR) Construct

The comparison of GR attributes from the three stakeholders is presented in Table 5.12. According
to the table, the government sector means ranged between 3.22 and 4.07. Only one attribute scored
above 4.00 and eleven attributes obtained a score between 3.00 and 4.00. The private sector means
ranged between 2.97 and 4.08. However, one attribute, GR6 Realization of the smooth acquisition
process, was scored below 3.00. Community means ranged between 3.19 and 3.90 which means
that all attributes scored below 4.00. Regarding the rankings, the three stakeholders mostly do not
have an agreement on the ranking of the fifteen attributes. For example, on an attribute (3)
Simplification of bureaucratic procedures, the private sector had quite a big difference from the
other sectors as they put this attributes performance in the eighth position.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 152
To obtain a more comprehensive picture of the perceptions of the three stakeholders, the mean
comparison can be seen in Figure 5.5. According to the graph, it is seen that the government
generally gave higher scores than the other two sectors. The government gave higher scores for
eight attributes, namely attribute (2) Provision of stable economic condition, (3) Simplification of
bureaucratic procedure, (4) Corruption Eradication, (5) Law enforcement, (7) Solving community
protest regarding the environmental issues, (8) Development of good communication between
government and the concessionaire, (9) Appropriate supervision and (11) Provision of appropriate
government support. The private sector gave the highest score to attribute (1) Provision of a stable
political condition and (2) Provision of a stable economic condition.

Figure 5.5. Comparison of the Three Sectors‟ Perceptions of the GR Attributes

Attributes’ Legend:

1. Provision of a stable political condition 7. Solving community protest regarding the

environmental issues
2. Provision of a stable economic condition 8. Development good communication between
government and the concessionaire
3. Simplification of bureaucracy procedure 9. Appropriate supervision
4. Corruption eradication 10. Selection of the appropriate concessionaire
5. Law enforcement 11. Provision of appropriate government support
6. Realization of smooth land acquisition 12. Selection of a feasible PPP project
process

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 153
5.5. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Test
Based on the above analysis it seems there were differences in perceptions between the three
sectors. A t-test is usually conducted to analyse differences in perceptions. However, a t-test yields
significant error probability that potentially generates bias in testing when it is used to test the
different perceptions between three or more groups of samples (Field, 2005). As such, Analysis of
Variance (ANOVA) is recommended as a technique to test different perceptions between three or
more groups of samples (Field, 2005). Therefore, a one-way ANOVA test was used to determine
the difference between the three stakeholders' means.

Table 5.13 shows the results of the one-way ANOVA analysis for the Project Social Benefit (PSB)
Construct. The null hypothesis (H0) used in the test was “There is no significant difference among
the three stakeholders‟ perceptions regarding the PSB". According to Mooi and Sarstedt (2014), the
p-value of 0.05 is usually used as the cut-off in ANOVA tests to determine whether the null
hypothesis can be accepted or rejected. The results show that almost all indicators have the p-
values (sig. column) which are lower than 0.05, except the attribute PSB5 Maintain social cohesion
(shown in the bold italic font). As such, the null hypothesis for PSB5 was accepted which means
there was no significant difference in perception between three stakeholders. However, for the
other fourteen attributes, the null hypothesis should be rejected, which means there were
significant differences between the three stakeholders‟ perceptions.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 154
 Table 5.13. ANOVA Test for the PSB Construct

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

PSB1 Between Groups 44.881 2 22.441 41.646 0.000
Within Groups 200.452 372 0.539
Total 245.333 374
PSB2 Between Groups 22.874 2 11.437 14.826 0.000
Within Groups 286.967 372 0.771
Total 309.841 374
PSB3 Between Groups 112.226 2 56.113 78.757 0.000
Within Groups 265.044 372 0.712
Total 377.269 374
PSB4 Between Groups 35.246 2 17.623 71.283 0.000
Within Groups 91.969 372 0.247
Total 127.216 374
PSB5 Between Groups 5.232 2 2.616 2.997 0.051*
Within Groups 324.752 372 0.873
Total 329.984 374
PSB6 Between Groups 72.873 2 36.437 51.948 0.000
Within Groups 260.924 372 0.701
Total 333.797 374
PSB7 Between Groups 58.117 2 29.058 40.292 0.000
Within Groups 268.283 372 0.721
Total 326.400 374
PSB8 Between Groups 29.082 2 14.541 19.053 0.000
Within Groups 283.895 372 0.763
Total 312.976 374

Meanwhile, the ANOVA test for the PD Construct is presented in Table 5.14. Almost similar to
the PSB Construct, the three stakeholders also have different perceptions on all PD indicators
because all their p-values were less than 0.05.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 155
 Table 5.14. ANOVA Test for the PD Construct

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

PD1 Between Groups 15.042 2 7.521 8.831 0.000
Within Groups 316.835 372 0.852
Total 331.877 374
PD2 Between Groups 28.628 2 14.314 24.229 0.000
Within Groups 219.772 372 0.591
Total 248.400 374
PD3 Between Groups 40.132 2 20.066 32.155 0.000
Within Groups 232.145 372 0.624
Total 272.277 374
PD4 Between Groups 15.551 2 7.775 15.738 0.000
Within Groups 183.783 372 0.494
Total 199.333 374
PD5 Between Groups 10.068 2 5.034 12.404 0.000
Within Groups 150.962 372 0.406
Total 161.029 374
PD6 Between Groups 4.833 2 2.417 9.127 0.000
Within Groups 98.500 372 0.265
Total 103.333 374
PD7 Between Groups 32.875 2 16.438 24.221 0.000
Within Groups 252.458 372 0.679
Total 285.333 374
PD8 Between Groups 41.032 2 20.516 27.370 0.000
Within Groups 278.845 372 0.750
Total 319.877 374

Table 5.15 shows the results of the one-way ANOVA analysis for the CP Construct. The results
also show that the stakeholders have different opinions on almost all attributes. The p-values for the
attributes were less than 0.05, except attribute CP 13 Distribution of the participation outcome to
all communities.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 156
 Table 5.15. ANOVA Test for the CP Construct (Part a)

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

CP1 Between Groups 23.950 2 11.975 16.443 0.000
Within Groups 270.905 372 0.728
Total 294.855 374
CP2 Between Groups 35.465 2 17.733 22.757 0.000
Within Groups 289.868 372 0.779
Total 325.333 374
CP3 Between Groups 40.277 2 20.138 31.506 0.000
Within Groups 237.775 372 0.639
Total 278.052 374
CP4 Between Groups 29.715 2 14.857 20.530 0.000
Within Groups 269.218 372 0.724
Total 298.933 374
CP5 Between Groups 42.486 2 21.243 30.072 0.000
Within Groups 262.783 372 0.706
Total 305.269 374
CP6 Between Groups 23.615 2 11.807 14.371 0.000
Within Groups 305.649 372 0.822
Total 329.264 374
CP7 Between Groups 20.326 2 10.163 13.267 0.000
Within Groups 284.963 372 0.766
Total 305.289 374
CP8 Between Groups 29.971 2 14.985 22.183 0.000
Within Groups 251.298 372 0.676
Total 281.269 374
CP9 Between Groups 28.211 2 14.105 19.721 0.000
Within Groups 266.067 372 0.715
Total 294.277 374
CP10 Between Groups 85.558 2 42.779 50.616 0.000
Within Groups 314.399 372 0.845
Total 399.957 374
CP11 Between Groups 28.499 2 14.249 19.553 0.000
Within Groups 271.105 372 0.729
Total 299.604 374
CP12 Between Groups 8.819 2 4.409 6.196 0.002
Within Groups 264.736 372 0.712
Total 273.555 374

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 157
 Table 5.15. ANOVA Test for the CP Construct (Part b)

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

CP13 Between Groups 3.164 2 1.582 2.386 0.093*
Within Groups 246.666 372 0.663
Total 249.829 374
CP14 Between Groups 25.478 2 12.739 16.274 0.000
Within Groups 291.203 372 0.783
Total 316.681 374
CP15 Between Groups 32.971 2 16.485 20.666 0.000
Within Groups 296.747 372 0.798
Total 329.717 374
*Italic bold means there is similar perceptions between the three stakeholders

Meanwhile, the one-way ANOVA analysis for the Government‟s Role (GR) Construct is presented
in Table 5.16. According to the results, only on four attributes did the three stakeholders have
similar perceptions, that are GR1 Provision of a stable political condition, GR2 Provision of a
stable economic condition, GR5 Law enforcement and GR10 Selection of the appropriate
concessionaire, while for the other eight attributes the stakeholders have different perceptions.

Table 5.16. ANOVA Test for Government‟s Role Construct (Part a)

Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
GR1 Between Groups 1.426 2 0.713 2.126 0.121*
Within Groups 124.771 372 0.335
Total 126.197 374
GR2 Between Groups 1.156 2 0.578 1.523 0.219*
Within Groups 141.177 372 0.380
Total 142.333 374
GR3 Between Groups 6.073 2 3.036 6.516 0.002
Within Groups 173.351 372 0.466
Total 179.424 374
GR4 Between Groups 11.299 2 5.650 8.837 0.000
Within Groups 237.810 372 0.639
Total 249.109 374
GR5 Between Groups 2.944 2 1.472 2.489 0.084*
Within Groups 219.990 372 0.591
Total 222.933 374

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 158
 Table 5.16. ANOVA Test for Government‟s Role Construct (Part b)

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

GR6 Between Groups 14.876 2 7.438 7.628 0.001
Within Groups 362.724 372 0.975
Total 377.600 374
GR7 Between Groups 16.140 2 8.070 10.821 0.000
Within Groups 277.418 372 0.746
Total 293.557 374
GR8 Between Groups 4.470 2 2.235 4.717 0.009
Within Groups 176.234 372 0.474
Total 180.704 374
GR9 Between Groups 10.736 2 5.368 14.888 0.000
Within Groups 134.125 372 0.361
Total 144.861 374
GR10 Between Groups 2.384 2 1.192 1.550 0.214*
Within Groups 286.085 372 0.769
Total 288.469 374
GR11 Between Groups 8.138 2 4.069 6.775 0.001
Within Groups 223.398 372 0.601
Total 231.536 374
GR12 Between Groups 7.994 2 3.997 7.520 0.001
Within Groups 197.732 372 0.532
Total 205.726 374

*Similar perceptions between the three stakeholders

5.6. Posthoc Test

Even though the ANOVA test provided information on differences in perception between the three
stakeholders, it still could not identify which stakeholders have the different perceptions.
Therefore, to clearly examine the different perceptions between each stakeholder group, a posthoc
test called the Least Significant Difference (LSD) test (Yuan et al., 2009) is necessary to determine
the stakeholders' differences. In the LSD test, the different perceptions between stakeholders are
shown through the p-value (sig). A p-value which is less than 0.05 means that there are differences
in perceptions of the stakeholders. The LSD test was performed, as can be seen in Table 5.17 to
Table 5.20.

According to Table 5.17 for the PSB Construct, generally, the government and private sectors had
similar perceptions compared to the community which is shown by the p-value that is larger than

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 159
0.05. For example, for attribute PSB1 (Safe public facility), the government and private sectors had
similar perception, which is shown by the p-values (sig.) that is 0.163 (larger than 0.05).
Meanwhile, the government had different perceptions from the community as its p-value is 0.000
(smaller than 0.05). Likewise, the private sector also had different perceptions from the community
as its p-value is 0.000 (smaller than 0.05). However, in a small number of cases, the government
had different perceptions from the private sector. For example, the government had a difference in
perceptions from the private sector for attributes PSB11 (Affordable tariff) and PSB14 (Provide
adequate toll road services) where their p-value are 0.016 and 0.013 (p-values < 0.05).

Table 5.17. Posthoc Test using the LSD Method for the PSB Construct (Part a)

Dependent Variable (I) SC (J) SC Sig. (p-value)

PSB1(Safe public facility) Government Private 0.163*
Government Community 0.000
Private Community 0.000
PSB2 (Secure public facility) Government Private 0.021*
Government Community 0.016*
Private Community 0.000
PSB3 (Deliver economic benefit to the Government Private 0.077*
community) Government Community 0.000
Private Community 0.000
PSB4 (Reduce travel time) Government Private 0.159*
Government Community 0.000
Private Community 0.000
PSB5 (Maintain social cohesion) Government Private 0.238*
Government Community 0.345*
Private Community 0.016
PSB6 (Less polluted environment) Government Private 0.802*
Government Community 0.000
Private Community 0.000
PSB7 (Availability of open space) Government Private 0.163*
Government Community 0.000
Private Community 0.000
PSB8 (Community involvement in Government Private 0.356*
decision-making) Government Community 0.000
Private Community 0.000

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 160
 Table 5.17. Posthoc Test using the LSD Method for the PSB Construct (Part b)

Dependent Variable (I) SC (J) SC Sig. (p-value)

PSB9 (Equal access for all community) Government Private 0.423*
Government Community 0.000
Private Community 0.000
PSB10 (Convenience public facility) Government Private 0.594*
Government Community 0.000
Private Community 0.000
PSB11 (Affordable tariff) Government Private 0.016
Government Community 0.000
Private Community 0.000
PSB12 (Smooth traffic condition along Government Private 0.216*
the toll road and its connecting roads) Government Community 0.000
Private Community 0.000
PSB13 (Regulation compliance) Government Private 0.961*
Government Community 0.007
Private Community 0.006
PSB14 (Provide adequate toll road Government Private 0.013
services) Government Community 0.358*
Private Community 0.000
PSB15 (Community support / less Government Private 0.688*
opposition) Government Community 0.000
Private Community 0.000
* Italic bolds means there are similar perceptions between the stakeholders (p-value > 0.05)

In summary, of the fifteen attributes, the government had similar perceptions to the private sector
across fourteen attributes. The government was similar to the community on only two attributes –
attributes PSB5 (Maintain social cohesion) and PSB14 (Provide adequate toll road service).
Meanwhile, the private sector had only one similar perception to the community on attribute PSB5
(Maintain social cohesion).

The posthoc test for the PD Construct is presented in Table 5.18 which shows that generally, the
government had similar perceptions to the private sector. Out of eight attributes, the government
had six similarities in perceptions with the private sector (italic bold numbers) and only had two
differences in perceptions regarding PD3 (Safe project design) and PD5 (Appropriate space for the

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 161
user). Meanwhile, the community had completely different perceptions from the government and
private sectors.

Table 5.18. Posthoc Test using the LSD Method for the PD Construct

Dependent Variable (I) SC (J) SC Sig. (p-value)

PD1 (Participatory design) Government Private 0.305*
Government Community 0.011
Private Community 0.000
PD2 (Appropriate to the community Government Private 0.112*
needs)
Government Community 0.000
Private Community 0.000
PD3 (Safe project design) Government Private 0.048
Government Community 0.000
Private Community 0.000
PD4 (Resulting less fatigue for the Government Private 0.102*
user)
Government Community 0.002
Private Community 0.000
PD5 (Appropriate space for the user) Government Private 0.021
Government Community 0.044
Private Community 0.000
PD6 (The condition is easy to Government Private 0.215*
understand)
Government Community 0.015
Private Community 0.000
PD7 (Aesthetic design) Government Private 0.993*
Government Community 0.000
Private Community 0.000
PD8 (Environmentally friendly) Government Private 0.184*
Government Community 0.000
Private Community 0.000
* Italic bolds means there are similar perceptions between the stakeholders (p-value > 0.05)

The Posthoc Test for the CP Construct is presented in Table 5.19 which shows that government
had similar perceptions of all attributes to the private sector. Meanwhile, the government had
different perceptions from the community in most of the attributes. The government only had
similar perceptions to the community in attribute CP13 Distribution of the outcome to all
communities. Likewise, the private sector also had different perceptions from the community in
most of the attributes, except for attribute CP13 Distribution of the outcome to all communities.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 162
 Table 5.19. Posthoc Test using the LSD Method for the CP Construct (Part a)

Dependent Variable (I) SC (J) SC Sig. (p-value)

CP1 (All community involved in the process) Government Private 0.193*
Government Community 0.000
Private Community 0.000
CP2 (Transparent process) Government Private 0.083*
Government Community 0.000
Private Community 0.000
CP3 (Rule establishment for the process) Government Private 0.547*
Government Community 0.000
Private Community 0.000
CP4 (Adequate information provided for the Government Private 0.677*
community) Government Community 0.000
Private Community 0.000
CP5 (Sufficient time allocated) Government Private 0.592*
Government Community 0.000
Private Community 0.000
CP6 (Constructive dialogue) Government Private 0.631*
Government Community 0.000
Private Community 0.000
CP7 (Appropriate moderator/facilitator) Government Private 0.534*
Government Community 0.000
Private Community 0.000
CP8 (Improve community understanding about Government Private 0.359*
the project objective) Government Community 0.000
Private Community 0.000
CP9 (Improve cooperation between parties Government Private 0.608*
involved) Government Community 0.000
Private Community 0.000
CP10 (Continuous process) Government Private 0.704*
Government Community 0.000
Private Community 0.000
CP11 (Comprehensive outcome) Government Private 0.807*
Government Community 0.000
Private Community 0.000

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 163
 Table 5.19. Posthoc Test using the LSD Method for the CP Construct (Part b)

Dependent Variable (I) SC (J) SC Sig. (p-value)

CP12 (Acceptable outcome) Government Private 0.568*
Government Community 0.002
Private Community 0.016
CP13 (Distribution of the outcome to all Government Private 0.942*
communities) Government Community 0.097*
Private Community 0.076
CP14 (Implementable outcome) Government Private 0.994*
Government Community 0.000
Private Community 0.000
CP15 (All parties respected to the process) Government Private 0.499*
Government Community 0.000
Private Community 0.000
* Italic bolds means there are similar perceptions between the stakeholders (p-value > 0.05)

Posthoc analysis for the GR Construct is presented in Table 5.20 which shows that the results are a
little bit different than the previous constructs. In the previous analysis, generally, government had
similar perceptions with the private sector as well as having mostly different perceptions from the
community. However, in this construct, the government had more similarity in perceptions with the
community. Likewise, the private sector had also the similarity in perceptions with the community.
Out of twelve attributes, the government had similarity in eight attributes with the private sector
and six attributes with the community. Meanwhile, the private sector had five similarities in
perceptions with the community. Therefore, generally, the pattern of the perceptions between three
stakeholders are actually still similar to the previous constructs where the government and private
sectors had different in perceptions from the community, even though in this construct the
community had more similarity in perceptions with the government and private sectors compared
to the previous constructs.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 164
 Table 5.20. Posthoc Test using LSD Method for Government‟s Role Construct (Part a)

Dependent Variable (I) SC (J) SC Sig. (p-value)

GR1 (Provision of stable political condition) Government Private 0.088*
Government Community 0.875*
Private Community 0.052*
GR2 (Provision of stable economic condition) Government Private 0.885*
Government Community 0.147*
Private Community 0.196*

GR3 (Simplification of bureaucratic procedure) Government Private 0.001

Government Community 0.145*
Private Community 0.005

GR4 (Corruption eradication) Government Private 0.001

Government Community 0.853*
Private Community 0.000

GR5 (Law enforcement) Government Private 0.058*

Government Community 0.037
Private Community 0.829*
GR6 (Realization of smooth land acquisition Government Private 0.130*
process) Government Community 0.061*
Private Community 0.000

GR7 (Solving community protest regarding the Government Private 0.249*

environmental issues) Government Community 0.000
Private Community 0.004
GR8 (Development of good communication Government Private 0.117*
between government and the concessionaire) Government Community 0.002
Private Community 0.251*
GR9 (Appropriate supervision) Government Private 0.048
Government Community 0.000
Private Community 0.005
GR10 (Selection of the appropriate Government Private 0.171*
concessionaire) Government Community 0.988*
Private Community 0.088*

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 165
 Table 5.20. Posthoc Test using LSD Method for Government‟s Role Construct (Part b)

Dependent Variable (I) SC (J) SC Sig. (p-value)

GR11 (Provision of appropriate government Government Private 0.041
support) Government Community 0.000
Private Community 0.234*

GR12 (selection of feasible PPP projects) Government Private 0.946*

Government Community 0.003
Private Community 0.002
* Italic bolds means there are similar perceptions between the stakeholders (p-value > 0.05)

The ANOVA and posthoc tests provided results where there were differences in perception
between the three stakeholders. This means that the next multivariate analysis such as Exploratory
Factor Analysis (EFA), Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Structural Equation Modeling
(SEM) should be done separately among the three groups. However, Chen (2007) posited that if
there are similarities in the sample characteristics, the interpretation of different perceptions needs
to be done carefully. As such, in addition to the ANOVA test, it is also necessary to take into
account the mean differences between the sample groups. The differences in perception can still be
tolerated if the mean‟s difference between the group samples was smaller than one response
category in the Likert Scale used (Chen, 2007; Panuwatwanich, 2008).

The analysis showed that mean difference between each sector‟s perceptions in this research was
less than one response category, therefore, it was decided that the data in this research can be
treated as a single sample. This was also supported by the analysis of the sample distribution which
was not violated significantly due to the differences in perceptions between the group samples.
Moreover, treating this as one sample is beneficial because the involvement of the three
stakeholders was designed to get a comprehensive understanding of all the stakeholders‟
perceptions in toll road project development.

5.7. Chapter Summary

This chapter provides an understanding of the sample characteristics from the preparation and
screening, description of the respondents‟ backgrounds, the stakeholders‟ perceptions on the
research attributes of the four constructs as well as the investigation of the perceptions of each
sector. The analysis showed that the sample obtained from the survey had met the criteria for
conducting parametric statistical analysis, either descriptive or inferential. Meanwhile, related to
the overall perceptions of the respondents, it is shown that respondents perceived that the

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 166
performances of the four constructs were still not good enough as most of the attribute means were
still below 4.00 (Agree) for a good or satisfactory performance.

The ANOVA and Posthoc tests showed that there were different perceptions between three
stakeholders. Theoretically, the next multivariate analysis should be done separately among the
stakeholders. However, as the mean difference between three samples were less than one response
category in the Likert Scale used, the data were treated as a single sample. Moreover, the other
reason was that the involvement of three stakeholders in this research was designed to provide a
comprehensive understanding about the overall stakeholders‟ perception in the toll road project
development.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 167
 CHAPTER 6
MEASUREMENT SCALE ASSESSMENT AND
ATTRIBUTES CLASSIFICATION

6.1. Introduction
This chapter describes the analysis process and result of the measurement scale used by testing the
reliability and validity of the constructs. Reliability and validity matters are actually related to
consistency and accuracy of the measurement scale. Hair et al. (2010) defined reliability is how
consistent the attribute or variable to measure the construct while validity is related to how accurate
a scale measure the construct. In this research, in addition to measuring the measurement scale‟s
accuracy, the validity test was also aimed at classifying the constructs‟ attributes in order to easily
understand their characteristics using Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA).

The validity test was performed using factor analysis techniques, namely Exploratory Factor
Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Fabrigar et al. (1999) asserted it is often
useful to perform EFA and CFA in conjunction one another where EFA is conducted at the initial
study to provide a basis for the CFA. Hair et al. (2010) asserted that EFA provides a preliminary
description of the relationship between attributes and becomes a good starting point for other
multivariate techniques. CFA is needed because it is part of the SEM analysis step to ensure the
measurement model is satisfied before continuing to the structural model assessment. The detail of
the CFA test is explained prior to the Structural Equation Modelling section in Chapter 7.

Meanwhile, a reliability test was conducted by checking the Cronbach Alpha value and Corrected
Item-Total-Correlation parameters after the EFA as recommended by Field (2005). The construct‟s
reliability was also measured by the Construct Reliability (CR) parameter after the CFA test in
Chapter 7. Next, this chapter is divided into several parts and after this introduction is an
explanation of the EFA in Section 6.2. Section 6.3 provides an understanding of the stakeholders‟
perceptions according to the EFA results. Finally, Section 6.4 provides the summary of the whole
process and results in this chapter.

6.2. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Hair et al. (2010) recommended using a minimum three to four attributes for modeling using SEM.
However, currently, no standard attributes have been found to measure the constructs in a
quantitative approach in the context of PPP toll road projects in Indonesia. As such, it was

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 168
necessary to develop a new measurement scale by specifying relevant attributes from the literature.
This measurement scale needed to be validated through the measurement using CFA and structural
analysis using SEM. Therefore, this research used more than three attributes to measure each of the
constructs to ensure that there are sufficient attributes after the screening process.

Nevertheless, by having a large number of attributes in the research constructs, it is necessary to

carry out a preliminary analysis to classify the attributes according to their characteristics and
appropriate representation. EFA is a multivariate analysis which is appropriate to test the validity
of the attributes as well as to reduce the number of attributes into small factors to be easier to
understand. Hair et al. (2010) posited the problems associated with a large number of attributes and
high correlations. Therefore, attributes with high correlations may be further reduced by forming a
new factor based on their common characteristics in EFA.

In addition to that, EFA also helps to understand the main features of the attributes in every
research construct, so it gives a comprehensive perspective and avoids marginal understanding
about the attributes‟ performance (Mooi and Sarstedt, 2014). Moreover, in the context, if there is
still no substantive theoretical model found, Gerbing and Hamilton (1996) also suggested EFA as a
precursor to CFA. Finally, EFA is highly recommended as an initial test in order to early detect the
attributes that are potentially problematic and that cause poor CFA fit through the significant cross-
loading of attributes (Farrell and Rudd, 2009). The overall EFA process and result is explained in
the following sub-sections.

6.2.1. Factor Analysis Appropriateness

Prior to the EFA process, the suitability of data was examined which pertains to the sample size
and parameters such as Correlation Matrix, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy
(KMO-MSA), Bartlett's Test of Sphericity and Anti-Image Matrix. Regarding the sample size,
actually, there is no specific requirement of a minimum sample size to perform EFA. However,
Hair et al. (2010) suggested that the number of samples expected for EFA is at least 100 and
researchers usually do not perform factor analysis for a data set under 50 samples. With a total
sample of 375, there is no problem with this data set regarding the above requirements.

Regarding the Correlation Matrix or also known as R-Matrix, it should be ensured that this
parameter is sufficient for the use of factor analysis because if all the correlation values are low, the
use of this technique is not appropriate. Tabachnick and Fidell (2007) pointed out that the use of
factor analysis becomes less appropriate if by visual inspection there is no substantial amount of
correlation values above 0.3. However, too high a correlation is also a problem and needs to be
avoided (Field, 2005). Therefore, it is necessary to eliminate the attributes that are either not

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 169
correlated with other variables or have a very high correlation (usually above 0.9) with other
variables (extreme multicollinearity). In short, to perform factor analysis, there needs to be enough
correlation between the attributes, but not perfect correlation (Field, 2005).

The correlation matrices for the four constructs are provided in Tables 6.1 to Table 6.4. According
to the results, they have met the requirements where several correlations are greater than 0.3.
However, the potential multicollinearity problem was detected by checking Determinant Value of
the R-Matrix. Field (2005) asserted that if the value of R-matrix determinant is greater than
0.00001 it means there is no potential multicollinearity, but if it is smaller than that value, all the
correlation matrices need to be checked to find an attribute that has a very high correlation (R>0.9)
and if it is found it must be evaluated before performing factor analysis.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 170
 Table 6.1. Correlation Matrix for the PSB Construct
Correlation Matrixa
PSB1 PSB2 PSB3 PSB4 PSB5 PSB6 PSB7 PSB8 PSB9 PSB10 PSB11 PSB12 PSB13 PSB14 PSB15
Correlation PSB1 1.000 0.337 0.349 0.389 0.216 0.328 0.413 0.412 0.181 0.282 0.270 0.302 0.285 0.230 0.358
PSB2 0.337 1.000 0.187 0.184 0.342 0.360 0.208 0.317 0.063 0.164 0.191 0.159 0.305 0.234 0.312
PSB3 0.349 0.187 1.000 0.395 0.247 0.342 0.403 0.488 0.229 0.264 0.394 0.371 0.192 0.256 0.473
PSB4 0.389 0.184 0.395 1.000 0.190 0.319 0.288 0.259 0.172 0.290 0.312 0.430 0.208 0.167 0.284
PSB5 0.216 0.342 0.247 0.190 1.000 0.250 0.196 0.284 0.096 0.180 0.181 0.136 0.236 0.170 0.221
PSB6 0.328 0.360 0.342 0.319 0.250 1.000 0.405 0.336 0.170 0.298 0.335 0.230 0.294 0.189 0.324
PSB7 0.413 0.208 0.403 0.288 0.196 0.405 1.000 0.337 0.155 0.281 0.342 0.333 0.331 0.269 0.397
PSB8 0.412 0.317 0.488 0.259 0.284 0.336 0.337 1.000 0.141 0.328 0.249 0.203 0.180 0.235 0.450
PSB9 0.181 0.063 0.229 0.172 0.096 0.170 0.155 0.141 1.000 0.304 0.262 0.186 0.045 0.220 0.105
PSB10 0.282 0.164 0.264 0.290 0.180 0.298 0.281 0.328 0.304 1.000 0.405 0.325 0.253 0.334 0.276
PSB11 0.270 0.191 0.394 0.312 0.181 0.335 0.342 0.249 0.262 0.405 1.000 0.333 0.228 0.322 0.299
PSB12 0.302 0.159 0.371 0.430 0.136 0.230 0.333 0.203 0.186 0.325 0.333 1.000 0.464 0.267 0.223
PSB13 0.285 0.305 0.192 0.208 0.236 0.294 0.331 0.180 0.045 0.253 0.228 0.464 1.000 0.277 0.330
PSB14 0.230 0.234 0.256 0.167 0.170 0.189 0.269 0.235 0.220 0.334 0.322 0.267 0.277 1.000 0.358
PSB15 0.358 0.312 0.473 0.284 0.221 0.324 0.397 0.450 0.105 0.276 0.299 0.223 0.330 0.358 1.000

a. Determinant = 0.019

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 171
 Table 6.2. Correlation Matrix for the PD Construct

Correlation Matrixa

PD1 PD2 PD3 PD4 PD5 PD6 PD7 PD8

Correlation PD1 1.000 0.411 0.286 0.112 0.134 0.172 0.173 0.187
PD2 0.411 1.000 0.396 0.261 0.256 0.293 0.443 0.456
PD3 0.286 0.396 1.000 0.375 0.428 0.388 0.415 0.459
PD4 0.112 0.261 0.375 1.000 0.269 0.267 0.257 0.376
PD5 0.134 0.256 0.428 0.269 1.000 0.345 0.253 0.246
PD6 0.172 0.293 0.388 0.267 0.345 1.000 0.410 0.327
PD7 0.173 0.443 0.415 0.257 0.253 0.410 1.000 0.584
PD8 0.187 0.456 0.459 0.376 0.246 0.327 0.584 1.000

a. Determinant = 0.136

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 172
 Table 6.3. Correlation Matrix for the CP Construct
Correlation Matrixa
CP1 CP2 CP3 CP4 CP5 CP6 CP7 CP8 CP9 CP10 CP11 CP12 CP13 CP14 CP15
Correlation CP1 1.000 0.756 0.715 0.668 0.683 0.711 0.601 0.664 0.628 0.507 0.699 0.669 0.630 0.607 0.626
CP2 0.756 1.000 0.720 0.676 0.702 0.713 0.635 0.627 0.638 0.535 0.706 0.630 0.677 0.630 0.639
CP3 0.715 0.720 1.000 0.748 0.715 0.737 0.686 0.738 0.662 0.487 0.668 0.649 0.639 0.665 0.701
CP4 0.668 0.676 0.748 1.000 0.759 0.682 0.616 0.744 0.636 0.501 0.646 0.656 0.658 0.648 0.636
CP5 0.683 0.702 0.715 0.759 1.000 0.716 0.620 0.716 0.636 0.511 0.691 0.629 0.618 0.666 0.640
CP6 0.711 0.713 0.737 0.682 0.716 1.000 0.658 0.657 0.665 0.509 0.693 0.701 0.668 0.630 0.611
CP7 0.601 0.635 0.686 0.616 0.620 0.658 1.000 0.681 0.654 0.513 0.675 0.631 0.623 0.589 0.646
CP8 0.664 0.627 0.738 0.744 0.716 0.657 0.681 1.000 0.689 0.487 0.667 0.640 0.692 0.629 0.686
CP9 0.628 0.638 0.662 0.636 0.636 0.665 0.654 0.689 1.000 0.572 0.669 0.637 0.604 0.620 0.644
CP10 0.507 0.535 0.487 0.501 0.511 0.509 0.513 0.487 0.572 1.000 0.557 0.496 0.448 0.499 0.504
CP11 0.699 0.706 0.668 0.646 0.691 0.693 0.675 0.667 0.669 0.557 1.000 0.727 0.642 0.651 0.637
CP12 0.669 0.630 0.649 0.656 0.629 0.701 0.631 0.640 0.637 0.496 0.727 1.000 0.713 0.627 0.587
CP13 0.630 0.677 0.639 0.658 0.618 0.668 0.623 0.692 0.604 0.448 0.642 0.713 1.000 0.639 0.605
CP14 0.607 0.630 0.665 0.648 0.666 0.630 0.589 0.629 0.620 0.499 0.651 0.627 0.639 1.000 0.845
CP15 0.626 0.639 0.701 0.636 0.640 0.611 0.646 0.686 0.644 0.504 0.637 0.587 0.605 0.845 1.000

a. Determinant = 1.087E-6

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 173
 Table 6.4. Correlation Matrix for the GR Construct

GR1 GR2 GR3 GR4 GR5 GR6 GR7 GR8 GR9 GR10 GR11 GR12
Correlation GR1 1.000 0.442 0.315 0.198 0.180 0.153 0.168 0.258 0.304 0.131 0.046 0.069
GR2 0.442 1.000 0.270 0.197 0.188 0.119 0.240 0.201 0.321 0.192 0.052 0.144
GR3 0.315 0.270 1.000 0.638 0.457 0.214 0.252 0.378 0.349 0.174 0.114 0.076
GR4 0.198 0.197 0.638 1.000 0.471 0.209 0.189 0.278 0.257 0.163 0.094 -0.020
GR5 0.180 0.188 0.457 0.471 1.000 0.156 0.243 0.278 0.352 0.137 0.124 0.041
GR6 0.153 0.119 0.214 0.209 0.156 1.000 0.065 0.196 0.291 0.331 0.014 0.039
GR7 0.168 0.240 0.252 0.189 0.243 0.065 1.000 0.290 0.554 0.078 0.203 0.118
GR8 0.258 0.201 0.378 0.278 0.278 0.196 0.290 1.000 0.479 0.210 0.124 0.034
GR9 0.304 0.321 0.349 0.257 0.352 0.291 0.554 0.479 1.000 0.267 0.169 0.190
GR10 0.131 0.192 0.174 0.163 0.137 0.331 0.078 0.210 0.267 1.000 0.137 0.124
GR11 0.046 0.052 0.114 0.094 0.124 0.014 0.203 0.124 0.169 0.137 1.000 0.174
GR12 0.069 0.144 0.076 -0.020 0.041 0.039 0.118 0.034 0.190 0.124 0.174 1.000

a. Determinant = 0.072

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 174
According to the correlation matrix, it was found that R-matrix determinants for three constructs
were above 0.00001. However, the determinant value for the Community Participation (CP)
Construct was 1.087E-006, which was below the required threshold. For that reason, an
investigation was necessary to find the attribute which has a very high correlation, that is greater
than 0.9. After an examination of Table 6.3, there was found that there was no correlation greater
than 0.9, and thus it can be concluded that there is no indication of a serious problem with the CP
Construct. With regard to KMO-MSA, the range of this parameter is between 0 and 1. According
to Field (2005), value 1 shows that the correlation is quite compact so that factor analysis can
achieve great results and the factors are reliable. Conversely, value 0 indicates diffusion in the
pattern of the correlation. For a satisfactory analysis, the KMO-MSA value should be greater than
0.5 (Field, 2005).

Meanwhile, according to Hair et al. (2010), Bartlett's Test of Sphericity is a statistical test to ensure
the presence of significant correlation among the attributes in the correlation matrix and a sufficient
correlation exists among the attributes if its value is less than 0.05 (sig. < 0.05). Therefore, a
minimal sig. value representing that there is a correlation between several attributes, as expected.
Based on the analysis reported in Table 6.5 it was found that all the KMO-MSA values for four
constructs were above 0.50 while Bartlett's scores were 0.00 which were less than 0.05, so the
sample is suitable for the factor analysis.

Table 6.5. KMO and Bartlett Test of Sphericity

Constructs KMO- Bartlett's test of
MSA sphericity (Sig.)
Project Social Benefit 0.87 1457.621 (0.00)
Project Design 0.82 740.511 (0.00)
Community Participation 0.96 5055.752 (0.00)
Government's Role 0.78 970.935 (0.00)

The last parameter that needs to be considered is the partial correlation that also shows the
correlation among the attributes. In SPSS and SAS software, this parameter can be found through
the anti-image matrix, that is the negative value of the partial correlation matrix (Hair et al., 2010).
Anti-image is an additional measure that can be used to determine whether the attributes are
sufficiently correlated (Mooi and Sartsted, 2014). It should be ensured that the diagonal elements of
the anti-image matrix are greater than minimum values of 0.5 (Field, 2005). Therefore, an attribute
that has a value less than 0.5 in the diagonal anti-image matrix should be dropped or removed. In
addition, the matrix values outside the diagonal elements are expected to be very small (close to
zero) which indicates a good model (Field, 2005).

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 175
The analysis results of the anti-image matrix parameters for four the constructs are shown in Table
6.6 to Table 6.10. It can be seen that all the diagonal element values of the four constructs are
greater than 0.5 which means the requirement is satisfied. In addition, the off-diagonal elements of
the anti-image correlation were also generally small or close to zero. Therefore, overall with all
these test results, it can be said that the data set has met the requirements as suitable for factor
analysis.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 176
 Table 6.6. Anti-Image Matrix for the PSB Construct

PSB1 PSB2 PSB3 PSB4 PSB5 PSB6 PSB7 PSB8 PSB9 PSB10 PSB11 PSB12 PSB13 PSB14 PSB15
Anti-image PSB1 0.907a -0.160 -0.005 -0.199 0.008 -0.013 -0.190 -0.182 -0.066 -0.026 0.001 -0.031 -0.057 0.000 -0.049
a
Correlation PSB2 -0.160 0.837 0.086 0.006 -0.214 -0.203 0.071 -0.117 0.026 0.060 -0.022 0.019 -0.127 -0.092 -0.094
PSB3 -0.005 0.086 .0856a -0.136 -0.084 -0.065 -0.108 -0.276 -0.094 0.093 -0.161 -0.186 0.110 -0.004 -0.243
a
PSB4 -0.199 0.006 -0.136 .0872 -0.053 -0.119 0.019 0.040 -0.003 -0.071 -0.059 -0.271 0.080 0.055 -0.060
a
PSB5 0.008 -0.214 -0.084 -0.053 .0885 -0.038 -0.009 -0.102 -0.019 -0.026 -0.015 0.063 -0.113 -0.021 0.026
a
PSB6 -0.013 -0.203 -0.065 -0.119 -0.038 .0901 -0.195 -0.066 -0.047 -0.081 -0.109 0.069 -0.102 0.064 -0.017
a
PSB7 -0.190 0.071 -0.108 0.019 -0.009 -0.195 0.916 -0.035 0.005 -0.008 -0.086 -0.078 -0.101 -0.048 -0.121
a
PSB8 -0.182 -0.117 -0.276 0.040 -0.102 -0.066 -0.035 0.869 0.030 -0.170 0.058 0.031 0.075 0.001 -0.178
a
PSB9 -0.066 0.026 -0.094 -0.003 -0.019 -0.047 0.005 0.030 0.842 -0.181 -0.090 -0.046 0.096 -0.112 0.064
PSB10 -0.026 0.060 0.093 -0.071 -0.026 -0.081 -0.008 -0.170 -0.181 0.879a -0.205 -0.099 -0.052 -0.144 -0.027
a
PSB11 0.001 -0.022 -0.161 -0.059 -0.015 -0.109 -0.086 0.058 -0.090 -0.205 0.911 -0.077 0.011 -0.122 -0.023
PSB12 -0.031 0.019 -0.186 -0.271 0.063 0.069 -0.078 0.031 -0.046 -0.099 -0.077 0.802a -0.380 -0.068 0.123
a
PSB13 -0.057 -0.127 0.110 0.080 -0.113 -0.102 -0.101 0.075 0.096 -0.052 0.011 -0.380 0.798 -0.077 -0.169
a
PSB14 0.000 -0.092 -0.004 0.055 -0.021 0.064 -0.048 0.001 -0.112 -0.144 -0.122 -0.068 -0.077 0.894 -0.183
PSB15 -0.049 -0.094 -0.243 -0.060 0.026 -0.017 -0.121 -0.178 0.064 -0.027 -0.023 0.123 -0.169 -0.183 0.881a

a. Measures of Sampling Adequacy (MSA)

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 177
 Table 6.7. Anti-Image Matrix for the PD Construct

PD1 PD2 PD3 PD4 PD5 PD6 PD7 PD8

a
Anti-image PD1 0.724 -0.336 -0.154 0.033 0.023 -0.039 0.044 0.028
a
Correlation PD2 -0.336 0.826 -0.079 -0.050 -0.064 -0.032 -0.190 -0.193
a
PD3 -0.154 -0.079 0.852 -0.169 -0.270 -0.130 -0.100 -0.179
a
PD4 0.033 -0.050 -0.169 0.864 -0.096 -0.083 0.037 -0.201
a
PD5 0.023 -0.064 -0.270 -0.096 0.828 -0.184 -0.012 0.024
PD6 -0.039 -0.032 -0.130 -0.083 -0.184 0.869a -0.222 -0.014
a
PD7 0.044 -0.190 -0.100 0.037 -0.012 -0.222 0.800 -0.402
PD8 0.028 -0.193 -0.179 -0.201 0.024 -0.014 -0.402 0.802a

a. Measures of Sampling Adequacy (MSA)

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 178
 Table 6.8. Anti-Image Matrix for the CP Construct

CP1 CP2 CP3 CP4 CP5 CP6 CP7 CP8 CP9 CP10 CP11 CP12 CP13 CP14 CP15
a
Anti-image CP1 0.971 -0.308 -0.121 -0.022 -0.048 -0.127 0.076 -0.087 -0.008 -0.030 -0.116 -0.133 0.018 0.047 -0.060
Correlation a
CP2 -0.308 0.958 -0.143 -0.057 -0.133 -0.090 -0.051 0.164 -0.046 -0.091 -0.149 0.107 -0.228 0.024 -0.058
a
CP3 -0.121 -0.143 0.971 -0.212 -0.030 -0.196 -0.139 -0.163 -0.026 0.067 0.033 -0.014 0.066 -0.011 -0.135
CP4 -0.022 -0.057 -0.212 0.968a -0.281 -0.008 0.033 -0.224 -0.012 -0.054 0.051 -0.099 -0.068 -0.072 0.043
a
CP5 -0.048 -0.133 -0.030 -0.281 0.968 -0.175 0.002 -0.175 0.004 -0.028 -0.119 0.038 0.076 -0.147 0.054
a
CP6 -0.127 -0.090 -0.196 -0.008 -0.175 0.975 -0.095 0.058 -0.110 -0.015 -0.038 -0.155 -0.098 -0.038 0.066
a
CP7 0.076 -0.051 -0.139 0.033 0.002 -0.095 0.976 -0.133 -0.109 -0.082 -0.150 -0.066 -0.076 0.096 -0.154
a
CP8 -0.087 0.164 -0.163 -0.224 -0.175 0.058 -0.133 0.952 -0.180 0.023 -0.066 0.032 -0.249 0.132 -0.189
a
CP9 -0.008 -0.046 -0.026 -0.012 0.004 -0.110 -0.109 -0.180 0.980 -0.198 -0.081 -0.075 0.015 -0.024 -0.070
CP10 -0.030 -0.091 0.067 -0.054 -0.028 -0.015 -0.082 0.023 -0.198 0.978a -0.104 -0.027 0.055 -0.035 -0.036
a
CP11 -0.116 -0.149 0.033 0.051 -0.119 -0.038 -0.150 -0.066 -0.081 -0.104 0.972 -0.270 0.030 -0.083 0.010
a
CP12 -0.133 0.107 -0.014 -0.099 0.038 -0.155 -0.066 0.032 -0.075 -0.027 -0.270 0.959 -0.291 -0.089 0.069
a
CP13 0.018 -0.228 0.066 -0.068 0.076 -0.098 -0.076 -0.249 0.015 0.055 0.030 -0.291 0.956 -0.157 0.057
a
CP14 0.047 0.024 -0.011 -0.072 -0.147 -0.038 0.096 0.132 -0.024 -0.035 -0.083 -0.089 -0.157 0.916 -0.654
CP15 -0.060 -0.058 -0.135 0.043 0.054 0.066 -0.154 -0.189 -0.070 -0.036 0.010 0.069 0.057 0-.654 0.916a

a. Measures of Sampling Adequacy(MSA)

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 179
 Table 6.9. Anti-Image Matrix GR Construct

GR1 GR2 GR3 GR4 GR5 GR6 GR7 GR8 GR9 GR10 GR11 GR12
a
Anti-image GR1 0.779 -0.358 -0.145 0.027 0.010 -0.041 0.040 -0.082 -0.098 0.020 0.006 0.017
a
Correlation GR2 -0.358 0.785 -0.051 -0.029 -0.017 0.028 -0.088 0.020 -0.087 -0.105 0.043 -0.088
a
GR3 -0.145 -0.051 0.781 -0.506 -0.162 -0.040 -0.041 -0.163 -0.022 0.003 -0.009 -0.068
a
GR4 0.027 -0.029 -0.506 0.740 -0.252 -0.075 -0.017 -0.014 0.033 -0.039 -0.020 0.099
a
GR5 0.010 -0.017 -0.162 -0.252 0.876 0.003 -0.024 -0.029 -0.150 0.003 -0.045 0.016
GR6 -0.041 0.028 -0.040 -0.075 0.003 0.756a 0.100 -0.014 -0.190 -0.258 0.056 0.019
a
GR7 0.040 -0.088 -0.041 -0.017 -0.024 0.100 0.733 -0.022 -0.456 0.087 -0.132 0.004
GR8 -0.082 0.020 -0.163 -0.014 -0.029 -0.014 -0.022 0.859a -0.294 -0.072 -0.037 0.078
a
GR9 -0.098 -0.087 -0.022 0.033 -0.150 -0.190 -0.456 -0.294 0.759 -0.108 -0.008 -0.130
a
GR10 0.020 -0.105 0.003 -0.039 0.003 -0.258 0.087 -0.072 -0.108 0.767 -0.105 -0.069
a
GR11 0.006 0.043 -0.009 -0.020 -0.045 0.056 -0.132 -0.037 -0.008 -0.105 0.751 -0.146
GR12 0.017 -0.088 -0.068 0.099 0.016 0.019 0.004 0.078 -0.130 -0.069 -0.146 0.646a

a. Measures of Sampling Adequacy(MSA)

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 180
6.2.2. Assumptions on the Factor Extraction and Factor Rotation
It is very important to specify analysis assumptions as this will influence the results. EFA also
requires several assumptions that should be determined, because, although it has been a standard
procedure, there are still some alternatives available at each stage that need to be justified. Several
assumptions that have been made in this research related to factor extraction and rotation types.

Factor extraction is a procedure to extract factors according to their correlation matrix in the
possible best way (Mooi and Sartstedt, 2014). Hair et al. (2014) and Field (2005) generally
classified the factors extraction into two types, namely Common Factor Analysis (FA) and
Principal Component Analysis (PCA). Mooi and Sarstedt (2014) stated that FA is also known as
Principal Axis Factoring. The difference between FA and PCA mathematically lies in the variance
analysis where on PCA all the variance in the observed variables is analyzed while on the FA, only
shared common variances are analyzed (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007). The factor analysis usually
produces factors while PCA results in components. In this research, the term factor and component
are used interchangeably and they refer to a similar term (Mooi and Sarstedt, 2014).

However, Field (2005) asserted that generally, PCA is conceptually less complex than FA because
more restrictive assumptions are needed for FA and the use of latent dimensions (shared variance)
is seen as more theoretically based. In summary, PCA is suggested to be used when the concern is
data reduction to extract a minimum number of factors which account for the maximum proportion
of the attributes‟ total variance. Meanwhile, FA is recommended if the primary concern is to
identify latent dimensions represented in the attributes (Mooi and Sarstedt, 2014). Therefore, PCA
was finally selected in this research as the extraction method because the goal was to perform data
reduction.

The assumption was also specified with regard to the factor rotation. The initial result of the EFA is
presented in the form of unrotated factor loading. The higher the value of factor loading, the better
as it can be considered that these variables more represent the factor. However, most researchers
agree that an un-rotation solution is not sufficient to properly interpret the factors. In many cases,
the use of rotation can improve interpretations by reducing ambiguities that are usually contained in
the preliminary analysis. Therefore, the rotation is the most important technique for articulating the
factors where the main objective is to redistribute previous factors‟ variance to the new factor to
obtain a more understandable result and theoretically has a more clear pattern of meaning (Hair et
al., 2010).

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 181
Generally, two rotation techniques have been widely recognised, namely Orthogonal (Varimax,
Quartimax, and Equamax) and Oblique Rotation (Direct Oblimin and Promax). Hair et al., (2010)
stated that there is no specific rule on how to choose the factor rotation and in some cases,
researchers simply choose one of the rotation methods in the selected software. However, Field
(2005) asserted that the Oblique Rotation is more complex because the correlation between factors
in this procedure is allowed. Orthogonal with Varimax factor rotation is generally used because it
can simplify the complexity of factors by minimizing the variance of factor loading to improve the
factor interpretation (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007). Mooi and Sartstedt (2014) also recommended
Varimax Rotation as it enhances the results‟ interpretability. Thus, Varimax Rotation was finally
selected in this research.

6.2.3. Model Assessment Criteria

EFA is usually conducted in an iteration process from the preliminary assessment, taking judgment
and repeatedly evaluating the results to generate an appropriate model (Hair, 2010). Several
assessment criteria need to be specified to decide when the factor analysis can be stopped to derive
the final result which involves the percentage of variance extracted, scree test criterion and factor
loading estimates.

6.2.3.1. Percentage of Variance Extracted

In EFA, not all factors are retained in analysis and it is expected that only a small portion of
variables would be retained but still could represent the entire attributes. Hair et al. (2010) asserted
that a percentage of total variance extracted is an approach based on the cumulative percentage by
successive factors. Latent root criterion or Eigenvalue is the most commonly used technique to
determine the number of factors that could be extracted from the factor analysis (Hair et al., 2010).
The latent root criterion, also called the Kaiser Criterion, is the process of extracting all factors with
an Eigenvalue greater than one (Mooi and Sarstedt, 2014). The reason is that every factor with an
Eigenvalue greater than one accounts for more variance than a single attribute (Mooi and Sarstedt,
2014). SPSS software by default uses the Kaiser Criterion which requires factors having
Eigenvalues greater than one be retained (Field, 2005).

So far, no absolute threshold has been adopted for all applications. However, Hair et al. (2010)
posited that in natural science, the total variance extracted should account for at least 95%, while in
social science when the information is less precise, it is uncommon to consider 60% of the solution
as satisfactory. For that reason, Mooi and Sarstedt (2014) suggested using 50% as the minimum
recommended total variance extracted. Therefore, with regard to this research, a minimum 50% of
total variance extracted was deemed sufficient as the minimum threshold.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 182
6.2.3.2. Scree Test Criterion
In addition to the percentage of total variance extracted, it is also important to consider scree test
criterion from the EFA process because it is an objective method to determine the number of
factors extracted. The scree plot is actually a graphical representation of the number of factors
above the threshold line of Eigenvalues greater than one.

6.2.3.3. Communalities
Communality, which is also known as common variance, is the variances in attributes that are
shared with all other attributes in the analysis (Hair et al., 2010). Communality represents how
much the variance of each attribute can be reproduced through the factor extraction. According to
Mooi and Sarstedt (2014), there is no agreement on a minimum threshold for the communality as it
depends on the number of attributes considered. But, if there are more attributes used in the data
set, the communality becomes smaller. However, a communality value which is less than 0.3
should be reconsidered.

Costello and Osborne (2005) posited that high attribute communality is actually larger than 0.8, but
this is unlikely to happen in social science‟s real data where commonly the communalities are in a
range between 0.40 to 0.70. In addition to that, Fabrigar et al. (1999) provided guidance that
communality between 0.4 to 0.7 is considered as moderate for a data set of 200, while communality
of 0.7 or higher is considered to be good with at least 100 samples needed. Meanwhile, Hair et al.
(2010) recommended 0.5 as the minimal cut-off for the communality. As this research comprises
354 samples which is greater than 200, therefore a cut-off of 0.4 was used for assessing the
communality in this sample.

6.2.3.4. Factor Loading

According to a rule of thumb, actually only a factor loading greater than 0.32 can be interpreted
(Tabachnick and Fidel, 2007). In more detail, Hair et al. (2010) provided a guideline to determine
the limit value which can be considered a significant factor loading. According to the sample
number, a minimum factor loading is 0.3 for 350 samples, a minimum at 0.35 for 250 samples,
0.50 for 120 samples, 0.55 for 100 samples, 0.60 for 85 samples, 0.65 for 70 sample and 0.75 for
50 samples.

Based on the above conditions, it can be concluded that a larger sample has a tendency to use
smaller factor loadings. Field (2005) asserted that in a large sample, even a small factor loading
was considered to have statistical meaning. Hair et al. (2010) asserted that factor loading ± 50 or
greater are practically significant while ± 30 to ± 40 meet the minimal interpretation of structure.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 183
Therefore, by involving a sample that is larger than 350, this research used 0.4 as the minimal cut-
off.

In addition to that, it is also important for the researcher to examine the attributes that have not
been included in any of the factors. Hair et al., (2010) suggested that if variable cross-loading was
found, it is necessary to try different rotation factors to examine the possibility of the attributes
being included, before being removed from the data set.

6.2.4. Results Interpretation and Model Improvement

The results can be interpreted according to model assessment criteria. Further, a researcher can
determine whether it is necessary to repeat the modelling process to improve the results. Hair et al.
(2010) suggested that the model improvement can be done using several alternatives such as (1)
remove the attribute from the analysis, (2) attempt to apply the method of rotation in order to get
better interpretation of the factors, (3) extract the number of different factors, and (4) to change
from one method to another method of extraction. Once all these things are considered, the final
results of the factor analysis can be labelled.

6.2.5. EFA Results

Having explained the assumptions used for carrying the EFA, this chapter provides the analysis
result from the process. The EFA was carried out several times to achieve good results. The EFA
results are presented next based on every constructs‟ analysis.

6.2.5.1. The Project Social Benefit (PSB) Construct

The total variance extracted for the PSB construct is presented in Table 6.10. According to the
table it was found that three factors were derived with a total variance explained of 58.123% which
was above 50% so it can be considered acceptable. There are four factors extracted based on an
Eigenvalue larger than 1. This result was also confirmed by the scree plot in Figure 6.1 which
showed that four factors were obtained where their Eigenvalue is greater than 1.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 184
 Table 6.10. Total Variance Explained for the PSB Construct

Extraction Sums of Squared Rotation Sums of Squared

Initial Eigenvalues Loadings Loadings
Component/ % of Cumulative % of Cumulative % of Cumulative
Factor Total Variance % Total Variance % Total Variance %
1 4.251 32.702 32.702 4.251 32.702 32.702 2.462 18.936 18.936
2 1.228 9.446 42.148 1.228 9.446 42.148 1.883 14.488 33.425
3 1.067 8.209 50.356 1.067 8.209 50.356 1.653 12.718 46.143
4 1.010 7.767 58.123 1.010 7.767 58.123 1.557 11.980 58.123
5 .807 6.204 64.327
6 .750 5.770 70.097
7 .691 5.318 75.415
8 .661 5.083 80.498
9 .651 5.005 85.503
10 .598 4.596 90.099
11 .487 3.744 93.844
12 .416 3.197 97.040
13 .385 2.960 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Figure 6.1. Scree Plot for the PSB Construct

Table 6.11 shows the factor loadings as well as the communalities of the overall attributes. The
results shows that the factor loadings of all attributes are greater than 0.4, which is considered
acceptable. To better interpret the EFA results, only factor loading values above 0.4 are displayed
because the values below 0.4 lack substantive meaning (Field, 2005). The attributes‟ communality

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 185
can also be seen in Table 6.11 where the values range between 0.444 to 0.757 with an average
communality 0.581. During modelling trials, two attributes were dropped, namely PSB6 Less
polluted environment and PSB15 Community support. Finally, the other 13 attributes were
maintained in the model.

Table 6.11. Rotated Factor Loadings and Communalities for the PSB Construct

Factor
Attributes of Social Benefit
ID Loading Communalities
to Community

FPSB1 Improvement of quality of life and community

engagement.
3 Deliver economic benefit to the community. 0.738 0.624
4 Reduce travel time. 0.687 0.553
1 Provide safe public facility. 0.608 0.512
8 Involve the community in decision-making 0.599 0.635
process.
7 Provide an available open space. 0.541 0.444
FPSB2 Provision of good service of quality from public
facility.
9 Equal access for all community. 0.742 0.594
10 Convenience public facility. 0.656 0.533
14 Provide adequate toll road services. 0.606 0.550
11 Affordable tariff. 0.571 0.491
FPSB3 Provision of psychological needs.
2 Secure public facility. 0.764 0.638
5 Maintain social cohesion. 0.695 0.518
FPSB4 Provision of regulation compliance
environment.
13 Adhere to regulation compliance. 0.808 0.757
12 Smooth traffic condition along the toll road and its 0.679 0.704
connecting roads.

As the EFA model was considered acceptable, the results were then labeled and interpretated.
Factor 1 of PSB Construct (FPSB1) was named “Improve quality of life and community
engagement” accounted for 18.936% of variance and comprises five attributes. The attributes are
PSB3 Deliver economic benefit to the community, PSB4 Reduce travel time, PSB1 Provide safe
public facility, PSB8 Involve the community in decision-making process, PSB7 Provide an

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 186
available open space. Generally, all the attributes had quite high loading with the highest factor
loading achieved by the attribute of PSB3 Deliver economic benefit to the community with 0.738.
Meanwhile, the lowest factor loading was PSB7 Provide an available open space with 0.541.

Factor 2 was named as FPSB2 “Provision of good service quality from public facility”, accounted
for 14.488% consisting of four attributes, namely PSB9 Equal access for all community, PSB10
Convenient public facility, PSB14 Provide adequate toll road services and PSB11 Affordable tariff.
The highest factor loading was 0.742 that is for the attribute of PSB9 Equal access for all
community. The lowest factor loading was PSB11 Affordable tariff with a factor loading equal to
0.571.

Factor 3 was named as FPSB3 “Provision of psycological needs” which accounted for 12.718% of
variance and had only two attributes, namely PSB2 (Secure public facility) and PSB5 (Maintain
social cohesion). The highest factor loading was PSB2 (Secure public facility) with 0.764 and the
other one is 0.695 for PSB5 (Maintain social cohesion).

Finally, FPSB4 was labeled as “Provision of regulation compliance environment”. It accounted for
11.980% of variance and consisted of two attributes, namely PSB13 (Adhere to regulation
compliance) and PSB12 (Smooth traffic condition along the toll road and its connecting roads).
The factor loading for PSB13 (Adhere to regulation compliance) is 0.808 while PSB12 (Smooth
traffic condition along the toll road and its connecting roads) is 0.679.

6.2.5.2. The Project Design (PD) Construct

Table 6.12. shows the total variance explained for the PD Construct with two factors with 54.200%
total variance explained. Figure 6.2 also provides information regarding the scree plot of the PD
Construct which informed that two factors have been obtained from the process.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 187
 Table 6.12. Total Variance Explained for the PD Construct

Extraction Sums of Squared Rotation Sums of Squared

Initial Eigenvalues Loadings Loadings
Component/ % of Cumulative % of Cumulative % of Cumulative
Factor Total Variance % Total Variance % Total Variance %
1 3.312 41.401 41.401 3.312 41.401 41.401 2.678 33.469 33.469
2 1.024 12.799 54.200 1.024 12.799 54.200 1.658 20.731 54.200
3 0.892 11.154 65.354
4 0.776 9.699 75.053
5 0.637 7.969 83.021
6 0.526 6.570 89.591
7 0.449 5.618 95.209
8 0.383 4.791 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Figure 6.2. Scree Plot for the PD Construct

Table 6.13. provides information on the rotated factor loadings and communalities of the PD
Construct. According to the results it is seen that all the factor loadings were greater than 0.4 and
range between 0.651 and 0.867. The communalities values were also mostly above 0.5 and only
three attributes had communalities below 0.5 but still above the minimum threshold of 0.4.
Therefore, the results were considered acceptable.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 188
Factor Project Design 1 (FPD1) named "Fit for Purpose Design" accounted for 33.469% of the
extracted variance. It consists of six attributes, namely PD3 Safe design, PD5 Appropriate space
for the user, PD6 Easy to understand, PD8 Environmentally friendly, PD4 Resulting in less fatigue
for the user and PD7 Aesthetic. Attribute PD3 Safe design has the highest factor loading with 0.678
and PD7 Aesthetic had the lowest factor loading with 0.626. Meanwhile, Factor Project Design 2
(FPD2) called "Participatory Design Process" which accounted for 20.731% had only two
attributes, namely PD1 Involving the community in the process and PD2 Appropriate to the
community needs.

Table 6.13. Rotated Factor Loadings and Communalities for the PD Construct

Factor
ID Attributes of Toll Road Project Design Communalities
Loading
FPD1 Fit for Purpose Design
3 Safe design 0.678 0.566
5 Appropriate space for the user 0.652 0.425
6 Easy to understand 0.651 0.443
8 Environmentally friendly 0.649 0.550
4 Resulting less fatigue for the user 0.648 0.420
7 Aesthetic 0.626 0.521
FPD2 Participatory Design Process
1 Involving community in the process 0.867 0.753
2 Appropriate to the community needs 0.723 0.659

6.2.5.3. The Community Participation (CP) Construct

The total variance explained of the CP Construct is depicted in Table 6.14 which generated
66.993% of the total variance explained. In this case, all attributes were accumulated to only one
factor called Factor Community Participation (FCP). The scree plots also confirmed the result
which showing only one factor was formed from the process.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 189
 Table 6.14. Total Variance Explained for the CP Construct

Extraction Sums of Squared

Initial Eigenvalues Loadings
% of Cumulative % of Cumulative
Component Total Variance % Total Variance %
1 10.049 66.993 66.993 10.049 66.993 66.993
2 0.657 4.382 71.374
3 0.629 4.194 75.568
4 0.505 3.367 78.935
5 0.479 3.191 82.127
6 0.415 2.765 84.892
7 0.355 2.364 87.256
8 0.339 2.258 89.514
9 0.314 2.096 91.610
10 0.294 1.962 93.572
11 0.247 1.649 95.221
12 0.225 1.498 96.719
13 0.193 1.288 98.007
14 0.172 1.143 99.151
15 0.127 0.849 100.000

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Figure 6.3. Scree Plot of the CP Construct

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 190
All fifteen attributes were found to have high factor loadings with an average of 0.817 but with one
exception below 0.7, namely CP10 (Continue participation). The average communality was also
quite high with 0.669. Only one attribute has communality below 0.5, but it was still above 0.4 so
still can be considered acceptable. Therefore, all fifteen attributes were maintained and no attribute
was dropped or removed.

Table 6.15. Rotated Factor Loadings and Communalities for the CP Construct

Attributes of Community Participation Factor

ID Communalities
Performance Loading

FCP Community Participation

3 Rule establishment 0.862 0.742
6 Constructive dialogue 0.846 0.716
8 Improve community understanding 0.843 0.711
11 Comprehensive outcome 0.843 0.710
5 Sufficient time allocated 0.842 0.709
2 Transparent process 0.840 0.705
4 Adequate information provided 0.840 0.705
1 All community involvement 0.831 0.690
15 All stakeholders respect to the participation 0.816 0.666
process
12 Acceptable participation outcome 0.815 0.665
14 Implementable participation process 0.811 0.658
9 Improve cooperation between parties involved 0.811 0.657
(gov, private and community).
13 Distribution of participation outcome 0.805 0.647
7 Appropriate moderator 0.801 0.642
10 Continue participation 0.653 0.426

6.2.5.4. The Government’s Role (GR) Construct

The factor analysis results of the GR Construct can be seen in Table 6.16. From the analysis, three
factors were derived with 67.976% of the total variance explained. The Scree Plot in Figure 6.4
confirmed three factors from the analysis. Four attributes were removed and finally eight attributes
were maintained in the model.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 191
 Table 6.16. Total Variance Explained for the GR Construct

Extraction Sums of Squared

Compo- Initial Eigenvalues Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
Loadings
nent/
% of Cumula- % of Cumulative % of
Factor Total Total Total Cumulative %
Variance tive % Variance % Variance

1 3.221 40.260 40.260 3.221 40.260 40.260 2.075 25.934 25.934

2 1.188 14.849 55.109 1.188 14.849 55.109 1.867 23.335 49.268
3 1.029 12.868 67.976 1.029 12.868 67.976 1.497 18.708 67.976
4 0.726 9.069 77.045
5 0.579 7.233 84.278
6 0.536 6.695 90.973
7 0.380 4.750 95.722
8 0.342 4.278 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Figure 6.4. Scree Plot for the GR Construct

The three factors formed were named Factor 1 of GR (FGR1) Establishment of good bureaucracy,
Factor 2 of GR (FGR2) Provision of appropriate government's support and supervision and Factor
3 of GR (FGR3) Provision of Conducive environment. FGR1 accounted for 25.934% consisting of
three attributes, namely GR4 Corruption eradication, GR3 Simplification of bureaucracy
procedure, and GR5 Law enforcement. The highest loading factor attribute was 0.868 for GR4
Corruption eradication and the lowest was 0.709 for the GR5 Law enforcement attribute.
Meanwhile, the communality values were between 0.572 and 0.767 (Table 6.17).

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 192
FGR2 accounted for 23.335% of variance and comprised three attributes, namely GR7 Solving
community aspiration with appropriate approach, GR9 Appropriate supervision and GR8
Development of good relationship with private sector. All the attributes had strong factor loadings
with the highest loading being 0.834 for the GR7 Solving community aspiration with appropriate
approach. The lowest loading factor for this FGR2 was 0.586 for the GR8 Develoment good
relationship with the private sector. FGR3 accounted for 18.708% of variance with only two
attributes, namely GR1 Stable political condition and GR2 Stable economic condition. The loading
factors for both attributes were very high, being 0.835 for GR1 Stable political condition and 0.810
for the GR2 Stable economic condition attribute.

Table 6.17. Rotated Factor Loadings and Communalities for the GR Construct
Factor
ID Attributes of Government‟s Performance Communalities
Loading

FGR1 Establishment of Good Bureaucracy

4 Corruption eradication 0.868 0.767
3 Simplification of bureaucracy procedure 0.803 0.736
5 Law enforcement 0.709 0.572
FGR2 Provision of Appropriate Government’s Support
and Supervision
7 Solving community aspiration with appropriate 0.834 0.703
approach
9 Appropriate supervision 0.821 0.761
8 Development of good relationship with private sector 0.586 0.466
FGR3 Provision of Conducive Environment
1 Stable political condition 0.835 0.733
2 Stable economic condition 0.810 0.700

6.2.6. Reliability Analysis

In addition to the EFA, reliability of the sample is also an important investigation. According to
Hair et al. (2010, p.125), test-retest method is one method to test the reliability by measuring the
responses from several respondents at two points in time to ensure the response obtained does not
vary significantly over time, so that the measurement is reliable. However, Hair et al. (2010)
asserted that the internal consistency method is a common method to measure the reliability of the
data. The internal consistency method uses the principle that the attributes in the same construct
should have high intercorrelation.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 193
Regarding internal consistency, Hair et al. (2010) posited that there are three types of parameters
for measuring it, namely (1) the relationship between separate items, (2) reliability coefficient and
(3) reliability which is derived from confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Firstly, Relationship
between separate items can be categorised into two types, Inter-item Correlation and the Corrected
Item-Total Correlation. Inter-item-correlation is a correlation among the items, while the Corrected
Item-Total Correlations is the correlation between items on the total scale (Hair et al., 2010).
Secondly, the reliability coefficient method is aimed at determining the overall scale consistency
and is measured using Cronbach's Alpha value. Thirdly, reliability from CFA is usually conducted
through Composite Reliability (CR) and Average Variance Exctracted (AVE).

In this research, the reliability test was conducted using internal consistency through Cronbach's
Alpha and the relationship between separate items using Corrected Item-Total Correlation.
Cronbach Alpha is explained in the following sub-section while Inter-item Correlation was
presented through the correlation matrix test in Section 6.2.2. The reliability test from CFA through
CR and AVE are explained separately in Chapter 7 Sub-Section 7.3.5 regarding construct validity.

6.2.6.1. Cronbach’s Alpha

Cronbach‟s Alpha is also known as Alpha and a common rule of thumb suggests 0.7 as the
threshold for an acceptable result, although for this type of exploratory research, the value may be
lowered to 0.6 (Field, 2005). According to Table 6.18, Cronbach Alpha coefficients for the four
constructs range between 0.740 and 0.962 which are above 0.7 and therefore the sample has good
reliability.

Table 6.18. Cronbach‟s Alpha Coefficient for the Four Constructs

Constructs Number of Cases Number of variables Cronbach's Alpha
Project Social Benefit 375 13 0.821
Project Design 375 8 0.782
Community Participation 375 15 0.962
Government's Role 375 8 0.778

6.2.6.2. Corrected Item-Total-Correlation

According to Koufteros (1998), this parameter has been widely used in the fields of psychology,
marketing, and recently in manufacturing to build unidimensionality scales. If some attributes are
built from a single construct, then the response to these attributes should be highly correlated which
is measured by Corrected Item-Total Correlation. In addition, Field (2005) asserted that Corrected
Item-Total Correlation could be enough to exceed 0.3. An attribute with a Corrected Item-Total
Correlation value below 0.3 does not correlate well with an overall score, so it is advisable to

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 194
remove that attribute (Hair et al., 2010). Thus, this research adopted 0.3 as the minimal cut-off. The
Corrected Item-Total Correlation values are shown in Tables 6.19 to 6.22.

Table 6.19. Corrected Item-Total Correlation for the PSB Construct

Corrected Cronbach's
ID Attributes Name Item-Total Alpha if Item
Correlation Deleted
PSB1 Safe public facility 0.540 0.803
PSB2 Secure public facility 0.386 0.815
PSB3 Deliver economic benefit to the 0.562 0.800
community
PSB4 Reduce travel time 0.489 0.809
PSB5 Maintain social cohesion 0.356 0.818
PSB7 Availability of open space 0.524 0.804
PSB8 Community involvement in decision- 0.509 0.805
making
PSB9 Equal access for all community 0.292 0.821
PSB10 Convenience public facility 0.496 0.807
PSB11 Affordable tariff 0.509 0.805
PSB12 Smooth traffic along the toll road and its 0.502 0.806
PSB13 Regulation compliance 0.442 0.810
PSB14 Provide adequate toll road services 0.435 0.812

Based on the analyses, almost all the Corrected Item-Total Correlation for three constructs are
greater than 0.3 except for PSB9 (Equal access for all community). However, as its value is near to
0.3 being 0.292, it is assumed that all attributes have met the reliability test. In addition, the table
also provides information on the Cronbach‟s Alpha if that item is deleted. For example, the
Cronbach Alpha that originally is 0.821 for the PSB Construct becomes 0.803 if PSB1 is deleted
and becomes 0.815 if PSB2 is deleted. However, as the Cronbach‟s Alpha without attribute
deletion is still larger than after the deletion, it is better to use the original Cronbach‟s Alpha value.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 195
 Table 6.20. Corrected Item-Total Correlation for the PD Construct

Corrected Cronbach's
ID Attribute Name Item-Total Alpha if Item
Correlation Deleted
PD1 Participatory design 0.322 0.791
PD2 Appropriate to the community needs 0.598 0.739
PD3 Safe project design 0.609 0.736
PD4 Resulting less fatigues for the user 0.403 0.771
PD5 Appropriate space for the user 0.410 0.770
PD6 The condition is easy to understand 0.462 0.768
PD7 Aesthetic design 0.560 0.745
PD8 Environmental friendly 0.595 0.738

Table 6.21. Corrected Item-Total Correlation for the CP Construct

Cronbach's
Corrected Alpha if
ID Attribute Name
Item-Total Item
Correlation Deleted
CP1 All Community involved in the process 0.806 0.959
CP2 Transparent process 0.819 0.959
CP3 Rule establishment for the process 0.835 0.958
CP4 Adequate information provided for the community 0.810 0.959
CP5 Sufficient time allocated 0.816 0.959
CP6 Constructive dialogue 0.824 0.958
CP7 Appropriate moderator/facilitator 0.774 0.960
CP8 Improve community understanding about the project 0.819 0.959
objective
CP9 Improve cooperation between parties involved 0.783 0.959
CP10 Continuous process 0.617 0.964
CP11 Comprehensive outcome 0.817 0.959
CP12 Acceptable outcome 0.784 0.959
CP13 Distribution of the participation outcome to all 0.783 0.959
communities
CP15 Community support (less opposition) 0.767 0.960

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 196
 Table 6.22. Corrected Item-Total Correlation for the GR Construct

Corrected Cronbach's
ID Attribute Item-Total Alpha if Item
Correlation Deleted
GR1 Provision of stable political condition 0.394 0.768
GR2 Provision of a stable economic condition 0.394 0.768
GR3 Simplification of bureaucracy procedure 0.617 0.732
GR4 Corruption eradication 0.502 0.751
GR5 Law enforcement 0.492 0.753
GR7 Solving community protes regarding the 0.418 0.770
environmental issues
GR8 Development good communication between 0.478 0.755
government and the concessionaire
GR9 Appropriate supervision 0.604 0.737

6.2.7. Summary of the EFA

The summary of the EFA process for all constructs can be seen in Table 6.23. According to the
results, the overall analyses can be said to be acceptable according to the reliability and validity
parameters used. Based on the EFA results, the PSB Construct can be formed into four factors
(FPSB1, FPSB2, FPSB3 and FPSB4) while PD becomes two factors (FPD1 and FPD2).
Meanwhile, the CP construct was accumulated into only one factor and the GR Construct becomes
three factors (FGR1, FGR2 and FGR3).

Table 6.23. Summary of the EFA

Cumulative Corrected
Loading
No Construct Factor Formed Variance Commu- Cronbach Item-Total
Factors
Extracted (%) nalities Alpha Correlation
1 PSB FPSB1 (5 attributes) 58.123 0.541-0.765 0.444-0.757 0.821 0.292-0.562
FPSB2 (3 attributes)
FPSB3 (2 attributes)
FPSB4 (2 attributes)
2 PD FPD1 (6 attributes) 54.200 0.651-0.723 0.425-0.753 0.782 0.322-0.609
FPD2 (2 attributes)
3 CP FCP (15 attributes) 66.993 0.653-0.862 0.426-0.742 0.962 0.767-0.835
4 GR FGR1 (3 attributes) 67.970 0.856-0.868 0.466-0.767 0.778 0.394-0.617
FGR2 (3 attributes)
FGR3 (2 attributes)

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 197
With regard to the Cumulative Variance Extracted, all four constructs had this component that was
larger than 50% which is considered acceptable. All constructs also had factor loadings which are
larger than 0.5. In addition, the communalities of the four constructs also had passed the cut-off of
0.4. These all parameters had confirmed the validity test through the EFA processs. Meanwhile, the
reliability test was performed by Cronbach‟s Alpha and Corrected Item-Total Correlation.
Regarding Cronbach‟s Alpha, all the results were also larger than the minimum value which is 0.7.
The Corrected Item-Total Correlation also satisfied the requirement as they were mostly larger than
0.3 as the cut-off value. Therefore, the EFA results have satisfied all the requirements of the
reliability and validity tests.

6.3. Understanding Stakeholders’ Perceptions Based on the Factors’ Performance

To provide clearer understanding about the current toll road project implementation, the analysis
was also conducted to understand the stakeholders‟ perceptions regarding the factors obtained from
the Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA). This analysis can better understand the attributes
performance according to their similar characteristics. As pointed by Mooi and Sarstedt (2014) one
of the intentions in performing EFA is to provide understanding of the main factors from a large
number of attributes used in the questionnaire. By having a comprehensive understanding of the
main factors, it could be easy to capture and distinguish the factors that have better or lesser
performance. In this section, the previous data analysed in the preliminary results were then re-
analyse based on the derived factors from the EFA. The basis for this analysis is similar to the
previous attributes‟ assessment where in order to have a good performance, the factor should have
score higher than 4.00 (Agree).

As noted earlier, to distinguish the variable “factor” as the result of the EFA with variable
“attribute” as indicator for measuring the construct, the term “Factor” is used in front of the
construct‟s name. For example, for the factors derived from the EFA process for Project Social
Benefit (PSB) Construct it is called Factor 1 of PSB (FPSB1), namely Improvement of quality of
life and community engagement. This FPSB1 consists of five attributes, namely PSB3 (Deliver
economic benefit to the community), PSB4 (Reduce travel time), PSB1 (Provide safe public
facility), PSB8 (Involve the community in decision-making process) and PSB7 (Provide an
available open space). These terms were also used for the other constructs such as Project Design
(PD), Community Participation (CP) and Government‟s Role (GR). The results are presented in the
next sub-sections for every construct.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 198
6.3.1. The Project Social Benefit (PSB) Construct
The factor‟s performance analysis for the PSB Construct is presented in Table 6.24. For better
understanding, the result of the factors‟ performance can be seen separately from the overall sector,
government, private and community sectors. From the overall perspective, the performance of four
factors in the PSB Construct are all below 4.00 as the minimum indicator of satisfaction according
to the overall stakeholders. The score of FPSB1 (Improvement of quality of life and community
engagement) score was 3.723. FPSB2 (Provision of good service of quality of public facility)
obtained 3.641 and FPSB3 (Provision of psychological needs) score was 3.443. Meanwhile, the
FPSB4 (Provision of regulation compliance environment) received 3.439 score.

It is also seen that FPSB1 (Improvement of quality of life and community engagement) was
perceived as the best factor‟s performance since it received the highest mean value 3.723 even
though its score is still below 4.00 as the good performance criteria (Agree). It means that,
currently, the toll road projects‟ existence has provided an improvement of the community‟s quality
of life, especially with regard to attribute PSB4 (Reduce the travel time) and PSB3 (Deliver
economic benefit to the community).

However, the lowest performance was perceived by the overall sector with regard to the FPSB4
(Provision of regulation compliance environment) with factor mean equal to 3.439. The results
show that the current situation in toll roads was not quite satisfactory with regard the attribute
PSB13 (Adhere to regulation compliance) and PSB12 (Smooth traffic condition along the toll road
and its connecting roads). The reason was because, currently, the regulation compliance not being
achieved and toll roads did not result in smooth traffic conditions. This finding was supported by
previous research conducted by Handayani (2008) which showed that traffic congestion still
happened in toll roads even though, generally, the toll road condition is perceived to be better than
regular roads.

The results can also be viewed from each sector‟s perspective. From the government point of view,
they gave the highest performance to FPSB1 (Improvement of quality of life and community
engagement) with 4.065 which means it is actually quite satisfied. Meanwhile, the government
gave the worst factor performance to FPSB3 (Provision of psychological needs) with factor‟s mean
equal to 3.513. The perception of the government of the factors in PSB Construct were generally
quite similar to the private sector, but the private sector perceptions tended to be higher than the
government.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 199
 Table 6.24. Factor‟s Performance Analysis for the PSB Construct
Overall Sector Government Sector Private Sector Community
ID Factors/Attributes Attribute's Factor's Attribute's Factor's Attribute's Factor's Attribute's Factor's
Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean
FPSB1 Improvement of quality of life and community
engagement.
3 Deliver economic benefit to the community. 3.851 4.123 4.368 3.142
4 Reduce travel time 4.207 4.524 4.639 3.960
1 Provide safe public facility. 3.733 3.723 4.068 4.065 4.237 4.183 3.456 3.368
8 Involve the community in decision-making process. 3.463 3.869 3.737 3.239
7 Provide an available open space. 3.360 3.740 3.934 3.044
FPSB2 Provision of good service quality of public facility
9 Equal access for all community. 3.989 4.411 4.316 3.743
10 Convenience public facility. 3.699 4.000 3.934 3.522
3.641 3.911 4.023 3.426
14 Provide adequate toll road services. 3.909 3.904 4.158 3.827
11 Affordable tariff. 2.968 3.329 3.684 2.611
FPSB3 Provision of psychological needs.
2 Secure public facility. 3.509 3.615 3.947 3.327
3.443 3.513 3.770 3.310
5 Maintain social cohesion. 3.376 3.411 3.592 3.292
FPSB4 Provision of regulation compliance environment.

13 Adhere to regulation compliance. 3.691 3.849 3.855 3.584

Smooth traffic condition along the toll road and its 3.439 3.767 3.862 3.190
12 3.685 3.868 2.796
connecting roads. 3.187

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 200
Meanwhile, according to the community‟s perception, the best factor performance was FPSB2
(Provision of good service quality of public facility) with a mean of 3.426 even though it was still
below 4.00. Actually, the community perceived better performance to several attributes under
FPSB2, that are with regard to attribute PSB14 (Provide adequate toll road service) (3.827) and
attribute PSB9 (Equal access to the facility) (3.743). However, the community was not satisfied
with the performance of attribute PSB11 (Affordable tariff) as it had a low score (2.611). As result,
the low score of attribute PSB11 made the overall FPSB2 score was not also quite good. Finally,
the community gave the lowest factor‟s performance to FPSB4 (Provision of regulation compliance
environment) with a mean equal to 3.190 as the performance of attribute PSB12 (Smooth traffic
condition along the toll road and its connecting roads) was still perceived not to be good as the
community expected with score of 2.796.

6.3.2. The Project Design (PD) Construct

Table 6.25 presents the factor‟s performance analysis for the Project Design (PD) Construct which
can generally be classified into two categories, namely FPD1 (Fit for Purpose Design) and FPD2
(Participatory Design Process). According to the overall sector perceptions, the stakeholder was not
quite satisfied as mostly the factors in PD Construct obtained scores below 4.00 either from FPD1
or FPD2. FPD1 (Fit for Purpose Project Design) obtained 3.621 while FPD2 (Participatory Design
Process) score was 3.299. These results were quite similar to the PSB factors‟ scores that were also
below 4.00.

FPD1 (Fit for Purpose Project Design) received better performance as it is seen by the factor mean
of 3.621 which was higher than that FPD2 (Participatory Design Process). The results showed that,
currently, consideration such as the participatory design concept which involves the community in
the design process, as well as being appropriate to the community‟s needs have not been
accommodated well. This is seen by the score that was obtained by the two attributes in FPD2, that
are 3.237 for the attribute PD1 (Involving community in the process) and 3.360 for the attribute
PD2 (Appropriate to the community needs).

With regard to each sector‟s perception, the three sectors gave higher performance to the FPD1 (Fit
for Purpose Design) factor compared to FPD2 (Participatory Design Process) which means that
current toll road project design has not adopted participatory design processes. The government and
private sectors had quite similar perceptions regarding the factors‟ performance, where FPD1 (Fit
for Purpose Design) obtained a higher score compared to FPD2 (Participatory design process).
According to the government perception, FPD1 (Fit for Purpose Design) obtained score 3.822
compared to 3.493 for the FPD2 (Participatory design process). Meanwhile, from private sector

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 201
 Table 6.25. Factor‟s Performance Analysis for the PD Construct
Overall Sector Government Sector Private Sector Community
ID Factors/Attributes Attribute's Factor's Attribute's Factor's Attribute's Factor's Attribute's Factor's
Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean
FPD1 Fit for Purpose Design
3 Safe project design 3.563 3.822 4.079 3.305
5 Appropriate space for the user 3.821 3.877 4.118 3.704
6 Easy to understand 3.933 4.014 4.118 3.845
3.621 3.822 3.985 3.433
8 Environmentally friendly 3.339 3.644 3.833 3.075
4 Resulting less fatigue for the user 3.733 3.877 4.066 3.575
7 Aesthetic 3.333 3.699 3.697 3.093

FPD2 Participatory Design Process

1 Involving community in the process 3.237 3.397 3.553 3.080

3.299 3.493 3.671 3.111
2 Appropriate to the community needs 3.360 3.589 3.789 3.142

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 202
perception, FPD1 (Fit for Purpose Design) obtained score 3.985 and FPD2 (Participatory design
process) obtained score 3.671. Generally, the private sector still perceived higher performance
compared to the government sector. This means that the private sector feels the current PD
performance is better than the government‟s perception. However, this is not perceived that way by
the community, as they gave lower scores to both the factors with means of 3.433 for the FPD1 (Fit
for Purpose Design) and 3.111 for FPD2 (Participatory design process).

The above results provide an understanding that current toll road PD performance is still below the
satisfactory level, which is in this case is 4.00 (Agree). However, among the two factors in the PD
Construct, the improvement should be prioritised with regard to FPD2 (Participatory design
process) performance as its performance is lower than FPD1 (Fit for purpose design). Improvement
is possible by involving the commmunity in the design process to better understand their needs and
expectations as well as to provide a design which is appropriate to the community needs and
expectations.

6.3.3. The Community Participation (CP) Construct

Meanwhile, the factor‟s performance analysis for the CP construct can be seen in Table 6.26. As
only one factor was formed from the EFA, the stakeholders‟ perceptions can only be analysed by
comparing each sectors‟ performance. Overall, the sectors perceived that the CP performance was
not quite satisfactory as the average FCP was 3.481 against a threshold of 4.00. This finding also
supported the previous work that stated CP in toll road project development has not high enough.
Handayani (2008) asserted that community as one of the important stakeholders have not been
effectively involved in the decision-making process. CP such as it was, mainly centered on the
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process or Analisa Mengenai Dampak Lingkungan
(AMDAL) and a Social Impact Assessment (SIA) process. However, in Indonesia there has been no
formal procedure of monitoring and engagement with the community during operation, even
though they have the right to monitor indirectly and report to the government about environmental
destruction or degradation caused by the project.

Among the three stakeholders, the community perceived the least satisfaction in the CP
implementation as they gave it the lowest score equal to 3.260. Meanwhile, the government and
private sectors had quite similar perceptions about CP performance though the results also showed
that actually the government and private sectors were still not fully satisfied with the current CP
implementation in toll road project development. Because both the performance of PD and CP
were not quite satisfied, it can also to be inferred that the PD performance was less than satisfactory
because the CP performance was also not quite satisfied because PD performance can be
influenced by the CP performance.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 203
 Table 6.26. Factor‟s Performance Analysis for the CP Construct
Overall Sector Government Sector Private Sector Community
ID Factors/Attributes Attribute's Factor's Attribute's Factor's Attribute's Factor's Attribute's Factor's
Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean
FCP Community Participation

3 Rule establishment 3.557 4.000 3.921 3.292

6 Constructive dialogue 3.464 3.808 3.737 3.261

8 Improve community understanding 3.581 3.863 3.987 3.354

11 Comprehensive outcome 3.432 3.753 3.788 3.208

5 Sufficient time allocated 3.419 3.795 3.868 3.146

2 Transparent process 3.533 4.027 3.776 3.292

4 Adequate information provided 3.547 3.863 3.921 3.319

1 All community involvement 3.549 3.481 3.945 3.816 3.763 3.814 3.350 3.260
15 All stakeholders respect to the participation process 3.509 3.822 3.921 3.270
12 Acceptable participation outcome 3.486 3.712 3.633 3.363
14 Implementable participation process 3.437 3.758 3.759 3.226
Improve cooperation between parties involved (gov, private and 3.563 3.863 3.934 3.341
9
community).
13 Distribution of participation outcome 3.645 3.740 3.763 3.571
7 Appropriate moderator 3.501 3.740 3.829 3.313
10 Continue participation 2.989 3.548 3.605 2.602

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 204
6.3.4. The Government’s Role (GR) Construct
The factor‟s performance analyses for the Government‟s Role (GR) Construct can be seen in Table
6.27 which show that the results can be analysed for the three factors obtained and the sectors‟
perspectives. It was found that overall the stakeholders perceived that currently the GR
performance was also not quite good. FGR1 (Establishment of Good bureaucracy) obtained a score
of 3.611, which was below 4.00 as the satisfactory level. Moreover, FGR2 (Maintain good
relationship and appropriate supervision‟s) score was 3.472 and FGR3 (Provision of conducive
environment) obtained score 3.873 where both of them were also below 4.00.

Overall, the sectors perceived that the GR Construct had the best performance in the FGR3
(Provision of conducive environment) which was represented by a 3.873 mean score, even though
it was not quite satisfied against the threshold value of 4.00. It can be concluded that the political
and economic conditions in Indonesia were quite conducive during the toll roads‟ project
development. Meanwhile, FGR1 (Establishment of good bureaucracy) performance was not quite
satisfied as the factor‟s mean was 3.611. Two attributes under FGR1, namely GR4 (Corruption
eradication) and GR5 (Law enforcement) had not good‟s score that were 3.541 and 3.547,
respectively.

However, the least performance factor was related to FGR2 (Maintain good relationship and
appropriate supervision). This low performance was particularly related to attribute GR7 (Solving
community aspiration with appropriate approach) (3.477) as well as attribute GR9 (Appropriate
supervision) (3.323). Supervision in this research was related to supervision during both
construction and operation and maintenance stages. In the construction stage, it is very important
that appropriate supervision leads to project quality achievement and minimal negative effects to
the community‟s life and activity. Meanwhile, appropriate supervision during operation and
maintenance stage can provide good toll road service to the community.

Meanwhile, attribute GR7 Solving community aspiration with appropriate approach is also
important to improving community satisfaction and reducing stakeholder‟s opposition. As
identified from the matrix correlation, this attribute actually has quite a strong correlation with
Appropriate supervision. The close relationship is perhaps because Appropriate supervision will
make the project implementation better and subsequently reduce the community complaints from
the project development. Therefore, Solving the community aspiration and Approprate supervision
should be conducted in an iterative manner where the government seeks the aspirations from the
community regarding the toll road project implementation and then subsequently implement the
improvement through Appropriate supervision.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 205
 Table 6.27. Factor‟s Performance Analysis for the GR Construct
Overall Sector Government Sector Private Sector Community
ID Factors/Attributes Attribute's Factor's Attribute's Factor's Attribute's Factor's Attribute's Factor's
Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean
FGR1 Establishment of Good Bureaucracy
4 Corruption eradication 3.541 3.644 3.197 3.624
3 Simplification of bureaucracy procedure 3.744 3.611 3.904 3.758 3.513 3.399 3.770 3.634
5 Law enforcement 3.547 3.726 3.487 3.509
FGR2 Maintain Good Relationship and Appropriate
Supervision
7 Solving community aspiration with appropriate approach 3.477 3.808 3.645 3.314
9 Appropriate supervision 3.323 3.472 3.616 3.749 3.421 3.570 3.195 3.350
8 Development good relationship with private sector 3.616 3.822 3.645 3.540

FGR3 Provision of Conducive Environment

1 Stable political condition 3.931 3.890 4.053 3.903
3.873 3.890 3.964 3.929
2 Stable economic condition 3.815 3.890 3.876 3.770

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 206
As the factor‟s performance result regarding these two attributes was not quite good, it shows that
perhaps current project supervision has not been conducted appropriately. As a result, toll road
project development may cause several negative impacts to the community in both construction and
operation and maintenance stages such as problems related to increasing traffic congestion, material
waste and so on during the construction stage, noise, flood, and the like during the operation stage.

The above finding supports previous research conducted into PPP projects in Indonesia regarding
the GR performance. For example, Rostiyanti and Tamin (2010) stated that currently there are still
several challenges to be faced in toll road development with regard to the GR performance such as
these related to institutional, legal and regulatory frameworks. In addition, Abednego and Ogunlana
(2006) posited weaknesses of the GR performance in the Cipularang Toll Road implementation
which caused lack in the decision-making ability and risk allocation strategy. Therefore, even
though the project finally can be classified as successful project in terms of the product, the quality
of the project management process was still not satisfied (Abednego and Ogunlana, 2006). This
result also confirmed Wibowo and Alfen (2015) highlighted that current performance of the GR in
PPP project is somewhat below fair, or what this research has called satisfied perceptions.

6.3.5. The Overall Construct Performances

According to the factor‟s mean results for the four constructs in Section 6.3.1 to 6.3.4, it can be
concluded that generally stakeholders were perceived to be not quite satisfied with the current
implementation of toll road project development. These overall results mean perhaps the low
performance of the four constructs are the reason of the current problems in toll road project
development. The current social problem that often happens in the form of community protest
against project implementation is perhaps caused because the community feels less than satisfied
with the PSB performance. In this case, they feel still less satisfied to the toll road project
performance due to project existence. According these results it can also be concluded that the GR
performance was not quite good, the CP was also not quite good. Because the PD and CP
conditions were not quite good then they subsequently influence the performance of PD and PSB
both of which were also not quite satisfied. Therefore, from all these constructs‟ performance, it
can be concluded that perhaps the PSB performance was not quite good because the CP, PD and
GR performance were also not quite good.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 207
6.4. Chapter Summary
This chapter presented the reliability and validity analysis for the research constructs, namely PSB,
PD, CP, and GR. Reliability and validity tests were conducted on the research constructs mainly
under the EFA and the four constructs satisfied the validity test. Likewise, the Cronbach‟s Alpha
and Corrected Item-Total Correlation also confirmed that all attributes were considered reliable to
measure the overall constructs. According to the validity and reliability tests, it was found that PSB
Construct can be uncovered by four factors, PD becomes two factors, CP only one factor and GR
into three factors.

The analysis showed that the average values of the four constructs performance were not quite
satisfactory. In addition, their values were almost similar which indicated that there may be a link
between the four constructs. This link can further be examined by SEM. Next, Chapter 7 presents
the measurement model assessment through the CFA which is continued with the structural model
analysis using SEM.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 208
 CHAPTER 7
INVESTIGATION OF THE CONSTRUCTS’ RELATIONSHIPS

7.1. Introduction
This chapter presents an analysis of the constructs‟ relationships using the Structural Equation
Modeling (SEM) technique. This is subsequent to the analysis in Chapter 6 which investigated the
constructs‟ reliability and validity as well as the factor structure using Exploratory Factor Analysis
(EFA). EFA is actually an assessment of the constructs‟ validity and reliability that provides a
preliminary description of the relationship between attributes and becomes a good starting point for
other multivariate techniques, such as SEM (Hair et al., 2010). However, although EFA has
provided descriptions of the underlying structure of several attributes behind each construct, this
analysis has not provided a description of the unidimensionality of the factor (Gerbing and
Anderson 1988; Koufteros, 1998). Unidimensionality is important to be met for the attributes to
measure a factor so it considered as significant (Gerbing and Anderson 1988). Moreover,
unidimensionality becomes very critical and important when more than two constructs are involved
and it is defined as a set of attributes that can be explained through a construct (Hair et al, 2010).
Therefore, to achieve the model unidimensionality, EFA is necessary to be validated.

Gerbing and Anderson (1988) suggested validating EFA using Confirmatory Factor Analysis
(CFA) as it can directly evaluate the measurement of multiple attributes‟ unidimensionality in the
development and evaluation of the measurement scale. CFA is actually part of the SEM analysis
using a two-stage modeling process. Hair et al. (2010) posited that two types of SEM modeling
have been known, namely one and two-stage analysis. The one-stage method suggests the
measurement and structural models are considered simultaneously. The two-stage method proposes
that the process of modeling measurement and structural models should be separated where the
measurement model is performed prior the structural model test.

This thesis utilised two stages in SEM analysis involving measurement and structural analyses in
the modeling process. The two-stage technique as a two-step process is considered to be a better
procedure in achieving the model fit. A valid testing of the structural model cannot be obtained
without getting the appropriate measurement model (Hair et al., 2010). As such, ignoring errors in
the measurement model will lead to inaccurate assessment of the latent variable relationship in the
structural model (Bollen, 1989). As such, performing validation through the measurement model is
expected to produce a better structural model. Consequently, when a good measurement model

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 209
cannot be obtained in the first phase, the researcher must refine the measurement model first and
once the measurement model is valid, then the analysis can continue to the structural model.

The measurement model was aimed at checking the relationship between attributes and their
constructs in terms of their unidimensionality and this was performed through CFA. Meanwhile,
the structural model using SEM was performed to analyse the constructs‟ relationships. This
chapter is divided into five sections, namely an overview of the SEM concept, analysis of the
measurement model using CFA, structural model assessment, testing of mediation effects and the
chapter‟s summary.

7.2. Overview of the SEM Concept

SEM is a multivariate analysis for investigating the relationships between unmeasured variables.
This is actually an extension of path analysis, but it is for a more elaborate set of methods (Vogt,
2007). SEM has advantages over other multivariate techniques as this technique can provide a
series of separate multiple regression equations simultaneously in an appropriate and most efficient
way (Hair et al., 2010).

SEM consists of two basic elements, namely measurement and structural models. Figure 7.1.
adopted Panuwatwanich (2008) which shows the measurement and structural models in SEM. The
measurement model aims to assess the contribution of each attribute or measured variable as well
as how well they measure the concept, while the structural model is performed to measure whether
the relationships between constructs exist or not (Hair et al., 2010). A measurement model shows
the relationship between the attributes and constructs and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) is
used here to assess the contribution of each attribute and how well they measure the construct.
Meanwhile, the structural model aims to measure the relationships between constructs and it is
perfomed using SEM.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 210
 (a) Measurement Model (b) Structural Model

Figure 7.1. SEM Model Component (Adopted from Panuwatwanich, 2008)

Covariance-based SEM was selected in this research. Two types of SEM is widely recognised,
namely covariance and correlation matrix analysis. A covariance-based SEM is more commonly
about explanation and more appropriate for theory testing (operated using AMOS or LISREL
software) while correlation-based analysis (operated using PLS software) focuses much more on
prediction (Hair et al., 2010). Furthermore, covariance-based SEM gives freedom to the
researchers as it gives relatively more information on their content. Accordingly, covariance-based
SEM is deemed more suitable to be used in this analysis to test the theory. AMOS version 22 was
employed to perform measurement and structural analysis. According to Hair et al. (2014), AMOS
provides a more user-friendly program using graphical representation instead of computing code
using Greek notation, as in LISREL. As such, this helps a researcher focus more on the research
problem rather than on learning the complexity of the software.

The model was assessed by Goodness of Fit (GOF) criteria which consisted of absolute fit indices,
incremental fit indices, and parsimony fit indices. GOF indicates how well the model can generate
a specified covariance matrix among the attributes, and the similarity of reality (observed) and
theory (estimated covariance matrix).

7.3. Analysis of the Measurement Model using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)
Measurement model analysis is performed through CFA which aims to test the unidimensionality
between each attribute and construct, as well as between constructs. CFA examines whether the
data has enough consistency with the previous model identification structure as well as to enrich
the SEM by showing the relationships between construct and attributes (Maruyama, 1998).
Therefore, Gerbing and Anderson (1988) asserted that CFA is a critical element of measurement

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 211
theory as the structural model‟s test cannot be conducted if the measurement model does not satisfy
the reliability and validity screening, that is, by determining how well the attributes can measure
the constructs.

7.3.1. Analysis Assumptions of CFA

CFA requires several assumptions to be specified prior to the modeling process. The assumptions
involve components such as the number of samples required, the number of attributes per construct,
the attribute and construct relationships, estimation techniques, and the CFA model specification.

7.3.1.1. Sample Size

There are varies opinions regarding the minimum number of samples for CFA which also becomes
a SEM requirement. Kline (2005) asserted there is no absolute standard about sample size in the
literature. However, basically, a large sample is needed in SEM to maintain statistical power and
achieve stable parameter estimates and standard errors (Schumacher and Lomax, 2010). With
regard to that, Kline (2005) provided guidelines regarding the sample size where below 100 is
considered as small, between 100 to 200 as medium and greater than 200 as large. Nevertheless,
Hair et al. (2010) argued that too large a sample size (>400 samples) makes the model more
sensitive and causes difficulty in achieving model fit. Therefore, they recommended a number
between 100-400 samples with not a too complex model, not too much missing data and samples
having fairly good communality. This research used 375 samples in the analysis which satisfied
that requirement.

7.3.1.2. Minimum Attributes per Construct and Reflective Relationship Model

Regarding the number of attributes per construct, a minimum three attributes are considered
appropriate in a single construct (Hair et al., 2010). In terms of relationships between attributes and
constructs, two types of relations are recognised in the CFA model, namely reflective and
formative attribute forms. According to Hair et al. (2010), reflective measurement theory is when
the construct causes the attributes so the direction of the relationship arrow is from the construct to
the attributes. Therefore, as the attributes are assumed caused by similar constructs, they should be
highly correlated to each other. Conversely, formative measurement theory is based on the
assumption that attributes are causing the construct. There is no certain answer on which type of
attribute and construct relationship should be used as the selection is usually dependent on the
researcher. However, the reflective form was finally used considering this type of model is
generally easier to use and more commonly used in the social science environment (Hair et al.,
2010).

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 212
7.3.1.3. Estimation Technique
There are several estimation techniques available for the CFA test. Hair et al. (2010) asserted that
generally five types of estimation could be used, namely Ordinary Least Square (OLS) regression,
Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE), Weighted Least Square (WLS), Generalised Least
Square (GLS), and Asymptotically Distribution Free (ADF). However, MLE is a widely used
approach in SEM as it provides valid and stable results as well as being the default in most SEM
programs, including AMOS and LISREL (Hair et al., 2010), and therefore MLE was utilised in this
study.

7.3.1.4. Specification of CFA Model Alternatives

In this CFA model specification, only reliable and valid attributes from the EFA process were used
and deleted or dropped attributes were not included in this model. Three CFA alternatives have
been identified which could be applied as shown in Figure 7.2 (a) to (c). First, the CFA can be
modeled using a second-order model, as seen Figure 7.2 (a). In this case, the Government‟s Role
(GR), Community Participation (CP), Participatory Design (PD) and Project Social Benefit (PSB)
Constructs become second-order constructs. Meanwhile, first-order constructs were constructed
from the factors that were obtained from the EFA test as reliable and valid attributes from the EFA
process. For example, the PSB Construct consists of sub-constructs PSB1, PSB2, PSB3, and PSB4.

Meanwhile, the PD Construct consists of sub-constructs PD1 and PD2. The CP Construct was still
the original construct that consists of fifteen attributes. Meanwhile, the GR Construct consists of
three sub-constructs, namely GR1, GR2, and GR 3. Furthermore, the PSB construct was combined
with PD, CP, and GR as the second-order model. However, Hair et al. (2014) posited that
modeling SEM using second-order models is conceptually more complicated as the construct can
become too abstract and difficult to describe its meaning. In addition, several sub-constructs also
did not meet the minimum three attributes requirement.

A second model alternative was developed using the item parceling technique (Hair et al., 2010),
as seen in Figure 7.2 (b). In this case, several sets of measured attributes are parcelled into a small
number of composite attributes. The first order construct acted as composite attributes and were
subsequently utilised as the attributes to measure the second-order construct. For example, PSB 1,
PSB 2 and PSB 3 which were sub-constructs, acted as the attributes for the PSB construct.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 213
 Att 3
Att 4
Att 1
PSB1
Att 8
Att 7
Att 9
Att10
PSB2 PSB
Att14
Att11
Att2
PSB3
Att5
Att13
PSB4
Att12

Att 3
Att 5
Att 6
PD1
Att 8
Att 4
PD
Att 7
Att 1
PD2
Att 2

Att 1
Att 2
Att 3
Att 4
Att 5
Att 6
Att 7
Att 8 CP
Att 9
Att10
Att11
Att12
Att13
Att14
Att15

Att 4
Att 3 GR1
Att 5
Att 7
Att 9 GR2 GR
Att 8

Att 1
GR3
Att 2
Figure 7.2 (a) First Modelling Alternative

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 214
 PSB1

PSB2 PSB

PSB3

PSB4

PD1

PD
PD2

Att 1
Att 2
Att 3
Att 4
Att 5
Att 6
Att 7
Att 8 CP
Att 9
Att10
Att11
Att12
Att13
Att14
Att15

GR1

GR2 GR

GR3

Figure 7.2 (b) Second Modelling Alternative

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 215
 Att 1
Att 2
Att 3
Att 4
Att 5
Att 7
Att 8
Att 9 PSB
Att10
Att11
Att12
Att13
Att15

Att 1
Att 2
Att 3
Att 4
Att 5
PD
Att 6
Att 7
Att 8

Att 1
Att 2
Att 3
Att 4
Att 5
Att 6
Att 7
Att 8 CP
Att 9
Att10
Att11
Att12
Att13
Att14
Att15

Att 1
Att 2
Att 3
Att 4
GR
Att 5
Att 7
Att 8

Figure 7.2 (c) Third Modelling Alternative

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 216
The same happened in the PD and GR Constructs. Meanwhile, the CP Construct was modeled as
the original construct with fifteen attributes. However, the second modeling option was also not
selected, because even though it can reduce the model complexity, the application of the averaging
technique makes the composite attributes different from and unrepresentative of the original form.
Hair et al. (2010) asserted that composite attributes can potentially obscure the individual
attributes‟ quality.

Meanwhile, the third modeling option is depicted in Figure 7.2 (c) where the overall attributes are
modeled as the measurement of the construct but the attributes are still related to the original
construct. In this case, the PSB consists of thirteen attributes, PD consists of eight attributes, CP
consists of fifteen attributes and GR consists of eight attributes. Indeed, by using the third
alternative, the model complexity can be reduced as well as maintaining the originality of the data
characteristics. According to the above considerations, the third option was finally used in this
research.

7.3.2. Model Fit Criteria

Model fit is the parameter used to decide whether the model is good enough and has met the
requirement. Several criteria were used to test the validity of the measurement models through the
CFA such as the significant statistical parameter, factor loading, and Goodness of Fit (GOF).

7.3.2.1. Statistical Significance of Parameter Estimate

While multivariate models typically prefer small p-values (less than 0.05), CFA modeling requires
a p-value which is relatively large in order to obtain a statistically significant model. Based on a
probability level of 0.05, an attribute can be considered to be statistically significant if the Critical
Ratio (CR) which is also known as t-value is greater than 1.96 (Byrne, 2010; Garson, 2015). An
attribute that has a non-significant value estimate is advised to be dropped or deleted.

7.3.2.2. Factor Loadings

Factor loading indicates how well an attribute represents a construct and falls within a range
between -1.0 to +1.0. The greater the value of factor loading, the more powerfully an attribute
represents the construct and this is one of the construct validity attributes. A rule of thumb suggests
that good factor loading should be greater than 0.5 and ideally 0.7 or more (Hair et al., 2010).
However, Tabachnick and Fidell (2007) argued that for research involving larger sample sizes
(more than 300), the factor loading minimum 0.4 is still considered acceptable. As this research has
more than 300 samples, 0.4 was considered sufficient as the cut-off value.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 217
7.3.2.3. Goodness of Fit (GOF)
The Goodness of Fit (GOF) is a parameter that indicates how well the models can generate a
specified covariance matrix for the attribute that is the similarity of reality (observed) and theory
(estimated covariance matrix). Each parameter‟s GOF is unique, but can generally be categorized
into three types, namely absolute, incremental and parsimony fit indices.

 Absolute Fit Indices

This is actually a basic and direct measurement of how well the model can describe the data (Hair
et al, 2010). Three basic parameters of absolute fit indices are widely known. The first is the Chi-
square (2), which is a component which measures the difference between the matrix of implied
variance and covariance (∑) and the matrix of empirical sample variance and covariance (S). The
value of 2 is calculated as (N-1)(S-∑), where N is equal to the number of samples. Therefore, when
the number of samples is increased the 2 value also increases.

The second parameter is the degree of freedom (df) which is a parameter to represent the amount of
information available to estimate the parameters. The third parameter is p-value which is a
significant statistical parameter of the 2. The p-level is opposite to 2, so its value becomes small
if the 2 value is large. Small p-value and large p-value indicate problems with the model fit as
there is a significant difference between two covariance matrix values. Different to other
multivariate techniques, SEM expects to have a bigger p-value. However, as the p_value is the
function of sample size (N-1), the p-value often becomes significant when the sample size is large.
As such, statistical test results with p-value parameter become less meaningful. Therefore, the p-
level becomes invalid if used only to the assumption of 2 (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007).

According to Hair et al. (2010), the 2 is actually the only model fit in SEM. However, 2 has
problems as its value is strongly influenced by the number of samples and the observed variables.
In addition to that, in a large sample size, the value 2 become sensitive and biased which causes
difficulty in achieving model fit (Hair et al., 2010). To address the above limitation of the 2 value,
several more pragmatic GOF have been introduced to evaluate the model (Byrne, 2010). The
proposed GOF are consists of 2/df, (GFI), Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA),
Root Mean Square Residual (RMR), Standardized Root Mean Residual (SRMR), and Normed Chi-
Square.

 The Incremental Fit Indices

In addition to absolute indices, incremental fit indices are used to assess how well the estimated
model fits from several alternative reference models (Hair et al., 2010). The most common

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 218
reference model referred to is a null model, which assumes that all observed variables are not
correlated. It also indicates that the specification models also need to satisfy other parameters as
well. Several types of this parameter are Normed Fit Index (NFI), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI),
Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Relative Non-centrality Index (RNI).

 Parsimony Fit Indices

Parsimony indices are the ratio between the degree of freedom (df) of the model to the total degree
of freedom available. This parameter is designed to provide information about which model is the
best among several models compared by considering the relative fit of the complexity. Two types
of these parameters are Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) and Parsimony Normed Fit Index
(PNFI). However, the use of this parameter is still not free from controversy and by considering the
limitations of 2, it is better not to use it as the only model fit parameter (Hair et al., 2010).
Accordingly, no matter whatever the result of the value of 2, the value just needs to be reported
and complemented by other GOF indices.

Regarding the selection of the GOF criteria, Tabachnick and Fidell (2007) asserted that CFI and
RMSEA are perhaps the most widely reported fit indices. Nevertheless, Hair et al. (2010) asserted
using minimum one parameter of the absolute fit index and one incremental fit index are enough to
complement the 2 and df values. For example, CFI, TLI and RMSEA were considered sufficient
to conduct an evaluation of the model. In this research, six criteria of Goodness of Fit (GOF) were
used, namely Chi-square (2), Normed Chi-square (2/df), SRMR, CFI, TLI and RMSEA.

Regarding the cut-off value for each GOF criteria, Hair et al. (2010) believed there is practically no
single cut-off that can be applied to all SEM models because there is no single magic value that can
be used to always distinguish between good and bad models. Several cut-offs for the GOF have
been proposed by researchers, as can be seen in Table 7.1. However, the cut-off values of 0.95 for
several GOF measures such as GFI, CFI, TLI and NFI, are unrealistic for a model with a larger
sample and which contains large attributes (Hair et al., 2010). Therefore, this research used 0.90 as
the cut-off for the above GOF criteria.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 219
 Table 7.1. Goodness of Fit (GOF) Criteria

Parameter fit Cut-off Criteria

Kline Tabachnick Hair et Schumacher Byrne Doloi et al. Selected
(2005) and Fidell al. and Lomax (2010) (2011) Cut-off
(2009) (2010) (2010)
Absolute Fit small
2 small value
Indices value
df -
2/df <5 <2 <3 1 to 2 <5
close to 0 (no fit) - 1
> 0.90 > 0.90
GFI 0.90 or 0.95 (perfect fit)
close to 0.05 (very good)
RMSEA < 0.08 < 0.08 < 0.08
0.05 to 0.08 - 0.1 (threshold)
Less than
RMR < 0.06 < 0.05 < 0.05
0.05
Incremental 0 (no fit) - 1
CFI > 0.90 > 0.95 > 0.90
fit indices (perfect fit)
close to
0 (no fit) - 1
TLI > 0.90 0.90 or > 0.95 > 0.90
(perfect fit)
0.95
0 (no fit) - 1
> 0.95 > 0.95 Close to 1
NFI (perfect fit)
0 (no fit) - 1
IFI Close to 1
(perfect fit)

7.3.3. Modification to Improve the CFA Model

In addition to the analysis assumptions and model fit criteria, it is also necessary to specify the
model modification concept to improve the model fit. If the CFA model does not meet the model fit
criteria in the preliminary analysis‟ results it is, therefore necessary to conduct model modification.
With regard to model modification, Byrne et al. (2010) asserted that model modification should
consider two model parameters, namely Standardized Residual Error (SRE) and the Modification
Indices (MI). Meanwhile, Hair et al. (2010) suggested to also consider factor loading in addition to
SRE and MI. The factor loading value represents how strong the relationship is between the
attribute and the construct.

With regard to this research, the model modification was conducted by evaluating the three
parameters - factor loading, SRE and MI to comprehensively evaluate the model. SRE is standard

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 220
value of residual error and it is the difference between the observed covariance and fitted
covariance terms. An SRE value can be positive or negative and a smaller SRE value means there
is a better model as the difference between the two parameters is smaller. An SRE value below
│2.5│ is usually accepted as it indicates the absence of problems in the model. Byrne (2010) stated
SRE value larger than │2.58│is considered large. Therefore, Hair et al. (2010) suggested that SRE
values between │2.5│ to │4.00│ need to be carefully monitored. Meanwhile, MI indicates how
the overall value of 2 can possibly be reduced because it may indicate potential cross-loading. MI
value that is greater than │4.00│indicates that the model fit can be improved (Hair et al., 2010).

7.3.4. CFA Results

Having specified all the above requirements, the CFA analysis was performed by only involving
reliable and valid attributes from EFA. Preliminary results showed that the model had not reached
the fit criteria, and therefore modification or respecification was deemed necessary. The model
modification was conducted using the principles explained in Section 7.3.3. Finally, after several
iterations, a fit CFA model was achieved. The results can be presented with regard to three model
parameters, which are statistical significance, factor loading and Goodness of Fit (GOF).

According to the analysis, the model was significant at the p <0.005 level. The statistical
significance test is presented in Table 7.2 which shows that all attributes were statistically
significant with t-values above 1.96. Meanwhile, the attributes‟ factor loadings are shown in the
final measurement model in Figure 7.3. According to the figure, the factor loadings were ranging
from 0.50 to 0.78, which are all above 0.4. Several attributes errors were related by covariances
such as between errors for PD2 and PD6, PD7 and PD 8 as well as between errors of CP 2 and CP
8. Finally, the GOF analysis can be seen in Table 7.3 which indicates that all parameters have
fulfilled the GOF criteria. Therefore, the CFA model was considered acceptable and became the
final measurement model.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 221
 Table 7.2. Statistical Significance Parameter Estimate

Estimate S.E. t-value

PSB12 <--- PSB 1.000

PSB11 <--- PSB 1.000 0.128 7.780
PSB7 <--- PSB 1.068 0.126 8.458
PSB4 <--- PSB 0.613 0.076 8.032
PSB3 <--- PSB 1.275 0.142 8.963
PSB1 <--- PSB 0.897 0.108 8.297
PD8 <--- PD 1.000
PD7 <--- PD 0.939 0.080 11.800
PD6 <--- PD 0.492 0.060 8.173
PD2 <--- PD 1.063 0.101 10.546
CP11 <--- CP 1.000
CP8 <--- CP 1.009 0.054 18.759
CP6 <--- CP 1.057 0.057 18.400
CP4 <--- CP 1.021 0.054 18.756
CP2 <--- CP 1.086 0.058 18.771
GR9 <--- GR 1.000
GR8 <--- GR 1.055 0.147 7.173
GR5 <--- GR 1.469 0.178 8.265
GR4 <--- GR 1.777 0.201 8.849
GR3 <--- GR 1.656 0.181 9.138

Table 7.3. Goodness of Fit (GOF) of the CFA Result

Parameter fit Desired value Analysis result
Absolute Fit ᵪ2 small value 410.507
Indices df 161
ᵪ /df
2
<3 2.550
GFI >0.90 0.901
RMSEA <0.08 0.064
RMR <0.06 0.044
Incremental fit CFI >0.90 0.920
indices TLI >0.90 0.905
NFI Close to 1 0.876
IFI Close to 1 0.920

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 222
7.3.5. Analysis of Construct Validity
The objective of SEM is to examine the relationships between latent variables or constructs.
Nevertheless, relationship validity also depends on the construct validity. The CFA test provides
the unidimensionality and reliability of the measurement scale, but they are not sufficient without
construct validity (Gerbing and Anderson, 1988). Combining the CFA and the construct validity,
the assessment can provide a comprehensive understanding of the measurement quality (Hair et al.,
2010). Therefore, examination of the construct validity is necessary besides the CFA test as the
structural model assessment can only be continued if the measurement model has satisfied the
reliability and validity tests.

Hair et al. (2010) asserted that validity is the degree of how much a measurement scale or group of
items have accurately represented or measured the concept. Even though validity cannot be proved
absolutely, development of strong support for it is still possible (Bollen, 1989). This research
adopted four types of construct validity assessment that have been widely accepted, namely
convergent validity, discriminant, nomological, and face validity (Hair et al., 2010).

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 223
 Figure 7.3. Final Measurement Model

7.3.5.1. Convergent Validity

Convergent validity refers to the extent to which the attribute is connected with its construct. This
parameter is usually measured by several criteria such as statistical significance, factor loading,
Average Variance Extracted (AVE) and Construct Reliability (CR). An attribute can be considered
to be of statistical significance if their CR is greater than +/- 1.96. Meanwhile, for the factor
loading, convergent validity refers to the standardized factor loading. The greater the factor loading
value, the stronger an attribute represents a construct. Meanwhile, AVE is calculated as the mean-

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 224
variance extracted for loading items on a construct and a summary of the convergence of an
attribute and is formulated as follows (Hair et al., 2010):

……………………………………………………..……………..(Equation 7.1)

Where Li represents standardised factor loading and n is the number of items.

Besides using the three parameters‟ assessment above, convergent validity is also measured by
reliability. Nevertheless, Hair et al. (2010) posited that in contrast to the usual reliability
assessment using Cronbach Alpha parameters, convergent validity with SEM usually used
parameter Construct Reliability (CR) which is calculated using the following formula:

.......................................................................................(Equation 7.2)

Where ei is the error variance terms for a construct.

Table 7.4 presents the AVE and CR analysis and according to the results, the AVEs for the
research constructs were considered sufficient except for the PSB construct which was less than
0.5. According to Equation 7.2, the AVE value is a function of standardized loading which means
the standardized factor loading influences the AVE value. As previously mentioned, this research
involved large sample values (n>350), so lower (factor loadings) are considered normal. In addition
to that, the examination of the individual attributes showed that the overall attributes‟ factor
loadings in the PSB Construct were greater than 0.4 which means it satisfied the requirement.
Therefore, by considering the reasons above, a slight lower AVE score for PSB was considered still
acceptable.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 225
 Table 7.4. AVE and CR Analysis

Construct
Attribute
PSB PD CP GR
PSB1 0.60
PSB3 0.69
PSB4 0.57
PSB7 0.62
PSB11 0.54
PSB12 0.53
PD3 0.75
PD4 0.54
PD7 0.62
PD8 0.62
CP2 0.85
CP4 0.83
CP6 0.82
CP8 0.85
CP11 0.81
GR3 0.78
GR4 0.71
GR5 0.62
GR8 0.50
GR9 0.53
AVE 0.35 0.41 0.69 0.51
CR 0.76 0.73 0.84 0.77

The examination of the composite reliability (CR) values showed that all constructs have met
convergent validity. Huang et al. (2013) posited that CR values should be greater than 0.6 to meet
construct validity. It was also seen that the lower AVE value for the PSB construct can be
compensated with a quite high CR value. It is worth mentioning that the degree of measurement
error in social science is usually greater than in natural science due to reasons such as theoretical
definition, unit of analysis, and so on (Bollen, 1989). In addition, it is expected that validity
assessment can satisfy the overall validity types. However, it is possible that a valid measure will
fail one or more validity tests and an invalid measure can pass some of these as well (Bollen,
1989). Therefore, by considering all these reasons, the convergent validity in this research can be
considered satisfactory.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 226
7.3.5.2. Discriminant Validity
Discriminant validity examines how different one construct is from the others. Discriminant
validity can also mean each attribute should only represent one construct. There are two ways to
measure discriminant validity, that is by the correlation coefficient between two constructs and
correlation coefficient for each variable (Kline, 2005). The correlation coefficient between
constructs shows how close is the relationship between two constructs. A small coefficient
represents a weak connection between constructs and a high coefficient shows a strong connection
between them. However, too high a correlation coefficient (that is greater than 0.85) has the
possibility that the two constructs might be similar (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007).

According to the analysis, the minimum correlation coefficient between each construct was 0.18
which connects PSB and GR. Meanwhile, the highest correlation coefficient was 0.83 that connects
PSB and PD. These correlation coefficient values were still below 0.85 as the threshold and
therefore all the constructs were considered as different entities. By considering the analysis it can
be concluded that the constructs met the discriminant validity/requirement.

7.3.5.3. Nomological Validity

Nomological validity aims to determine whether the correlation between constructs in the
measurement model is making sense or meets the logic in the theory (Hair et al., 2010). This
assessment can be obtained from the matrix of construct correlation. According to the measurement
model analysis, the correlation between each construct in the CFA model (Table 7.5) were
considered valid as every construct was related to each another.

Table 7.5. Construct Correlation Matrix

PSB PD CP GR
PSB 1.00
PD 0.83** 1.00
CP 0.66** 0.70** 1.00
GR 0.25** 0.42** 0.40** 1.00
** = significant for p>0.05

7.3.5.4. Face Validity

Face or content validity is actually related to “the conceptual test”, while the three validities are
other previous empirically based (Bollen, 1989). Face validity is established based on the
attributes‟ content (Hair et al., 2010). It is conducted prior to CFA to understand the items meaning
to correctly specify the measurement theory (Hair et al., 2010). However, Bollen (1989) stated that

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 227
the limitation of content validity is that it depends on the theoretical concept definition. As such, it
is important for the researcher to specify appropriate concept definitions as well as to determine
attributes to be used in the social science as no consensus exists on the theoretical definition. In this
research, the face validity was established by conducting an interview and questionnaire pretests
before the questionnaire distribution and both methods have confirmed the face validity of the
research instrument.

7.4. Analysis of the Structural Model

The measurement model has provided information regarding the validity and unidimensionality of
the constructs. However, it has not provided information about the constructs‟ relationships. The
relationships analysis between research constructs using a structural model assessment is provided
next.

7.4.1. The Structural Model Concept

A structural model is a representation of the relationship constructs that are usually expressed in a
visual diagram by using structural parameter estimates which are known as path diagram. Unlike
the measurement model that is focused on testing the relationships between constructs or latent
variables to the attributes, the structural model focuses on testing the constructs to test hypotheses
that have been developed.

Figure 7.4 shows the structural model and the six research hypotheses that have been tested in this
study. The structural model was presented by distinguishing exogenous and endogenous constructs.
Exogenous constructs in traditional terms are often expressed as the independent variable while
endogenous constructs are known as the dependent variables. Thus, the structural model is a model
that tests the effects of independent variables (exogenous constructs) on the dependent variable
(endogenous constructs). The influence is expressed by an arrow form that must be built on a
theoretical basis. In this research, the exogenous constructs were Government‟s Role (GR),
Community Participation (CP) and Project Design (PD) while the endogenous construct was
Project Social Benefit (PSB).

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 228
 Figure 7.4. Structural Model

7.4.2. Model Assessment Criteria

A structural model is a path model that has multi-relationships between independent variables and
dependent variables. Path analysis uses bivariate correlation to estimate construct relationships in
the structural equation system (Hair et al., 2010). In addition to the model fit criteria, the structural
model is also measured through the path diagram. A model is said to be supported if it can meet the
model fit criteria and has significant path value in the hypothesis. The path coefficient is estimated
like a regression coefficient, but every equation is computed simultaneously. Meanwhile, in the
regression, the path coefficient is performed separately. The bigger the path coefficient is the
stronger the construct relationships.

In general, the process of testing a structural model is similar to the measurement model using
CFA, but the difference is, in this structural model, all constructs are not connected to each other as
in the measurement model. The correlation between constructs that are used in the measurement
model was replaced by a dependency relationship which is known as a direct and indirect effect.

7.4.3. Initial Results of the Structural Model Assessment

The structural model assessment was performed using a similar procedure to the measurement
model assessment. According to the results, the model was significant at p<0.05. All the attributes
have significant relationships to the construct, as presented in Table 7.6. According to the table, all
attributes had statistically significant parameters to their construct shown by t-values that were
greater than 1.96, except for the GR to PSB which was -2.156, or less than the cut-off value. As
such, it can be interpreted that the influence of GR on PSB is not significant. Meanwhile, the

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 229
attributes‟ factor loadings in Figure 7.5 shows that all attributes are above 0.4 as the minimum
requirement. Analysis results also show that the model satisfied the model fit and the parameters
can be seen in Table 7.7.

Table 7.6. Statistically Significant Parameters of the Initial Structural Model Results

Estimate S.E. t-value

CP <--- GR 0.881 0.152 5.780
PD <--- CP 0.504 0.059 8.581
PD <--- GR 0.292 0.110 2.655
PSB <--- CP 0.130 0.065 1.991
PSB <--- PD 0.720 0.122 5.917
PSB <--- GR -0.223 0.103 -2.156

Figure 7.5. Factor Loading of the Initial Structural Model Results

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 230
 Table 7.7. Goodness of Fit (GOF) for the Structural Model Analysis Results

Parameter fit Desired value Analysis

result
Absolute Fit ᵪ2 small value 410.507
Indices df 161
ᵪ2 / df 1– 2 or < 3 2.550
GFI >0.90 0.901
RMSEA <0.08 0.064
RMR <0.06 0.044
Incremental fit CFI >0.90 0.920
indices TLI >0.90 0.905
NFI Close to 1 0.876
IFI Close to 1 0.920

Once the structural model had satisfied the model fit criteria, the analysis can then be interpreted.
The overall construct‟s relationships are presented in Table 7.8. According to the path diagram
relationship in Figure 7.5, four hypotheses (H1, H2, H4, H5, and H6) were supported by the results.
Meanwhile, one hypothesis (H3) was not supported by the model. According to the model, the GR
has a positive influence on the construct CP (H1) and PD (H2). However, the effect of GR on PD is
not as strong as the influence of GR on CP. Therefore, both H1 and H2 have been supported by the
data. However, GR has a negative influence on PSB. As previously analysed, GR does not have an
influence on PSB, and therefore H3 was not supported by the results. Meanwhile, CP has a positive
influence on PD (H4) and had a small influence on PSB (H5). As such, H4 and H5 were supported
by the results. Finally, PD has a strong influence on the PSB and thus supporting H6.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 231
 Table 7.8. Summary of the Structural Model Analysis Results

Hypothesis Path Standardized Path t-value Hypothesis

Coefficient Testing Result

H1 GR----->CP 0.40 5.780** Supported

H2 GR----->PD 0.17 2.655** Supported

H3 GR----->PSB -0.13 -2.156** Not Supported

H4 CP-----> PD 0.64 8.581** Supported

H5 CP-----> PSB 0.17 1.991** Supported

H6 PD ----->PSB 0.77 5.917** Supported

** p < 0.05

The results above have provided the constructs‟ relationships in this research. However, given the
analysis‟ results, there is a possibility of an alternative model that provides a better model fit than
the current model. Therefore, it is necessary to find the final model that best represents the data
(Hair et al., 2010). As such, it is necessary to compare several model alternatives to obtain the best
model that represents the data through model refinement.

7.4.4. Model Refinement

Even though the model has met the fit criteria, its accuracy can also be improved by developing
alternative models through model refinement. A common approach to model refinement is through
comparing the original model with several alternative models that have similar complexity which is
called a nested model. Nested models refer to the original structural model that has a similar
number of variables which has been modified by altering the relationships by adding or eliminating
existing links or paths (Hair et al., 2010). The original is compared to the nested model and the
model which has a better Goodness of Fit (GOF) is then chosen as the final model.

In this research, model refinement was conducted by comparing the original structural model with
a nested model. In this case, Model B was the nested model which was developed based on Model
A by eliminating non-significant paths from the original model, namely the path from GR to PSB.
Analysis of the nested model was performed using similar procedures to the previous step in the
structural model assessment. The significant parameter estimate for Model B can be seen in Table
7.9. According to the results, all attributes were statistical significant as their t-values values were
above 1.96, except for the influence of CP on PSB (1.904) which was less than 1.96 (italics bold).

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 232
 Table 7.9. The Significant Parameter Estimates for Model B

C.R.
Estimate S.E.
(t-value)
CP <--- GR 0.880 0.153 5.750
PD <--- GR 0.228 0.104 2.192
PD <--- CP 0.511 0.059 8.618
PSB <--- CP 0.122 0.064 1.904
PSB <--- PD 0.672 0.113 5.932

Meanwhile, the GOF analysis shows that the model has satisfied the overall GOF criteria in Table
7.10. The factor loading for Model B is presented in Figure 7.6. where it can be seen that all the
factor loadings were above 0.4 as the cut off. Regarding the path coefficients, Figure 7.6 showed
that the path coefficient between GR and CP was still the same as the previous score, that was 0.40.
The path coefficient from GR to PD decreases from 0.17 to 0.13. The path coefficient from CP to
PD increases from 0.64 to 0.65 and path coefficient from CP to PSB (0.17) becomes smaller, that is
0.16. Finally, the path coefficient from PD to PSB decreases from 0.77 to 0.71.

Table 7.10. Goodness of Fit (GOF) for Model B

Parameter fit Desired value Analysis result

Absolute Fit ᵪ2 small value 415.493

Indices df 162
ᵪ2 / df 1– 2 or < 3 2.565
GFI >0.90 0.900
RMSEA <0.08 0.065
RMR <0.06 0.045
Incremental fit CFI >0.90 0.918
indices TLI >0.90 0.904
NFI Close to 1 0.874
IFI Close to 1 0.919

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 233
 Figure 7.6. Factor Loading and Path Coefficients for Model B
(Nested model based on original model without non-significant path)

As the relationship between CP and PSB was not significant in Model B, a third model called
Model C was also developed by removing the path coefficient between them. The significant
parameter estimate for Model C can be seen in Table 7.11. According to the results, all attributes
were statistically significant as their t-values value were above 1.96.

Table 7.11. Significant Parameter Estimates for Model C

C.R.
Estimate S.E.
(t-value)
CP <--- GR 0.884 0.154 5.756
PD <--- GR 0.197 0.100 1.975
PD <--- CP 0.539 0.059 9.209
PSB <--- PD 0.816 0.103 7.942

Moreover, the GOF analysis presented in Table 7.12 shows that the model has satisfied the overall
GOF criteria. The GFI score was slightly below the cut-off level 0.9, but it is still considered
acceptable given the other GOFs have been met by the model. Meanwhile, the factor loadings for
Model C is presented in Figure 7.7. In the figure, it is seen that all the factor loadings were above

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 234
0.4 as the cut-off. Regarding the path coefficients, a comparison between Model A (original model)
and Model C showed an increase in the path coefficient between CP and PD from 0.64 to 0.69.
Similar to that, the path coefficient between PD to PSB also increased from 0.77 to 0.85. However,
the path coefficient between GR and PD became smaller from 0.17 to 0.11 and the path coefficient
between GR and PD was still similar as the previous score, that was 0.40.

Table 7.12. Goodness of Fit (GOF) for Model C

Parameter fit Desired value Analysis result

Absolute Fit ᵪ2 small value 418.732
Indices
df 163

ᵪ2/df 1– 2 or < 3 2.569

GFI >0.90 0.899

RMSEA <0.08 0.065
RMR <0.06 0.045
Incremental fit CFI >0.90 0.918
indices TLI >0.90 0.904
NFI Close to 1 0.873
IFI Close to 1 0.918

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 235
 Figure 7.7. Factor Loading and Path Coefficients for Model C
(Nested model based on original model without non-significant path)

7.4.5. Final Structural Model

To select the best model over the three alternatives, comparison analysis was performed on the
GOF criteria between the original and nested models. Hair et al. (2010) suggested using Δᵪ2 to

compare the model performance which is calculated by subtracting the ᵪ2

from baseline model with

a lesser constraint model (has higher df). If the difference is larger than 3.84, then the alternative
model is selected as the better model. The GOF parameter comparison between Models A, B and C
is presented in Table 7.12. In the table it is seen that the GOF score between the three models are
not very different so they are actually comparable. Model B has the Δᵪ 2 (A-B) equal to 4.99 while
the Δᵪ2 (A-C) was equal to 8.22. Actually both Δᵪ2 were larger than 3.84 (Hair et al., 2010).
However, as Model C has a higher df than Model B, Model C was deemed better and therefore
selected as the final model.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 236
 Table 7.13. Parameter Comparison between Model A, Model B and Model C
Parameter fit Model A Model B Model C
Absolute Fit ᵪ2 410.507 415.493 418.732
Indices
df 161 162 163

ᵪ2/df 2.550 2.565 2.569

GFI 0.901 0.900 0.899

RMSEA 0.064 0.065 0.065
RMR 0.044 0.045 0.045
Incremental fit CFI 0.920 0.918 0.918
indices TLI 0.905 0.904 0.904
NFI 0.876 0.874 0.873
IFI 0.920 0.919 0.918

The overall analysis results of the final model can be summarised as in Table 7.14. According to
the results, four path coefficients are significant. In this case, GR has influence on CP and PD thus
H1 and H2 were supported by the results. In addition, CP has influence on PD that supported H4 and
finally PD has influence on PSB which supported H6.

Table 7.14. Summary of the Final Structural Model Analysis Results

Path Standardized Path Hypothesis Testing
Hypothesis t-value
Coefficient Result
H1 GR ----> CP 0.40 ** Supported

H2 GR ----> PD 0.11 ** Supported

H4 CP ----> PD 0.69 ** Supported

H6 PD ----> PSB 0.85 ** Supported

** p < 0.05

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 237
7.5. Testing of Mediation Effect
According to the final results, it can be also seen that there was a possibility of a mediator‟s role for
the CP and PD constructs. Therefore, to investigate that role, it is necessary to perform a mediation
test. According to Hair et al. (2010), a mediation effect happens when a third variable or construct
intervenes between two other related constructs. From a theoretical perspective, a common
application of mediation effects is to explain why the relationship between the two constructs exist
(Hair et al, 2010). With regard to examining this mediator effect, it also has to be distinguished
between direct and indirect effects. Direct effect is when the relationship between two constructs
are connected with only single arrow, while an indirect effect is when the construct relationship
involves at least one mediator construct or intervening variable.

Two types of mediation effects are recognised, namely complete and partial mediation. Complete
mediation is when in the mediator construct can fully explain the relationship between two original
constructs. Meanwhile, partial mediation happens where the mediator constructs cannot fully
explain the relationships between the two original constructs. In order to determine the mediation
effect, three conditions can be determined:
1. If the relationship between the two constructs remain statistically significant and unchanged
once the intervening construct is included, then the mediator effect is not supported;
2. If the relationship remains statistically significant, but the path coefficient between the two
original constructs (direct effect) is reduced, then partial mediation is supported; and
3. If the relationship becomes not statistically significant and path coefficient between the two
original constructs (direct effect) is also reduced, then full mediation is supported.

7.5.1. Mediation Effect of the Community Participation (CP) Construct

To ensure the mediator effect of the CP construct, several relationships involving CP were
examined. Figure 7.8 exhibits the direct relationship between GR and PD where was significant
with a path coefficient equal to 0.32. Due to CPs existence, Figure 7.9 presents the relationship
between the three constructs, that are GR, CP and PD. The path coefficient between GR and CP
was 0.34. The direct path coefficient between GR and PD which was 0.32, became smaller with a
value at 0.15. However, the relationship was still significant. Meanwhile, the relationship between
GR and CP was significant with path coefficient at 0.40 and the path coefficient between CP and
PD was 0.63 and it is statistically significant as well. According to these results, it can be
concluded that CP is a partial mediator for GR to PD because the direct effect from GR to PD was
still significant, even though the coefficient becomes smaller. It means that CP does not fully
explain the relationship between GR and PD, and therefore there is another possible construct that
can also explain the relationship between GR and PD.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 238
 Figure 7.8. Direct Relationships between GR and PD

Figure 7.9. Relationship between GR, CP and PD

In addition, the mediator role of CP was also examined in the context of the relationship between
GR and PSB. Figure 7.10 shows the direct relationship between GR and PSB showing there was a
direct relationship between GR to PSB even though its level is not very strong as the path
coefficient was 0.24. Meanwhile, examination of the indirect relationships between GR, CP, and

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 239
PSB in Figure 7.11 provided the information that the relationship between GR and CP was also
significant with a path coefficient that was 0.39. Similar to that, the relationship between CP and
PSB was also significant with a quite strong path coefficient of 0.66. However, the direct effect
from GR to PSB became non-significant and the path coefficient became very small (almost zero).
This result showed that CP was a complete mediator for GR and PSB which means that GR can
improve the PSB performance through CP.

Figure 7.10. Direct Relationship between GR and PSB

Figure 7.11. Relationship between GR, CP and PSB

7.5.2. Mediation Effect of the Project Design (PD) Construct

The mediation effect was also investigated for the PD construct. According to Figure 7.10
previously, the direct path coefficient between GR and PSB was 0.24. Meanwhile, as depicted in
Figure 7.12, the direct coefficient path between GR to PD was statistically significant with a path
coefficient equal to 0.39. The direct effect between PD and PSB was also statistically significant
with a very strong path coefficient of 0.89. Meanwhile, due to PD‟s existence, the direct effect
from GR to PSB became statistically insignificant due to a smaller coefficient -0.13 where

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 240
previously, the path coefficient between GR and PSB was 0.24 and statistically significant. This
result also shows that PD was a complete mediator for GR and PSB which means it can fully
explain the relationships between GR and PSB.

Figure 7.12. Relationships between GR, PD and PSB

The mediator effect of PD was also examined for the relationship between CP and PSB. As shown
in Figure 7.13 the direct effect between CP and PSB is statistically significant and quite strong
with a path coefficient of 0.66. Meanwhile, as seen in Figure 7.14, the indirect effect between CP
and PD was statistically significant with a path coefficient of 0.70. The relationship between PD
and PSB was statistically significant with a path coefficient of 0.73. However, the path coefficient
between CP and PSB became smaller at 0.15 even though it was still statistically significant.
According to these results, PD can be categorised as a partial mediator between CP and PSB which
means it cannot fully explain the relationship between CP and PSB.

Figure 7.13. Relationship between CP and PSB

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 241
 Figure 7.14. Relationships between CP, PD and PSB

7.5.3. Mediation Effect of Community Participation (CP) and Project Design (PD) Constructs
The mediation effect for both CP and PD on the relationship between GR and PSB was also
examined, as presented in Figure 7.15. According to the figure, due to the existence of CP and PD,
the direct path between GR and PSB became -0.13 which is not statistically significant. Previously,
the path coefficient between GR and PSB was 0.24 which was statistically significant. This result
provided evidence that both PD and CP acted as complete mediators for GR and PSB which means
these two constructs can fully explain the relationship between GR and PSB.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 242
 Figure 7.15. Relationships between GR, CP, PD and PSB

7.6. Chapter Summary

This chapter presented the investigation of the constructs‟ relationships using Structural Equation
Modeling (SEM). The analysis was conducted through two steps in modeling, namely
measurement using CFA and structural models using SEM. The CFA was performed to confirm the
EFA result as well as to prepare the model prior to structural model assessment using SEM.
Meanwhile, the SEM was conducted to investigate the constructs‟ relationships which were
developed in the conceptual model. According to the CFA, model fit has been achieved and
subsequently tested using several construct validity tests to ensure the measurement model met
research reliability and validity. After several CFA iteration processes, model fit for the
measurement model was achieved and the analysis was then continued by performing the structural
model assessment using SEM. After several SEM iteration processes, an initial structural model
was finally achieved. However, to find the model that best represents the data characteristics, the
model comparison was also performed by comparing the original model with two nested models.
According to the analysis, it was found that the Model C could finally be selected as the final
model as it performed better than the other models.

From the analysis it was found that the GR has a positive influence on both CP and PD. However,
the influence of the GR on PD was not as strong as its influence on CP. Meanwhile, CP positively

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 243
influences PD and finally, the PD strongly influences the PSB. According to the results, four path
coefficients are significant. In this case, GR has influence on CP and PD thus H 1 and H2 were
supported by the results. In addition to that, CP has influence on PD that supported H 4 and, finally
PD has influence on PSB which supported H6.

In addition, mediator roles of the CP and PD constructs were examined. According to the analysis,
it was found that CP was a partial mediator for the relationship between GR and PD. Meanwhile,
CP is a complete mediator for GR and PSB. Furthermore, the mediation effect of PD was also
examined which showed that PD was a complete mediator for GR and PSB. However, PD is acted
as partial mediator between CP and PSB. Moreover, to understand the model, the mediation effect
of the CP and PD were also investigated and it was found that these two constructs acted as
complete mediators between GR and PSB. According to the above, all the research questions and
aims had been answered in this research. However, to further understand the analysis results the
next chapter discusses the overall results.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 244
 CHAPTER 8
DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS

8.1. Introduction
This chapter provides an understanding of the research findings by discussing the analysis' results
and relating them to the existing body of knowledge. Following the introduction in Section 8.1,
Section 8.2 describes the need for Project Social Benefit (PSB) in the overall PPP project success
criteria. Section 8.3. explains a perspective of PPP project success from PSB Concept. Next,
Section 8.4 discusses the delivery of PSB to the community by discussing the relationships
between the constructs that influence PSB. The discussion is continued by Section 8.5 regarding
understanding stakeholders' perceptions of toll road project development. Section 8.6 subsequently
suggests the need to improve the government's role to increase PSB in order to achieve PPP toll
road project success. Finally, the chapter is closed by the chapter's summary in Section 8.7.

8.2. The Need for Project Social Benefit (PSB) in the Overall PPP Project Success Criteria
Toll road projects as public infrastructure have an important role in supporting economic
development, especially in developing countries (Kumaraswamy and Zhang, 2001). In addition,
this project can also improve the quality of life in a number of ways such as reducing travel time,
providing a less polluted environment and delivering economic benefit to the local community.
Furthermore, this type of project is also expected to deliver sustainable outcomes. Therefore, it is
important that toll roads as infrastructure projects be delivered successfully.

However, the current practice of toll road implementation in Indonesia is not quite successful as
planned. Several problems have been identified and perceived as the main obstacles in the toll
roads development in Indonesia. Community protest against toll road project implementation
(Kompas, 2010) and disputes in the land acquisition process (Tamin et al., 2011) frequently occur.
However, land acquisition is a complex problem and is beyond this research scope. The community
protests have happened in almost every toll road project development since the Reformation Era in
1998. That was when Indonesia shifted from being an authoritarian country to a democratic one
(Bhakti, 2004). This is due to public's great opportunity to express their disagreement to the
government's programs. The social problem due to the community protest is actually also happened
in infrastructure development in another country, not only in Indonesia. For example, the
community protest also happened in East-West Link (EWL) Project in Melbourne, Australia
(Herald Sun, 2014) which caused the project was finally terminated.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 245
The above social problems happened perhaps because the existing success perspectives of PPP
projects have not adequately accommodated the community's needs and interests with regard to
improving their quality of life. The community in this research is the people who perceived the
positive and negative impacts of a toll road project's existence. The literature review in Chapter 2
highlighted several deficiencies of the Best Value (BV) Concept in the existing PPP scheme
happen for three reasons. First, it only stressing on projects' effectiveness and efficiency which are
represented by characteristics of business performance such as offering greater Value for Money
(VfM), cost savings, reducing construction time, offering more effective solutions and better
relationship between the government and private sectors and maintaining a high level of service
quality (Akintoye et al., 2003). Indeed, the BV principle perhaps is in line with the toll road
development's objective to overcome transport problem using the road pricing concept that is
providing revenue for construction and maintenance cost (Stopher, 2004). However, the BV
concept often overlooks the other aspects that relate to the satisfaction of the key stakeholder in
infrastructure projects (end-users) such as the community (Majamaa et al., 2008).

Second, the existing PPP concept is dominated by a top-down mechanism that is directed by the
government and private sectors' interests. Most of the project planning and design have exclusively
resulted from the government and private sector initiated and considerations. Consequently, the
existing approach is difficult to capture the community point of view. Third, the success criteria of
PPP infrastructure projects are mostly related to short and medium-terms, that is in feasibility and
construction stages. This short to medium-term success is usually dealing with "project
management success" (Baccarini, 1999) or a "micro perspective" (Lim and Mohamed, 1999).
Meanwhile, the other success perspective that also known as "product success" or "macro
perspective" that are related to long-term success such as in operation, maintenance and demolition
phases have not been adequately addressed.

According to the above explanation, it is clear that the existing traditional PPP concept is not
sufficient to accommodate success from the community's perspective, from the bottom-up
approach and from the long-term period. These limitations are perhaps the reason for social
problems that happen in toll road development. Indeed, failure to accommodate the community's
needs and interests in the PPP project success criteria can cause stakeholder's opposition, which can
lead to an unsuccessful project (El-Gohary et al., 2006; Majamaa et al, 2008; Li et al., 2013).

In order to overcome the above social problem, it is very important that PPP toll road is developed
using a more bottom-up approach that can potentially accommodate the community needs and
interests to achieve the overall project success. Moreover, because a toll road has long project life

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 246
cycle which influences on the community not only in the short and medium-terms, this
infrastructure project needs to become sustainable in addition to other success measures
(Kumaraswamy et al., 2007). From the sustainable development perspective, it is very important to
balance the implementation of the three sustainability components - economic, environmental and
social aspects of the toll road implementation. Nevertheless, the existing success criteria are
heavily oriented to economic aspects and a little toward environmental aspect. The social aspects as
part of the three sustainable dimensions still receive less attention (Doloi, 2012) and have not been
included in the current PPP success criteria perhaps because they are thought to be subjective and
intangible in nature (Ng et al., 2010). Indeed, social measures are important to ensure the project
social benefit stream to all stakeholders, including the community (Doloi, 2012).

In light of the above, this research proposed a concept called "Project Social Benefit" (PSB) to be
included as a part of the success criteria to deliver satisfaction to the community to achieve the
overall success in Indonesian toll roads. PSB that stemmed from the concept of social sustainability
(Colantonio et al., 2009) is essential to be achieved to ensure the project benefit stream to the
society (Doloi, 2012). Moreover, social aspect should be the most important concern of the
community rather than financial aspect (Ng et al., 2012a). Thus, PSB is essential to be included as
a part of the project success criteria to deliver success from the community perspective, not only in
short-term and medium-term but also in the long-term, over the project life cycle. It is expected that
a toll road project does deliver PSB by maximising positive benefits and minimising the negative
effects (dis-benefits) to the community.

The PSB attributes were analysed in Section 5.3.2 from both the community perspective and from
the other stakeholders' perspective (government and private sector) to provide an understanding of
its performance. As noted before, this research sought the overall stakeholders' perceptions –
government and private sectors and the community - rather than only the community's perceptions
to get a more comprehensive picture of the existing performance of PSB. According to the analysis,
generally, the existing Indonesian PPP toll roads have not satisfactorily delivered PSB to the
community. Even though the PSB scores are mostly above 3.00 as the middle score in the Likert
Scale used, these scores were still lower than the minimum score that represents respondent's
satisfaction (4.00 in the Likert Scale). As mentioned in Chapter 4 Research Methodology, the
questionnaire used positive statements to seek the stakeholders' agreement as to good attribute
performance, that was 4.00. This means that if a community agrees that there is a good
performance of the attribute, they should respond with a minimum 4.00 (Agree) up to 5.00
(Strongly Agree).

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 247
The above result shows that the existing PSB performance was still not optimal according to the
overall stakeholders' perceptions, especially the community point of view. This means that PPP toll
road projects have not delivered PSB to satisfy the community needs and interests. This is perhaps
because PPP success measures still do not adequately accommodate the community aspirations in
their success criteria. Accordingly, it cannot be said to have achieved overall success. Even, the
community perceived the lowest satisfaction regarding the PSB attributes compared to that of
government and private sectors. To be considered as a successful project, the overall performance
of the toll road should deliver satisfaction to all stakeholders (including the community), in all
aspects of the overall project life cycle.

According to the community perception, the five lowest performance of the PSB attributes were
related to Affordable tariff (2.61), Smooth traffic condition along the toll road and its connecting
roads (2.80), Less polluted environment (2.91), Availability of open space (3.04) and Community
involvement in decision-making (3.24). Meanwhile, according to the factor classification using
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), it was found that the less satisfaction performance of PSB
attributes from the community perception was related to two factors, namely Provision of
psychological needs (3.310) and Provision of regulation compliance environment (3.190). The two
other PSB factors had relatively better performance, those are Provision of good service quality of
public facility (3.426) and Improvement of quality of life and community engagement (3.368). This
means that the existing toll road projects have not provided a secure condition in the area near the
toll road. Besides, the community social cohesion is often disturbed as the effect of the toll road
project's existence. This also happens with regard to the traffic condition which is not smooth and
adheres to the regulation. As such, the improvement needs to be conducted with regard to
delivering psychological needs and quality of life and community engagement.

The above finding was also supported by the analysis results of Project Design (PD) Construct in
Section 5.3.2. According to the analysis, it was found that PD attributes' performance was still not
quite satisfactory as their scores were below 4.00. This condition is perhaps the reason that the PSB
has not yet been delivered satisfactorily to the community because the community satisfaction can
be delivered by accommodating their needs and interests in the project design. This finding was
supported by the analysis' results of Community Participation (CP) Construct where the existing
CP process is not being conducted satisfactorily. It was shown by all attribute scores which were
below 4.00. CP is the process where the community needs and interests can be accommodated and
represented into a project design. According to the above findings, it can be inferred that the
existing toll road project development is not quite satisfactory.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 248
The community's dissatisfaction regarding the PSB, PD, and CP in Indonesian toll road projects is
perhaps the reason for the social problem that often happens in toll road project implementation in
Indonesia. Unfortunately, the existing practice of toll road development in Indonesia is very much
focused on the economic aspects and gives less attention to the environmental and social aspects
(Handayani, 2008). As such, the community as the end-stakeholders of infrastructure projects does
not perceive optimal positive PSB from a toll road project's existence that can improve their quality
of life. Indeed, carefully consider the social aspect of the public project can minimise social
disadvantage (Yung and Chan, 2012).

PSB concept proposed in this research can be used as guidance to deliver community satisfaction
with regard to social aspects and in the long-term period through improving the community's
quality of life. It should be highlighted that toll road project existence should deliver social benefits
beyond the good quality of service as it is only some part of the improvement of the quality of life.
The PSB should be put forward as the way to fulfill the community needs and interests using a
bottom-up approach. Delivering PSB to the community satisfactorily can be expected to improve
the community support to the project and become the solution to reduce community protest so that
overall PPP toll road project success can be achieved.

8.3. A Perspective of PPP Project Success from the Project Social Benefit Concept
The PSB concept suggested to view the PPP toll road project success in a more comprehensive
aspect, that is related to three perspectives, namely (1) from a social aspect; (2) from a community
perspective; and (3) related to the long-term perspective of PPP project success in order to improve
the community's quality of life. First, from a social aspect, this research proposed to include the
social component of sustainable development to balance the implementation of its three
components - economic, environmental and social aspects - to improve people's well-being in the
long-term in PPP toll road projects. Indeed, considering social aspect ("brown agenda") is also
important to deliver sustainable development in addition to the environmental issue ("green
agenda"), because the problem of environmental destruction cannot be separated from the social
problems such as poverty, hunger and social inequality (Du Plessis, 2007).

Second, from the community perspective as the end-user of PPP project, this study sought to
understand and measure social success through the concept of PSB. Indeed, it is important to
understand different stakeholders' perspectives in PPP toll road projects to deliver their satisfaction.
However, satisfaction should be delivered to the stakeholders according to their level of the stake
as it is impossible to deliver success to overall stakeholders in the same level of satisfaction
because sometimes the type of stakeholders' interests and needs are different or even opposite
(Baccarini, 1999). The community is a stakeholder with a high level of the stake as well as the

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 249
government and private sectors. Therefore, it is very important to deliver the community
satisfaction in the PPP toll road projects.

Unfortunately, in the existing implementation of the PPP toll roads, the community needs and
interests are overlooked. Therefore, this research sought to better understand project success from
the community's perspective as the end-user of PPP toll road projects. The voice of community as
the end-user stakeholders is important to be listened to and accommodated in the project decision-
making process. The concept of sustainable development focuses on human-centered development
(Du Plessis, 2002) which is aimed at improving people's well-being by improving quality of life
(reducing poverty) and increasing people's efficiency and effectiveness. In order to understand the
community perspective, PSB is proposed to address the current limitation of traditional PPP
success which utilises a top-down mechanism. PSB is a more bottom-up approach which
accommodates the community to measure the success which allows them to be better included in
the project decision-making process.

Third, with regard to the long-term success, PSB argued that the success should not be seen in only
short-term to medium-term but also in the overall project's time frame, that is a short, medium and
long-term success or known as the past, present and future success (Chan et al., 2002). While the
traditional project management concept of the Iron Triangle (cost, time and quality) is more related
to short to medium-term success criteria, PSB can be seen as a success criterion from the
community's perspective in the long-term which is close to the user or client satisfaction. Success
in the long-term is more related to a "product success" or a "macro perspective" which is also very
important to be delivered to the end-users as the key stakeholders. While "project management
success" is a "micro perspective" more related to cost, time, quality, "the product success" is more
of a "macro perspective" related to how the project can deliver satisfaction to the end-users as a key
stakeholder.

Indeed, short and medium success perspectives are not adequate as PPP toll road projects, as an
infrastructure projects have a long project life cycle. Moreover, looking at the success only from
the perspective of economics tends to look at the success from a short-term and this cannot
guarantee a PPP project could deliver community satisfaction in the long-term. As such, measuring
PPP project success only through the "project management success" that is only related to cost,
time and quality is insufficient, because in several cases, the project may have met all three
traditional criteria, but the end product is not accepted by the end-user which results in disputes and
litigation. On the other hand, there are some projects that have been executed with time and cost
overruns, but in the end, they have been considered as a successful project from a wider community
perspective. In order to be an overall success, it is very important to view the PPP project success

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 250
from a more comprehensive perspective, that is by delivering satisfaction to the overall
stakeholders, from many aspects, and in the overall project life cycle.

It is worth mentioning that PSB is different to Social Impact Assessment (SIA) as an assessment
method that aims to understand the social impact of the specific policy to the human population
(Burdge and Vanclay, 1996). This concept has become a minor part of Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA) and has limitations that it only focuses on a passive perspective to address the
social impact of the development. Meanwhile, the PSB is more related to an active perspective of
social aspects regarding how to deliver positive benefits and reduce negative impacts from a
project's existence and which involves indicators such as improving quality of life and social
cohesion. As such, this work should provide a better understanding in dealing with social aspects to
improve the current SIA implementation.

8.4. Delivery of Project Social Benefit to the Community

Having developed understanding of the importance of PSB to project success criteria and how the
concept is used to provide a more comprehensive perspective of success, it is also necessary to
understand how to deliver or achieve a PSB. The social problems that happen as the result of the
community protests due to being less than satisfied with PSB performance cannot only be seen as
the only entity. Therefore, it is also important to investigate the factors that influence the PSB
performance. Definitely, it is not sufficient to measure the success performance without
understanding the enabling factors that influence the performance (Almahmoud et al., 2012). To do
so would not provide a comprehensive understanding of how the performance system of project
success works.

In light of the above, this research investigates the overall constructs' relationships that can then be
used to comprehensively understand toll road project development in Indonesia according to the
stakeholders' perception. In this case, PSB is the success criteria while the success factors are the
constructs that influence the PSB performance. Therefore, this research also investigated three
constructs that potentially influence Project Social Benefit (PSB), namely Project Design (PD),
Community Participation (CP) and the Government's Role (GR).

Theoretically, the performance of PSB is mostly understood, by either delivering CP (Li et al.,
2013 and Ng et al., 2013) or PD (Vavik and Keitsch, 2010). Meanwhile, the performance of PD
and CP is influenced by the government's role performance. The government is a powerful
stakeholder in the context of PPP projects as they are the project owner who has the authority in the
project initiation (DETR and CABE, 2000). The government is identified as having an important
role in the PD because what the project looks like is heavily dependant on the project owner. In

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 251
addition, as the project owner, the government has been theorised as having an important role in the
performance of CP (Li et al., 2013), as a mechanism to accommodate the community needs and
interests in the decision-making process. Hence, the government can potentially influence toll road
project success by delivering PSB to the community through PD and CP. However, in the existing
theory, the relationships between the PSB, PD, CP, and GR are considered in isolation, not as
overall constructs' relationship.

This research investigated the GR performance with regard to delivering PSB through the CP and
PD. This is expected to better understand their enabling factors of PSB performance in a single
model which finally leads to better understanding of their relationships. It was hypothesized that
GR has an influence on PSB. The conceptual model development also theorised that PSB is
influenced by the PD and CP. Meanwhile, the PD and CP performance are potentially influenced
by the GR performance. The investigations of the constructs' relationships were reported in Chapter
7 and the discussions about the findings are in the following chapter.

8.4.1. Relationship between Project Design and Project Project Social Benefit
Based on the structural model analysis Section 7.4, it was found that PD has a positive and direct
influence on PSB. The path coefficient between two constructs shows that they have a strong
relationship (0.85). This means that in the context of PPP toll road project development, delivering
or increasing PSB can be achieved through good PD. Indeed, it is really important for the designer
to promote a good PD by accommodating human-related issues such as health, environment,
economy, and society in the design process before the project implementation (Ugwu et al., 2007)
in order to deliver PSB.

The above finding, therefore, confirms the previous theories that good PD can improve the overall
stakeholders' satisfaction, including the community as an important stakeholder (CABE and DETR,
2001; Vavik and Keitch, 2010). Dalsgaard (2012) revealed that design that involves the community
or participatory design can improve the community satisfaction and support in the case of
developing library building as infrastructure in Aarhus, Denmark. However, as the previous
research focused on the application of a good design to urban design, this research provides a new
understanding of how good PD can be applied in the area of toll road projects. Good toll road
project design in this research refers to the principles of universal or inclusive project design where
there is an intention to simplify life for everyone by providing products (toll roads) that can be used
by many people at little or no extra cost (Vavik and Keitcsh, 2010).

From the final model, this research presented six attributes that can be used to measure PSB which
can be delivered by good toll road project design, namely PSB1 Safe public facility, PSB3 Deliver

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 252
economic benefit to the community, PSB4 Reduce travel time, PSB7 Availability of open space,
PSB11 Affordable tariff, and PSB12 Smooth traffic condition in the Toll Road and its Connection
Roads. Furthermore, it was also found from the final SEM results that the first highest attribute to
measure the PSB was PSB3 Deliver economic benefit to the community (0.68). This means that the
important attribute for the toll road projects can be perceived positively by the community if they
contribute to the community economic condition.

The second highest attribute was PSB7 Availability of open space (0.63) which means community
needs sufficient open space between the toll road and their settlement area. This attribute is
important because the toll road existence, open space between the toll road and settlement area is
too close causing several negative impacts to the community such as noise, traffic accident risk,
and uncomfortable environment. Indeed, availability of open space is important for the human as it
can release stress (Chan and Lee, 2008).

The PSB1 Safe public facility became the third highest PSB attribute (0.61) This result shows that
the community needs the toll road project to become a safe public facility not only for the user but
also for the community residing adjacent the toll roads. The safe facility in this research refers to
the toll road and its facilities such as connecting roads, over or underpasses that connect the
adjacent residential area as well as other facilities such as rest areas, guardrails, and the like. The
fourth highest attribute was PSB4 Reduce travel time (0.57). This means that the toll road existence
is expected to simplify the community's life by having a good access as an alternative access to a
regular congested road. Indeed, reducing travel time also becomes the government's objective of
developing the toll roads in certain areas.

Finally, the fifth and sixth highest PSB attributes were PSB 11 Affordable tariff and PSB 12
Smooth Traffic condition along the toll roads and its connecting roads. Both attributes had similar
loading factors (0.53). PSB11 Affordable tariff attribute became the important PSB measure
perhaps because this affordable tariff toll road can be used by any group of people (CABE and
DETR 2001, Yung and Chan, 2012). Meanwhile, PSB12 Smooth traffic condition along the toll
roads and its connecting roads are important for the community as it becomes an indicator of
smooth traffic not only in some parts of the toll roads but in the overall paths of toll roads. In
addition, the toll road existence does not shift the congestion from the regular roads to its
connecting roads.

Moreover, four attributes were found in the final SEM that can be used to measure and improve a
good toll road project design. The four PD attributes which were the performance of a project
design are PD2 Appropriateness to the community needs, PD6 The condition is easy to understand,

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 253
PD7 Aesthetic design, and PD8 Environmentally friendly condition. Based on the loading factor of
the attributes, it can also be seen that attribute PD2 Appropriate to the community needs had the
highest score (0.75) when it is compared to the other attributes. It means that this attribute becomes
the first highest attribute to measure a good toll road PD because a good design is when the design
fits the stakeholders' needs and interests, which is, in this case, the community. PD8
Environmentally friendly became the second highest PD attribute (0.62) because in addition to fit
the community, the design of the infrastructure such as toll road design should also cause minimal
negative impacts on the environment (CABE and DETR, 2001).

The third PD attribute was PD7 Aesthetic design (0.61) and this is also an important PD measure
because a good design of the toll road and its facilities can satisfy the community. Aesthetic design
can improve the community's pride and even cause the sense of belonging to the place (Chan and
Lee, 2008) and can make the community support the project. Finally, PD6 The condition is easy to
understand (0.52) became the fourth PD measure because, with this characteristic, a design can
increase the community safety. For example, the design of toll roads and its connecting roads
which are easy to understand can help the user understand the situation and condition to avoid
injury or accident caused by the user's faults or slip-ups.

According to the above result, it is clear that the toll road project and its facilities must be designed
in such a way that it is appropriate to the community needs and interests. Community participation
can be used as the mechanism to accommodate the community needs and interest in the design
process. As the focus of this thesis is the community who resides near the toll road and becomes
users, the toll road PD should accommodate this type of community needs and interests. It is not
sufficient for the design to only accommodate the toll road users that are not adjacent residents and
ignore the resident community.

Moreover, even though the toll road project design is intended to accommodate the community
needs and interests, it must be designed effectively and efficiently. In principle, a good toll road PD
is not necessary to be expensive or unaffordable (CABE and DETR, 2001), but it should
accommodate as many people as possible to deliver the PSB. The concept of universal or inclusive
design can be adapted to achieve the design goal which is not expensive but can accommodate
many groups of people. With a good toll road PD, the PSB of the toll road project is expected to be
perceived by the community and improve the chance of project success.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 254
8.4.2. Relationships between Community Participation, Project Design and Project Social
Benefit
From the final SEM results, it was also found that the CP did not have a direct influence on PSB,
but CP had an indirect influence on the PSB through the PD Construct. The influence of the CP on
PD is positive and quite strong which was shown by a strong path coefficient (0.69). This finding is
somewhat different from the previous theory that posited the CP to have a direct influence on PSB
(Li et al., 2013; Ng et al., 2013). However, the examination of the mediator effect in Section 7.5.2
found that PD acted as a mediator construct for both the CP and PSB Constructs. As such, it
provides an explanation that the influence of CP on PSB is not a direct relationship, but it has to go
through PD.

The reason from the above relationships is perhaps because only through a good participation
process, the community aspirations can be listened to and accommodated in the project design. As
noted above, a good PD concept requires that it should be developed by accommodating as wide as
the range of community as possible to obtain a project design that is really appropriate and could
accommodate the community needs and interests. This result also confirmed previous research
theory that good CP can be implemented through the process of PD commencing from the initial
stage of a project (Mirghani and Savenije, 1995).

The final SEM results also provided five highest attributes to measure CP performance, namely
CP2 Transparent process, CP4 Adequate information provided for the community, CP6
Constructive dialogue, CP8 Improve community understanding about the project objective, and
CP11 Comprehensive outcome. According to the loading factors, CP2 Transparent process has the
highest attribute score (0.85). This means that it is very important that CP is conducted through a
transparent process where all communities can get access to information on the process
(Bickerstaff et al., 2002). It is not sufficient for the CP to be just formally implemented, where the
decision is made without providing a transparent process as this attribute is the priority indicator on
how good is the CP process.

The second highest CP attribute was CP8 Improve the community understanding about the project
objective (0.84). Community understanding is important because by better understanding the
project's goal, the community can support the project existence. The community participation is a
good facility for the overall project stakeholders to share their opinions about the project as well as
to find a better solution to the problem that might be encountered during the implementation (Li et
al., 2013). As such, community understanding becomes an indicator of a good community
participation process.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 255
The CP4 Adequate information provided for the community (0.83) was the third highest CP
attribute. It is difficult for the community to understand the project without obtaining sufficient
information. While understanding the project is important for the community, providing adequate
information is also needed as the mechanism to achieve that understanding. Meanwhile, CP6
Constructive dialogue (0.82) was the fourth highest CP attribute. This attribute is an indicator
whether the community participation process was performed in two-way direction or dialogue, not
just a procedural process where there is no opportunity for the community to express their voice.
Through this constructive process (Blackstock et al., 2012), the community needs and interests can
be captured and accommodated in the project decision-making.

Finally, the fifth highest attribute was CP11 Comprehensive outcome (0.81). This means that the
CP process should consider all aspects for project decision-making. It is important that the decision
has already considered many aspects so the project design can bring maximal positive benefits and
minimal disadvantages to the stakeholders, especially the community. As noted earlier, the
existence of PPP toll road project should deliver as many positive benefits and minimise negative
impacts to the community. If that is the case, the community support to the project can be expected
to increase the chance for a more successful project.

Indeed, the CP is a good channel to involve the community in the decision-making process by
capturing their needs and interests for the project to develop sustainability attributes (Ugwu et al.,
2007). Unfortunately, the existing practice in Indonesian toll road development, a good CP process
has not been appropriately implemented as it only happens during the Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA) or known as Analisa Mengenai Dampak Lingkungan/AMDAL (Handayani,
2008). According to Li et al. (2013), this phenomenon is also similar to the mainland China where
the CP process also happens during the EIA stage. However, Hong Kong has a better CP
experience as the community is more willing to be involved in the decision-making. Perhaps this is
because of the democratic environment as well as the citizen level of education of the city (Lee and
Chan, 2008).

Since 1998, Indonesia has moved to a democratic country where people have opportunity
expressing their voice or aspiration in the toll road development (Bhakti, 2004). This makes project
is often being criticised by the community where they cause the problem to the society.
Consequently, some toll road projects are facing difficulty in the execution stage where there is no
agreement resulted in solving the social problem. However, a vocal community is actually good
social capital and opportunity for implementing a more democratic society. As such, the real
problem to the project implementation is actually not about the community aspiration, but it is

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 256
more about the lack of appropriate CP mechanism that allows better stakeholders' power
redistribution in the project development. As the consequence, the community's aspiration cannot
be listened and accommodated in the decision-making process.

The existing CP process is perhaps more about a regular procedure to fulfill the formal regulation.
Indeed, the CP should not be just a formal procedure after the decision has already been made. A
good CP is one where its existence can influence the decision-making process as the CP outcomes
are implemented to the PD (Reed, 2008). In addition, a good CP is not only related to the final
result but also related to the process of how it is conducted (Ng et al., 2013). Even though the final
result of the CP may not satisfy all parties, if the process is conducted well, it is possible that all
participating members can feel satisfied with the feeling that they had been part of the process.
Consequently, they will also be responsible for the results and commit to implementing the
outcome. Therefore, providing an appropriate CP mechanism perhaps may solve the potential
conflict or dispute between the stakeholders, reduce the stakeholders' opposition, and raise the
chance of the project success. However, formulating appropriate CP mechanism for the PPP toll
road projects is beyond this research scope. However, this study has provided some attributes or
indicators that can be used to guide such good CP process. Meanwhile, the CP mechanism perhaps
can be obtained by adopting current raising of Public Private People Partnership (4P) Concept and
it is recommended to be formulated in the future research.

8.4.3. Relationships between Government’s Role, Community Participation, Project Design

and Project Social Benefit
The analysis also investigated the theoretical relationship between GR, CP, PD, and PSB
performances. The final structural model (Model C) of SEM showed that GR did not have a direct
influence on PSB. However, GR had an indirect influence on PSB through both CP and PD. CP
had a direct influence on PD and PD had a direct influence on PSB as noted in Section 7.4. The
investigation of the mediator effect between CP and PD in Section 7.5 confirmed that the CP is
mediator construct for GR and PD. Meanwhile, even though GR influenced PD which is shown by
the path coefficient (0.11), its path coefficient is not as strong as the path coefficient between GR
and CP (0.40).

This means that even though the government has a theoretical capability of providing PSB from the
toll road project through their policy, this research shows that PSB can only be performed through
CP and PD as a channel to deliver the policy. Indeed, the CP performance theoretically depends
largely on the project owner, which is the government who initiates and plans the project (CABE
and DETR, 2001; Li et al., 2013). Other parties, such as the private sectors and community, do not
have such a big influence and authority to create toll roads as the government.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 257
The government is the party who has a very strategic position in balancing the interests of the
private and community sectors. The private sectors usually only have an economic interest in
spending less budget to deliver the project and gaining more profit from this process. The private
sectors are only willing to be involved in the PPP project if the condition is conducive for an
investment. On the other side, the community is more interested in how the project can provide
maximal benefits and minimum negative impacts (dis-benefits) on their life. Meanwhile, the
government has both interests that are delivering the project effectively and efficiently as well as
maximising the project benefits for the goodness of society, including the community. The more
effective and efficient the project is, the more budget can be allocated for other community welfare
programs. The greater the benefits that can be perceived by the community are, the more likely the
project can subsequently improve community satisfaction and raise the government's credibility in
the community's eyes, which is very important to support their power. As such, the government
must act as the mediator who balances the private and community interests to achieve a successful
participation process.

Due to that strategic position, the government has an important role in the success of CP. Without
the active involvement of the government, a good CP is perhaps difficult to implement. Indeed, the
CP is actually a channel for redistributing power between involved parties (Ng et al., 2013). CP
basically can be performed well in a democratic country, where people can express their opinions
freely without any fear. Hong Kong's experience shows that the community is more willing to take
part of the decision-making in CP process because of its democratic climate as well as the level of
its citizen's education (Lee and Chan, 2008). In a democracy, the government's bureaucracy can
usually be counted on for performing in a transparent way. However, this condition can only be
presented with a better GR performance.

The final SEM result also found that GR influences PD. But, the path coefficient of the relationship
is only 0.11, which is not as strong as the influence of GR on CP (0.40). This result, therefore,
suggests that CP is a very important process for achieving a good PD. The reason behind this was
perhaps because the government can only promote a good PD that is well accepted by the
community if it is implemented through the CP process. This finding supports the previous theory
that government has an influence on the PD performance (CABE and DETR, 2001). However, by
providing the strength of the relationship through the path coefficient, this research gives more
information than that in the previous work.

According to the final SEM results, there are five attributes that are important to measure GR
performance, namely GR3 Simplification of bureaucratic procedure, GR4 Corruption eradication,

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 258
GR5 Law enforcement, GR8 Development good communication between government and the
concessionaire, and GR9 Appropriate supervision. From the final SEM results, it was found that
the highest loading factor was the attribute of GR3 Simplification of bureaucracy procedure (0.79).
From this result, it can be inferred that simplification of bureaucracy procedure is really important
for the success of delivering PPP projects with regard to the social success. It is essential that PPP
projects are executed through a simple bureaucracy process to speed its implementation. As PPP
projects are long-term partnerships, the influence of the bureaucracy cannot be avoided in the
overall project phases and it becomes very difficult for the stakeholders, especially the private
sectors in achieving a successful project without a good bureaucracy support for the project.

The second highest GR attribute was GR4 Corruption eradication (0.71). This attribute is an
important measure for the GR performance because simplification of bureaucracy procedure cannot
be separated from the corruption eradication. Clean bureaucracy can be achieved if there is
minimum or even no corruption such as bribery in the system. There should be a punishment for
those who are involved in a corrupt act. In the context of PPP project that involves private sectors,
corruption becomes an issue that makes the private sectors reluctant to get involved in the scheme
(Zhang, 2005a).

Meanwhile, GR5 Law enforcement became the third highest GR attribute (0.62). Similar to
corruption eradication, Law enforcement is also necessary to promote simplification of bureaucracy
procedure. With law enforcement, the overall stakeholders respect the established rules and
regulations. It is very important to ensure law enforcement (Rostiyanti and Tamin, 2010) to
convince the private sectors to be involved in this partnership. Good implementation of the
regulations ascertains the legal certainty and becomes the reference for the private sectors for
believing that their investment is safe because every decision that has been made is executed
according to the contract's agreement.

The fourth highest GR attribute was GR9 Appropriate Supervision (0.52). Good planning is not
enough without a good or appropriate supervision as it can be used to ensure that planning that has
been developed is well executed in the field. Appropriate supervision (Li et al., 2005) must be
performed in every project stages, especially during the construction and operation phases to ensure
that the project delivers maximal benefits and minimal dis-benefits to the community. For example,
in the construction phase, the government must supervise the project implementation to ensure that
it is well executed and meets the defined quality. It also causes minimum negative impacts on the
community. Meanwhile, in the operation phase, appropriate supervision is necessary to ensure that
toll road provides a good service to the user and its facilities cause minimum negative impacts on
the community.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 259
Finally, the fifth highest GR attribute was GR8 Development good communication between
government and the concessionaire (0.50). This attribute is important because, through good
communication, better relationships between the government and private sectors can be achieved.
A good relationship between two parties is an important aspect to solve any problems that arise in
the project. In many cases, the dispute that happens between these two parties causes the project
delay and even discontinue that subsequently causes dis-benefit to many stakeholders.

Overall, these results showed that with good GR performance, the CP performance will also
increase which will lead to increase the PD performance. Finally, if all these three constructs'
performances are good, the PSB will also increase. This finding, therefore, suggests that the
Government's Role is a very important key factor to improve PSB performance that subsequently
delivers the overall success from a social perspective. In contrast, incapability of the government in
performing their role in PPP projects may lead to project failure (Kwak et al., 2009).

The international cases also showed that the proper government's role is really important for a
successful PPP project. For example, a 60 km elevated railway project in Thailand was finally
terminated due to lack of the government capability in resolving the conflicts with nearby
competitive tollway (Kumaraswamy and Zhang, 2001). Birgonul and Ozdogan (1998) added
Turkish's experience where many urgent energy and transportation projects arranged using Built
Operate Transfer (BOT) scheme failed to be materialised due to inappropriate government's role
such as poor organisation, insufficient legal arrangement, lack of coordination with private sector
and lack of guarantees to minimise the project risk. Likewise, the vehicular bridge developed under
PPP scheme in Lao was also unsuccessful because it cannot return it investment cost due to the
incapability of the government in selecting appropriate PPP project (Kumaraswamy and Zhang,
2001). As such, the important role of the government in a successful PPP project cannot be
neglected.

8.5. Understanding the Stakeholders’ Perceptions and the Importance of the 4P Concept
Having understood the overall constructs' relationships, it is also important to obtain the current
stakeholders' perceptions about the four constructs - PSB, PD, CP, and GR - to understand the
current toll road projects' performance. The overall understanding of the four research constructs is
important for evaluating the toll road projects' performance and formulating an improvement of the
current PPP concept. As mentioned before, this research sought to view the overall stakeholders'
perceptions (government, the private sector, and community) of social success rather than only
perceptions from the community. The stakeholders' perception can then be compared to obtain a

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 260
more comprehensive understanding of the constructs' performance from three different
stakeholders' points of view.

The analysis of the overall stakeholders' perceptions related to the research attributes' performance
was explained in Section 5.3.2. According to the overall sector, most of the attributes' performance
can generally be categorised as "fair performance". This means based on the overall stakeholders'
perceptions, the existing toll road performance is still less optimal and can be improved in order to
increase community satisfaction. For the PSB Construct, the lowest attributes performance from the
overall sector was PSB11 Affordable tariff. This means current toll road tariff is still perceived
expensive by the community. It is possibly happening as the community perceived that the service
provided by the toll road is still below their expectation. For the PD Construct, the lowest attribute
was PD1 Participatory design. This means currently, the toll road design has not sufficiently
involved the community in the process and it is conducted with the top-down mechanism where it
is mostly directed by the government and private sector intentions. The CP10 Continous process
was found to be the lowest attribute in CP Construct. This happened probably because the CP
process has not been conducted in the overall project phase, but it usually occurs only during the
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process (Handayani, 2008). For the GR Construct, GR6
Realization of the smooth land acquisition process and GR9 Appropriate supervision became the
lowest attributes performance. This result is in line with the existing condition where the lack
performance of the government in supporting the land acquisition process causing the slow process
of the toll road development (Kompas, 2010). This phenomenon possibly occurs as the appropriate
supervision from the government is not properly conducted in the overall project phases.

Moreover, in order to improve the existing toll road implementation performance, it is necessary to
look at the stakeholders' perception regarding factors obtained from the EFA process in Section
6.3. The improvement action can be directed by focusing on the factors with the lowest
performance. As noted earlier, the factors were obtained from the EFA by classifying the attributes
with similar characteristics. For the PSB Construct, it was found that the improvement should be
performed for the FPSB3 Provision of psychological needs and FPSB4 Provision of regulation
compliance environment. These two factors' performances were still below the other two factors,
FPSB1 Improvement of quality of life and community engagement and FPSB2 Provision of good
service quality of the public facility. This means the existing toll road developments have not
provided these two conditions to the affected community. It can happen because currently toll road
and its connecting roads situation are still less secure, still cannot maintain the social cohesion
between the community members. Furthermore, the regulatory compliance and smooth traffic
condition still have not happened on the toll road and its connection road. As such, all these

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 261
conditions should be delivered in the toll road development to prevent negative effects to the
community.

With regard to PD Construct, the least factor performance was FPD2 Participatory design process.
This means that involving the community in the design should be conducted to promote design that
can deliver social inclusivity that subsequently delivers community satisfaction. For the CP, the
improvement needs to be done to all attributes as only one factor formed from the EFA. The
improvement should refer to all attributes which mostly not quite satisfactory. Meanwhile, for the
GR Construct, improvement can be conducted to FGR1 Establishment of good bureaucracy and
FGR2 maintain a good relationship and appropriate supervision. This result showed that except for
the provision of a conducive environment, the government's role should be improved to achieve
better PD and CP that subsequently increase the PSB's delivery to the community. This including
the corruption eradication, simplification of bureaucracy procedure, solving the community
aspiration with an appropriate approach as well as appropriate supervision. Zhang (2005b) asserted
that good bureaucracy happens when there is clear responsibility within the government body.

Moreover, the research also found the different perceptions between the stakeholders. The
comparative analysis of the stakeholders' perceptions regarding the overall research attributes is
described in Section 5.4. Utilising ANOVA and posthoc analysis, the possibility of different
perceptions between the three groups of stakeholders were statistically investigated. According to
the analyses, it was found that generally, the stakeholders had different perceptions regarding the
four constructs. Generally, the community had different perceptions from the government and
private sectors' perceptions. This result confirmed the previous research conducted in Hong Kong
where the government, private sector, and the community had different interests in PPP projects
(Ng et al., 2012b).

Indeed, there were quite similar patterns in the assessment among the three stakeholders, but there
were different levels of satisfaction. The community was generally less satisfied with the attributes'
performance than the other two sectors. The reason for the differences in perceptions between the
community and the other two sectors is perhaps because, in the existing practice, PSB is not very
well defined so the government and private sectors do not fully understand their needs and
interests. In addition, the current concept of PPP in toll road project development still could not
accommodate the community in the decision-making process. Indeed, the involvement of the
community in the decision-making process in project design would increase the PSB.

The above condition perhaps happens because there is still not a quite clear concept on how to
involve the community in the decision-making process. As a result, the community as the end-user

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 262
which is also one of the important stakeholders does not obtain a sufficient opportunity to receive
sufficient project information which provides their opinion to influence the decision-making.
Indeed, there has been community participation in the current PPP toll road project
implementation. However, the community participation is not quite optimal. According to the
analysis of the attributes' performance, it was found that the CP's average score from the
community perception was 3.26 and the overall attributes' means was also below 4.00 as the
minimum satisfaction level.

The above finding is supported by the previous theory that stated community participation in toll
road projects development in Indonesia was not good enough. Handayani (2008) asserted that
communities or the general public, as one of the important stakeholders, have not been effectively
involved in the decision-making process. Community participation, in Indonesian toll roads, was
mainly centered on the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and a Social Impact Assessment
(SIA) processes through Analisa Mengenai Dampak Lingkungan (AMDAL) process which occurs
before construction phase. However, that CP process has not been designed to significantly
influence the PD. Moreover, in the operational phase, there has been no formal procedure for
monitoring and engagement with the community, even though they have the right to monitor
indirectly and report to the government about environmental destruction or degradation caused by
the project (Handayani, 2008).

Indeed, it is not enough to only conduct community participation just as a formal procedure that is
not appropriately implemented because it cannot sufficiently involve the community in the
decision-making process. Accordingly, these CP attributes should be used as the objective of a
good community participation to better deliver PSB in the PPP toll road projects. It is very
important that the CP becomes a channel for achieving more democratic decision-making processes
in toll road project development. With the current Indonesian era where it now transforms to be a
democratic country, it is important that project development is realized through such democratic
processes as well. As such, the project implementation becomes a process for implementing
democratic principles in the construction project area. This process is also important in order to
achieve a more sustainable project that meets the overall stakeholders' needs without sacrificing
one of the stakeholders - such as the community in this case - to achieve the development goal.

In addition to that, the CP process should be understood in terms of both the process and outcome.
Even though it is undeniable that the outcome of CP is implementable or can influence the
decision-making process (Blackstock et al., 2012), it is also very essential that CP becomes a good
facility for improving the community's capacity building (Luyet et al., 2012; Flannery and
Cinneide, 2012). As such, the CP process should also be implemented appropriately to achieve a

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 263
better outcome. Indeed, the CP should be able to improve the community's understanding regarding
toll road project planning and design so they become aware of the toll road development process
that has an influence on their life not only in the short-term but also perhaps in the long-term.

A good CP is actually a matter of transferring the information as well as making a better quality of
decision as it involves all project stakeholders in its process including the community as a key one
as noted earlier. As such, the final outcome of the CP should be achieved by an appropriate CP
process. As a result, even though at the end of the process, the final decision may not be able to
fulfill all the community's needs and interests, it still may satisfy the community by having
sufficiently involved them in the decision-making process. Accordingly, it is expected that this
result can maintain or even increase the community support for the project that will potentially
reduce community stakeholders' opposition and increase the chance of project success.

In light of the above, to meet the identified need for better CP in Indonesia PPPs, this research
proposes the implementation of Public Private People Partnership (4P) Concept to formally involve
the community in the decision-making in Indonesian toll road projects. Indeed, a close relationship
between the government and private sectors that is beyond the structured relationship known as a
partnership is heavily important to sustain the project in order to better deliver benefits to the
community. However, given the increasing social infrastructure project challenges, the government
and private sectors' relationship is not sufficient without involving the end-user or community in
the cooperation scheme. Majamaa et al. (2008) provided evidence of the failure of PPP projects as
the concept that overlooked the customer orientation in the service evaluation criteria.

Formally injecting "people" (where the community is a part of it) into the PPP scheme through the
4Ps would stabilise the relationships between a project's stakeholders - public or government,
private and community (Kumaraswamy et al., 2015). However, because involving many parties is a
complex process, the key issue in better managing the project stakeholders is on how to select the
"right" people in the "right" level and the "right" time (Zhang et al., 2015). The 4P framework
which has been proposed by Majamaa et al (2008) and Ng et al. (2013) can potentially be adapted
in implementing PPP toll road projects in Indonesia. This concept proposed a mechanism to
perform infrastructure project development with respect to involving "people" in the process.
However, given that every project is unique, the framework should be formulated in the context of
toll road projects and also be customised according to the project characteristics such as scope,
location, and environment.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 264
8.6. Improving the Government’s Role to Deliver Project Social Benefit and Achieving PPP
Toll Road Project Success
The previous sections have provided an understanding of the constructs' relationships and the
stakeholders' perceptions about the four constructs. PSB has been established in this research as an
important aspect of PPP toll road project success from the community perspective. As such, it is
important to deliver PSB to achieve more comprehensive project success. However, given that fact,
the next question is how to achieve better PSB performance in PPP toll road projects.

As has been revealed in the final SEM model, the PSB's performance is also influenced by the
other constructs' performance. As noted above, there were relationships identified between PSB,
CP, PD, and GR. The research confirmed that PD and CP are two constructs that influence the PSB
performance. As such, improving these two constructs' performances are necessary to deliver
greater and better PSB. In order to achieve good PD and CP, this research also presented attributes
to measure the PD and CP performances that can be used as guidance in this improvement.

Furthermore, it was also found that the improvement of PD and CP could be achieved by
improving the GR performance. The result pointed out that the GR becomes the main source of
delivering and increasing PSB to the community. As such, in order to deliver PSB to the
satisfactory level, it is important to improve the GR performance because PD and CP are
influenced by GR. However, the techniques and methods used to improve the GR performance in
toll road projects are beyond this research's scope. Nevertheless, attributes that were identified from
the literature and validated through the empirical survey could be used as the guidance in
measuring the GR performance and which can be developed further with techniques and methods.

According to the EFA results in Chapter 6, the GR construct can generally be classified into three
main factors, namely FGR1 Establishment of Good Bureaucracy, FGR2 Good Project
Communication and Supervision and FGR3 Provision of Conducive Environment. Meanwhile,
FGR1 Establishment of good bureaucracy consists of three attributes namely, GR3 Simplification
of bureaucratic procedures, GR5 Law enforcement, and GR4 Corruption eradication. Simplifying
administrative procedures is very important for PPP project success with regard to delivering PSB.
As the PPP is a complex contractual arrangement involving the private sectors and government for
several decades, it is very important that the government's bureaucracy can smooth the process.
This means every step of the necessary bureaucratic process should be conducted as simplified and
transparent procedures as possible to speed the project decision-making.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 265
In addition to simplified and transparent procedures, law enforcement is also very important
(Zhang, 2005b; Kwak et al., 2009; Wibowo and Alfen, 2015) to provide legal certainty for the
stakeholders. For example, the land acquisition process should be performed through a fair and
transparent procedure according to the regulations and the acquisition process and is consistently
implemented so it can reduce the action of land speculators (Rostiyanti et al., 2010). Finally,
providing a simplified bureaucracy and law enforcement can subsequently minimize the risk of
corruption. As has been revealed that the corruption eradication is a very important social aspect of
the GR to promote the PPP project success (Zhang, 2005b).

Another important GR is in regard to FGR2 Good Project Communication and Supervision which
also comprises three attributes, namely GR7 Solving community protest regarding the
environmental issues, GR9 Appropriate supervision and GR8 Development of a good
communication between government and the concessionaire. Solving the community aspirations
with an appropriate approach is also very important for reducing the social problems in order to
obtain community support for the project (Woltjer, 2002), which can be performed through a good
CP process.

Meanwhile, developing good communication between the government and private sectors in PPPs
is very important for solidifying the project team that supports good decision-making processes
(Chan et al., 2011; Doloi, 2012b, Li et al., 2005b). Indeed, a good relationship between the
government and the private sector is important as it becomes the foundation of solving any overall
project related problems to subsequently deliver a better PSB performance. Meanwhile, appropriate
project supervision (Li et al., 2005; Wibowo and Mohamed, 2010) should always be conducted in
appropriate time and manner that could then make the project execution meet objectives.

In addition to the above, an important role of the government should be conducted with regard to
FGR3 Provision of a conducive environment. This factor consists of two attributes, namely GR1
Provision of a stable political condition and GR2 Provision of stable economic condition
(Kumaraswamy and Zhang, 2001). It is widely known that conducive political and economic
environments are highly important as the private willingness to participate in PPP projects is
heavily dependant on these conducive environments (Kumaraswamy and Zhang, 2001; Zhang et
al., 2005; Kwak et al., 2009). As such, these two GR attributes also need to be improved in order to
increase PSB to the community and subsequently to achieve the success of PPP toll road projects.

However, considering that the path coefficient from the GR to PD and GR to CP is not very strong
(0.11 and 0.40 respectively), it is also possible that the CP and PD are also influenced by other
factors. With regard to this research, it was only the GR that was identified as the factor that

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 266
influences on PD and CP performance. This was due to research time and limitations. It is also
possible that there are other factors that potentially influence these two constructs' performances
that can be represented as research constructs according to their nature. For example, from the
stakeholder role's perspective, it can be specified such as Private and Community Constructs. But,
it is also possible to define the constructs according to other perspectives such as with
Technological or Environmental Constructs which, of course, should be backed up with a clear
theory. Therefore, investigation of the other factors that influence these two constructs'
performances other than GR is also necessary to obtain an even more comprehensive understanding
of how to achieve better PD and CP performances.

8.7. Chapter Summary

This chapter provides the discussion of the research findings and relates them to the existing
theory. The findings highlight the importance of the PSB as a part of the overall PPP toll road
project success and therefore it is important to be delivered to the community. From the discussion,
it was found that stakeholders perceived that the PSB was not quite satisfactory as most of the
attribute scores were still lower than 4.00 as the satisfactory level. In particular, the community
which becomes the perspective of this project social benefit provided the lowest satisfaction
compared to the government and private sectors. This phenomenon perhaps becomes the reason for
the current social problems in toll road project development. With this condition, current PPP toll
road projects in Indonesia still cannot be regarded as fully successful projects.

This chapter also presents the discussion of the relationships between several constructs that
influence PSB performance, namely PD, CP and GR and how they are related in the research
model. It was found that the PSB is directly influenced by PD and indirectly affected by CP.
Meanwhile, the PD is directly influenced by CP and GR performance. Finally, the CP is directly
influenced by the GR performance. The findings indicated that the GR becomes the main source of
the improvement in this PSB research context. It means that an effort to better achieve or improve
the PSB should be conducted by improving the GR performances. Indeed, the government is a
powerful stakeholder in PPP project development as they are the initiator of infrastructure projects
and consequently, they have very important roles in the success of these projects. Therefore,
delivering and increasing PSB should be performed by improving the PD and CP performance and
it can be achieved if the government performs their roles better.

The different perception among the stakeholders was also discussed and it was found that
stakeholders had different perception regarding the research constructs. The community generally
had less satisfied perception than the government and private sectors. This is perhaps because the
PSB is not very well defined and they have not been appropriately engaged in the project

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 267
development. As a result, social problems often happen in the toll road project development in the
form of community protest related to the negative impacts of the project existence.

Finally, the government's role has been found as the main source of the PSB achievement through
the PD and CP. Therefore, this research proposed to improve the GR in order to improve the other
two constructs that subsequently improve PSB performance through adopting the 4P Concept into
Indonesian PPP toll road projects. Further research on how to improve GR needs to be conducted.
However, several attributes that have been identified and validated in this research can be used as
guidance or targeted for performance assessment so the GR can be measured accordingly. It is
worth mentioning that the government has the capability in delivering successful PPP projects that
meet the community needs and interests. When the government successfully deliver the
infrastructure projects such as toll roads, they obtain positive credit from the community and
electorate, thus, this becomes the reason for the government to increase their credibility in a hope
of retaining power.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 268
 CHAPTER 9
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

9.1. Introduction
This final chapter presents a summary of the research findings obtained from this study. The
research contributions are also presented in terms of theoretical contribution to the existing body of
knowledge as well as practical implications. Moreover, some research limitations are also
identified as the basis of recommendations for future study. This chapter begins with Section 9.2
which recapitulates the research questions. This is followed by a summary of the research findings
in Section 9.3. Next, Section 9.4. presents the research contributions and implications and
continues with Section 9.5 that provides the research limitations and recommendations for future
research. The chapter then is finalised with the closure in Section 9.6.

9.2. Revisiting the Research Questions

This research was motivated by the existing limitations of PPP toll road project success which
based on the Best Value (BV) Concept which fails to address all stakeholders‟ interests and needs,
such as the community. Currently, the BV have not fully accommodated sustainability concept as it
is mainly dominated by an economic perspective with a little bit of attention to environmental
aspects and very limited consideration of the social aspects. Social sustainability is one important
aspect of sustainable development that represents how a project delivers benefits to the society.
However, the concept of social sustainability in construction management theory has not been
widely explored and still remains obscure. This research, therefore, proposed the concept of Project
Social Benefit (PSB) that drawn from social sustainability theory, be incorporated as part of
defining PPP project success. To obtain an understanding of the PSB concept and how it relates to
project success, this research investigated and empirically tested PSB‟s application in Indonesian
toll road projects.

Based on the research background, the research question in this study was developed as “How is
the concept of PSB as a part of the project success concept, its criteria and how to improve its
performance in the context of PPP toll road projects in Indonesia?” This main research question
then was used to generate several research questions which were used as the direction of the
research path. The main research questions were divided into the following eight sub-research
questions:

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 269
 1. What is PSB‟s definition and what are its criteria?
2. What are the constructs that influence PSB‟s performance?
3. What are attributes to measure constructs that influence PSB‟s performance?
4. What are the theoretical framework and conceptual model that relate constructs that
influence PSB‟s performance?
5. What are the research hypotheses?
6. What are the stakeholders‟ perceptions of the research attributes?
7. What are the underlying factors behind the research attributes? and
8. What are the constructs‟ relationships based on the research hypothesis?

9.3. Summary of the Research Findings

Several research activities were designed to achieve the research goal and answer the research
questions. A quantitative approach based on positivist paradigm was chosen in this study as there is
still limited research has been conducted to investigate this particular area. Generally, the main
finding obtained from this research was regarding the importance of PSB concept to be
incorporated into the PPP toll road project success criteria. The application of PSB in the toll road
development is expected can accommodate the community needs and interests to better address the
social problem and reduce the stakeholders‟ opposition for improving the chance of project
success.

To achieve that goal, PSB concept was explored by developing its definition and criteria. In
addition, this study also investigated the way how to deliver PSB to the community by identifying
and testing some constructs that influence to its performance. Prior to that, some attributes to
measure the influence construct were also investigated to measure the stakeholder‟s perception.
Based on the research questions have been developed, the detail of the research findings are
explained next.

9.3.1. PSB Definition and Its Criteria

This research proposed the PSB Concept to be incorporated into project success theory to address
the current limitation of Best Value (BV) Concept in PPP toll roads. Delivering PSB to the
community is expected can accommodate community needs and interests to reduce social problems
that often related to community protest due to toll road project‟s existence. Appropriately solving
the social problems can potentially minimise stakeholders‟ opposition and subsequently improve
the chance of project success.

It was previously explained that PSB was adopted from social sustainability theory as a part of
sustainable development concept. However, as found in the literature review, the social

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 270
sustainability definition still has not been agreed by researchers. So, the term PSB is applied in this
research to represent the social dimension of infrastructure project success. According to Chapter 3,
PSB is defined as “the positive benefits that can be perceived by people who reside around the toll
roads due to toll roads existence relating to society in the overall project life cycle that leads to a
harmonious living environment, reduces social inequality, maintains social cohesion and improves
the quality of life in general”.

It was found that 15 (fifteen) attributes can be used to measure the PSB, namely Safe public
facility, Secure public facility, Deliver economic benefit to the community, Reduce travel time,
Maintain social cohesion, Less polluted environment (minimum negative impact), Availability of
open space, Community involvement in decision-making, Equal access for all community,
Convenience public facility, Affordable tariff, Smooth traffic along the toll road and its connecting
road, Regulation compliance, Provide adequate toll road services and Community support (less
opposition).

9.3.2. Identification of Constructs that Potentially Influence Project Social Benefit

Performance
In order to comprehensively understand the PSB concept, this research investigated several
constructs that potentially influence on its performance. According to the literature, Project Design
(PD) and Community Participation (CP) were identified as two constructs that potentially have an
influence on PSB. Good PD can potentially create PSB to the community while CP is a good
channel for involving the community in the decision-making process and thereby producing
benefit. Through good CP, community interests and needs can be obtained and accommodated
through the PD and project execution.

Meanwhile, the government as the most powerful stakeholder in PPP toll road project development
potentially influences these two constructs‟ performances. Therefore, the Government‟s Role (GR)
performance potentially also influences the PSB performance through both PD and CP. With
regard to that, this study investigated the influence of the GR, CP, and PD on achieving PSB in the
context of PPP toll roads in Indonesia in order to achieve success in the long-term.

9.3.3. Establishment of the Theoretical Framework and Conceptual Model

A theoretical framework was developed to provide the basis for answering the research question
based on the quantitative approach adopted in this study. In accordance with the theoretical
framework, a conceptual model was also developed in this research. Six hypotheses were proposed
in relation to the following conceptual model:

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 271
 H1 : Government‟s Role (GR) positively influences the Community Participation (CP);
H2 : Government‟s Role (GR) positively influences the Project Design (PD);
H3 : Government‟s Role (GR) positively influences the Project Social Benefit (PSB);
H4 : Community Participation (CP) positively influences the Project Design (PD);
H5 : Community Participation (CP) positively influences the Project Social Benefit (PSB); and
H6 : Project Design (PD) positively influences the Project Social Benefit (PSB).

9.3.4. Identification of Relevant Attributes to Measure the Related Constructs

As part of testing the relationship among the four constructs above, it was necessary to identify the
attributes that can also be used to measure the three influencing constructs. As such, derived from
the literature, attributes to measure the constructs were validated by interviews with Indonesian toll
road project‟s experts. It was found that fifteen attributes were considered relevant to measure the
PSB and eight attributes to measure PD Construct. Meanwhile, fifteen attributes can be used to
measure CP Construct and twelve attributes for measuring GR Construct.

9.3.5. Investigation of the Stakeholders’ Perceptions According to the Research Attributes

This research sought to involve all representatives of stakeholders in PPP toll road projects in
Indonesia as the respondent sample for the study in order to obtain a comprehensive understanding
of the involved stakeholders‟ perceptions. In general, there are three main groups of stakeholders
involved in this study, namely the government, the private sector and the community. Government
respondents‟ were the government‟s staff in the relevant departments from the central government
level to the lowest municipal level. The private sectors consisted of toll road developers,
consultants, contractors and suppliers, and the community is the people that reside near the toll
road and are also toll road users.

The current performance of the PSB in the toll road projects was examined from the stakeholders‟
perceptions. According to the analysis, it was found that stakeholders generally and, especially the
community were not satisfied with the current PSB in the context of toll road projects in Indonesia.
Even though the community perceived several positive social benefits of the toll roads, these were
not strong as what is sought is a score larger than 4.00 as the desired performance level. Therefore,
even though sometimes a project may have been delivered satisfactorily in terms of the „iron
triangle‟ (meeting schedule, budget, and quality), this is not a guarantee of the project being an
overall success. This result, perhaps, explains the reason for social problems that happen during
project implementation.

Moreover, the research also investigated the differences in perception of the constructs‟ attributes
among the three stakeholder types in toll road projects, namely the government, the private sector,

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 272
and the community. Understanding the different perceptions could then be used to evaluate existing
toll road project implementation. The differences in perception among the three stakeholder types
were analysed using ANOVA and Posthoc analysis. According to the result, it was found that the
three groups of stakeholders have different perceptions regarding the research constructs. The
research found that the government has similar perceptions to the private sector. Meanwhile, these
two sectors have different perceptions from the community. This possibly happens because, in the
current PPP toll road project practice, the community has not been adequately involved in the
project implementation. CP as the channel to involve the community in a decision-making process
has not been effectively implemented and still remains just a formal procedure to be completed
rather than a meaningful engagement with the community. As such, it is proposed that the
differences in perception be overcome by formulating an appropriate and meaningful CP process.

9.3.6. Investigation of Underlying Factors to Classify the Research Attributes

In addition to that, the underlying key factors behind the successful attributes were also examined
to better understand the attributes‟ characteristics. Therefore, using the EFA process, the attributes
of each construct were classified according to their characteristics for better interpretation. In the
PSB construct, attributes can be categorized into four factors, namely FPSB1 Improvement of
quality of life and community engagement, FPSB2 Provision of good quality of service, FPSB3
Provision of psychological needs and FPSB4 Provision of regulation compliance environment.

For the PD Construct, the attributes can be grouped into two factors, namely FPD1 Fit for purpose
design and FPD2 Participatory design process. Meanwhile, the CP Construct was only classified
into one factor and finally, the attributes of the GR Construct can be grouped into three factors,
namely FGR1 Establishment of good bureaucracy, FGR2 Provision of an Appropriate
government's support and supervision and FGR3 Provision of a conducive environment.

9.3.7. Investigation of the Constructs’ Relationships

Based on the conceptual model and hypotheses that were developed, the constructs‟ relationships
were then analysed using the SEM technique. Covariance-based SEM with a two-stage approach
was performed using AMOS software version 22. From the analysis, it was found that the final
model supported four of the six hypotheses, namely H1 (influence GR on CP), H2 (influence GR on
PD), H4 (influence CP on PD) and H6 (influence PD on PSB).

The study revealed that PD had a positive influence on the PSB. Meanwhile, the CP had a positive
influence on the PD but an indirect influence on PSB. Furthermore, the performance of both CP
and PD are positively influenced by the GR performance. However, the effect of GR on the PD
was not strong as the influence of GR on the CP. Similarly, CP has a strong influence on the PD

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 273
and the PD has a very strong influence on the PSB. Given the influence of GR on PD is not as
strong as the influence of GR on CP, it should be highlighted that the government gives more
attention to an effort to promote a good CP process as the GR has a strong influence on the PD
through the CP. Theoretically, these findings support the previous work regarding the individual
influence of the GR on CP and PD that subsequently affects the PSB performance. However, this
research provides a more comprehensive understanding of the constructs‟ relationships compared
to the previous work which only analysed the relationships separately.

In addition, the investigation of the mediation effect of the constructs shows that CP was partial
mediator construct for the relationship between GR and PD. However, CP was a complete mediator
for the relationship between GR and PSB. Meanwhile, PD was found to be a partial mediator for
the relationship between CP and PSB. Finally, CP and PD was found to be a complete mediator
between GR and PSB. This means that government‟s effort to better deliver PSB should be
conducted through effective CP and PD.

9.4. Research Contribution

Project success is a very attractive area in construction management and infrastructure researchers
as many types of research have been conducted in this area. Success in the toll road as a part of the
PPP projects is one of the areas that is very interesting to be investigated in Indonesia as this
developing country has been intensively developing this infrastructure to support its economic
development. Toll roads should be developed successfully because this infrastructure has an
important role to improve the community‟s quality of life. This research presents a new success
perspective of toll roads to overcome the existing limitations of the PPP concept by providing a
more comprehensive theoretical framework to understand the success by including PSB. This
research contributes to construction management theory with regard to the concept of infrastructure
project success, especially the PPP toll road projects. In more detail, the research contribution can
be explained in terms of the research contribution to the existing body of knowledge and practical
implications for construction management practice.

9.4.1. Contribution to the Existing Body of Knowledge

The research contributes to the body of knowledge can generally be classified into three categories.
First, this study proposed a new perspective of PPP toll road project success in a more
comprehensive perspective as the existing success criteria of PPP toll road projects in Indonesia are
mainly viewed from the perspective of Best Value (BV) that is based on the efficiency and
effectiveness considerations. This concept is mostly related to economic considerations with a little
bit of attention to the environmental aspect and almost no attention to the social aspect.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 274
Accordingly, the proposed PSB concept aims to overcome the existing limitation of PPP project
success concept which fails to accommodate the success in the long-term.

In this research, the PSB concept is incorporated into the PPP project success criteria that suggested
to view the success in a more comprehensive, that is related to three perspectives, namely from a
social aspect, from a community perspective and related to the long-term perspective in order to
improve the community‟s quality of life. The concept of PSB which is developed and tested in this
research contributes to better understanding of social aspect. In addition, this research also
proposed a technique to assess or measure the social aspect through a quantitative analysis. By
utilising Likert Scale measures, stakeholders‟ perceptions can be acquired and analysed using a
series of statistical analysis. The PSB criteria developed and tested in this research can be used to
improve existing approaches to dealing with social aspects such as Social Impact Assessments
(SIA) in infrastructure projects. The attributes used in the SIA are usually related to only the
project context and have not been standardised from theory and it usually consists of traditional
social indicators such as employment and income level.

Second, this research also investigated the different perceptions among the three stakeholders -
government, private and community - regarding the four constructs‟ attributes. Understanding the
different perceptions held by stakeholders could then be used to evaluate current implementations
of toll road projects whether they have accommodated the community‟s interests and needs.
However, according to the results, it was found that the existing PPP toll road project is still less
involving the community in the decision-making process. The CP process is only conducted to
fulfil the formal procedure which is mainly conducted in the AMDAL process or Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA).

It is worth mentioning that the community is the stakeholder which becomes the end-user as well as
the party that is highly influenced by the project outcomes. This research, therefore, suggested to
involving the community in the decision-making process through a bottom-up process. This
approach is essential to better accommodate the community needs and interests in the Community
Participation (CP) and implemented through the Project Design (PD) to deliver a better PSB.
Indeed, CP is not only about the result but also about the process. As such, involving the
community in the decision-making process potentially improve their support for the project and
subsequently reduce the stakeholders‟ opposition. It is undeniable that a Community Participation
(CP) approach is required to better achieve PSB because, from better CP, community needs and
interests can be captured and accommodated in the project design. Currently, there are still limited
studies providing insight regarding how CP is measured, using a quantitative technique in

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 275
construction projects. This research presents attributes to quantitatively measure a good CP which
can be used as a guidance in promoting good CP in PPP toll road projects.

It was found that the existing CP performance was not quite optimal and it still can be improved to
deliver better community satisfaction. In addition, it was also found that the community still has
different perceptions from those of the other sectors. The existing top-down mechanism becomes
the limitation of the existing traditional PPP and it is perhaps the reason that social problem
happens in the toll road project in Indonesia. With regard to that, this research suggested adapting
the concept of Public Private People Partnership (4P) in PPP toll road projects as the way to
formulate a better partnership between the three three parties - government, private and
community. The 4P Concept which people-focused works in PPP, perhaps can be adopted to
overcome the limitations such as gaps in perceptions between the community and the other two
sectors to improve the project‟s resilience and make it more sustainable. The 4P Concept is
expected to better accommodate the community in the decision-making process by formally
injecting people into the traditional PPP concept to improve the project sustainability. However, as
every region has different cultures and project characteristics, the specific concept of 4P still needs
to be developed rather than just being a general theoretical concept that can be used in any project
case. More explanation about the 4P Concept is found in Section 8.5.

Third, this research also investigated three constructs that potentially influence PSB performance to
provide a better understanding of how to achieve better PSB. Understanding the PSB measure as
well as the constructs that influence its performance can provide a comprehensive framework for
this concept. The relationship between PSB and the three constructs that potentially influence to its
performance, namely Project Design (PD), Community Participation (CP), and Government‟s Role
(GR) was developed in the conceptual model and tested using SEM. According to the SEM, it was
found that Project Design (PD), Community Participation (CP), and Government‟s Role (GR) had
an influence on PSB performance.

The above finding suggested the importance of GR to deliver or to better achieve PSB. It is very
important for the government to better perform their role in PPP project toll road developments, as
better GR performance will influence the CP performance and subsequently affects the PD
performance. Better performance of the GR, CP, and PD will lead to the better achievement of the
PSB and it potentially improves the chances of a successful PPP toll road project overall. Indeed, it
is worth mentioning that if PPP toll road projects could deliver increased PSB to the community,
the problem of stakeholders‟ opposition can be reduced and raise the community‟s support for the
project development. This will promote the project success not only in short-term but also in the
long-term over the project life cycle.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 276
This work also provides several attributes to measure a project design performance that contributes
to the achievement of PSB in the toll road projects. The attributes were adapted from the concept of
universal or design for inclusiveness. This design concept is important to be applied in the
infrastructure project to allow the facility to deliver as much as the possible benefit to the
community. Currently, there is still limited or even no attributes have been presented to measure
good PD in the PPP toll roads using quantitative approach. Moreover, the study also provided
several attributes to measure the GR performance in PPP toll road project in Indonesia. Currently,
still limited research provided comprehensive attributes that can measure the GR performance
based on a quantitative approach in construction management area. With these attributes, the way
to improve the GR performance in PPP toll road project can be directed.

9.4.2. Practical Implications for Construction Management Practice

As mentioned before that toll road development in Indonesia is estimated to increase in the next
few decades due to the intention of the Government of Indonesia (GoI) to develop many toll roads.
On the other hand, Indonesia is now moving from an authoritarian to a democratic state, which is
characterized by freedom of public expression. According to the above conditions, it is important to
ensure the long-term success of infrastructure projects such as toll roads by delivering PSB to the
community.

Practically, this study contributes to providing guidance for the overall stakeholders, especially the
government as the most powerful stakeholder in the decision-making process to address the social
problem by increasing the social benefit in PPP project development in the Indonesian context.
Several attributes have been developed related to the research constructs that can be used to specify
the project goals and direction as well as the tools to measure their performance. The research
developed criteria related to the research constructs, namely PSB, PD, CP and GR that can be used
to specify project goals as well as tools to measure the constructs‟ performance. This would help
the government and private stakeholders, especially the project manager, to better navigate the
project direction in order to achieve the overall success because the overall success now has a more
comprehensive set of measures that include the social aspects.

The research findings also highlighted the differences in perceptions between the project
stakeholders with regard to the measurement of the four constructs‟ attributes. These results can be
used as a basis for evaluating how is the current implementation of the PPP concept. From the
results, it was found that current PPP concept still allows less involvement to the community in the
decision-making process. This is important because the community is the stakeholder which
becomes the end-users as well as the party that is highly influenced by the project outcomes.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 277
Therefore, this finding can be used in considerations to develop a better concept of community
participation in toll road project development. As has been mentioned, the 4P concept could
potentially be used as a better scheme rather than the current traditional PPP concept to improve the
CP performance.

Furthermore, this research also provides a clear insight into the relationships between the four
research constructs that can be used as the framework to deliver PSB to the community. Practically,
understanding the relationships between PSB, PD, CP, and GR can potentially help the government
to better perform their role in the decision-making process in PPP toll road project development.
Furthermore, the GR attributes that have been found can provide information about what role
should the government do to deliver PSB to the community through PD and CP. With these
findings, attempts to accommodate the community‟s needs and interests to deliver sustainable
social success in the long-term can be directed.

9.5. Research Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research

Although this research has been rigorously conducted, there are still some limitations to the study.
Several limitations have been identified to derive recommendations for future research:
1. This study was conducted in Indonesia as a developing country that is currently keen to
develop its infrastructure using the PPP concept. According to the literature review, PPP in
developing countries is more directed to overcome the problem of government budget
limitations by attracting private sector involvement through a PPP scheme rather than
achieving Best Value (BV) or risk management such as in developed countries. However,
regardless of the above limitations, the results might still be applicable and can be used as
guidance for other governments in developing as well as developed countries to achieve
successful PPP toll road projects in the long-term.
2. This model is developed in the context of the PPP toll road projects in the operational stage in
Java Island, Indonesia. In the future, similar research could be done with a similar framework
or with minor modifications according to the context by expanding the study area in the
context of general PPP projects to generalise the result.
3. This study is cross-sectionally based where the data collection was conducted in a specific
period of time, not in the entire project life cycle. Stakeholder perceptions are something
which is dynamic and can potentially change depending on conditions at the time of the study
and in the life cycle, they occur. Therefore, further research needs to be performed with
longitudinal data collection to obtain more comprehensive results. Nevertheless, this result
does not reduce the generalisability of the context as it is a consequence of the research design
selection which considered the time and budget limitation.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 278
4. There are significant differences in the numbers of the respondents in the stakeholder groups
in this study. The community sector was more dominant in respondent numbers than those in
the government and private sector. Although the researcher tried to obtain a balanced
proportion among the three stakeholders in the sample by the end of the data collection, an
equal composition of the three sectors could not be achieved. As such, this research outcome
perhaps more represents the community perceptions in the overall perceptions rather than the
other two sectors. Even though this can be rationalised on the basis that the population of the
community is larger than the government and private sectors, it would be better if the sample
can be balanced among the three groups of stakeholders to provide more balanced perceptions.
This is due to the larger proportion of community respondents which mean they have a
disproportionate effect on calculating the overall stakeholder perceptions. Therefore, a future
study needs to be conducted to obtain a more balanced sample of the three types of
stakeholders. However, given the limitation noted above, these results still could provide a
comprehensive understanding of the overall stakeholders‟ perceptions. The analysis which
was resulted from SEM as the selected research method satisfied the sample requirements to
produce a reliable and valid result to understand the constructs‟ relationships.

9.6. Closure
As noted earlier, toll road has long project life cycle and attracts public interest. Accordingly, this
type of project needs to become sustainable to deliver community needs and interests which should
be done by balancing economic, environmental and social aspects. Indeed, measuring the PPP toll
road project success from only the Best Value (BV) concept which only stressing to economic and
environmental aspects is not sufficient to deliver community satisfaction in the long-term. This
study was conducted to the need of looking a PPP toll road project success from a more
comprehensive perspective from the community‟s view based on Project Social Benefit (PSB)
Concept. Considering the PSB as the success measure of toll road projects from the community
point of view is expected to better navigate the project direction to achieve the overall success. This
research investigated the PSB Concept and the way how to better deliver it to achieve the toll road
project success.

To achieve this objective, the PSB concept and its criteria were investigated. In addition, a
conceptual model consisting of the four constructs was developed as well as six research
hypotheses. The conceptual model was tested by a quantitative approach using the SEM technique.
Data was gathered through three processes consisting of preliminary interviews, pilot test, and
main survey. A total of 375 samples data that were obtained through the survey of three
stakeholders‟ categories, namely government, private and community which have been obtained
from the main survey within eight PPP toll road projects in Indonesia. The data was then cleaned

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 279
and filtered for a series of statistical techniques that include descriptive analysis, ANOVA,
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), Confirmatory Analysis (CFA) and Structural Equation
Modeling (SEM).

According to the findings, this research suggested to improve the current toll road project
implementation with regard to PSB and three constructs that influence to its performance, namely
PD, CP, and GR. Improving their performance can potentially deliver better community
satisfaction, reduce the social problem that causes stakeholder opposition and subsequently
improve the project success. In addition, it is important to address different stakeholders‟
perception in the PPP scheme by implementing a more bottom-up approach which accommodating
the community in the decision-making process. CP should not be conducted as a formal procedure
to only fulfill a legal requirement, but it should be formulated appropriately to accommodate the
community needs and interests. Therefore, this research proposes the 4P Concept be adapted based
on the project context to address current CP limitation. Finally, the research recommends the
government perform their role better to improve the PSB. It is clear that the government as the
strongest stakeholder in PPP toll road projects has a significant influence on the PSB through the
PD and CP. Better performance of the GR can potentially increase the CP quality process, improve
the PD performance and subsequently better deliver the PSB to the community for achieving the
overall PPP toll road project success.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 280
 REFERENCES

Abascal, J. and Nicolle, C. (2005). Moving towards inclusive design guidelines socially and
ethically aware HCI. Interacting with Computers. 17, 484-505.
Abednego, M. P. and S. O. Ogunlana. (2006). Good project governance for proper risk allocation in
public–private partnerships in Indonesia. International Journal of Project Management. 24,
622-634.
Adams, G.R. and Schvaneveldt, J.D. (1991). Understanding research methods, New York and
London: Longman.
Akintoye, A., Beck, M., and Hardcastle, C. (2003). Public-private partnerships: managing risks
and opportunities. Blackwell Science.
Al-Tmeemy, S.M.H.M, Rahman, H.A. and Harun, Z. (2010). Future criteria for success of building
projects in Malaysia. International Journal of Project Management. doi:
10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.03.003.
Almahmoud, E.S., Doloi, H.K. and Panuwatwanich, K. (2012). Linking project health to project
performance indicators: multiple case studies of construction projects in Saudi Arabia.
International Journal of Project Management, 30, 296-307.
Almahmoud, E.S. and Doloi, H. (2015). Assessment of social sustainability in construction projects
using social networks analysis. Facilities, 33 (3/4), 152-176.
André, P., Enserink, B., Connor, D. and Croal, P. (2006). Public participation: international best
practice principles. Special Publication Series No. 4. Fargo, USA: International Association
for Impact Assessment.
Arnstein, S. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners,
35, 216-224.
Ameyaw, E.E. and Chan, A.P.C. (2016). Critical success factors for public-private partnership
in water supply projects. Facilities, 34 (3/4), 124 – 160.
Atkin, B. and Skitmore, M. (2008). Editorial: stakeholder management in construction.
Construction Management and Economics, 26, 549–552.
Atkinson, R. (1999). Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a
phenomenon, its time to accept other success criteria. International Journal of Project
Management, 179(6), 337-342.
Australia Government. (2008). National PPP guidelines. Infrastructure Australia. Available:
www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au.
Axelsson, R., Angelstam, P., Degerman, E., Teitelbaum, S., Andersson, K., Elbakidze, M. and
Drotz, M.K. (2013). Social and cultural sustainability: criteria, indicators, verifier

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 281
 variables for measurement and maps for visualization to support planning. AMBIO, 42, 215-
228.
Aziz, A.M.A. (2007). Successful delivery of public-private partnerships for infrastructure
development. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 133, 918-931.
Aziz, A.R.A. and Kassim, P.S.J. (2011). Objectives, success and failure factors of housing public-
private partnerships in Malaysia. Habitat International, 35, 150-157.
Badan Pengatur Jalan Tol (BPJT). (2016). Available at http://www.bpjt.net/main.php?strlang=id.
Badan Pusat Statistik (BPS). (2010). Hasil sensus penduduk: data agregat per provinsi.
https://www.bps.go.id/linkTabelStatis/view/id/1267.
Baccarini, D. (1999). The logical framework method for defining project success. Project
Management Journal, 30 (4), 25-32.
Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional (BAPPENAS), Ministry of National Development
Planning (2010). Public-private partnerships: infrastructure projects in Indonesia.
Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional (BAPPENAS), Ministry of National Development
Planning (2015). Public-private partnerships: infrastructure projects in Indonesia.
Badewi, A. (2016). The impact of project management (PM) and benefits management (BM)
practices on project success: Towards developing a project benefits governance framework.
International Journal of Project Management, 34, 761 –778.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distiction in social
psychological research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 6, 1173-1182.
Belassi, W. and Tukel, O.I. (1996). A new framework for determining critical success-failure
factors in projects. International Journal of Project Management. 14(3), 141-151.
Benoit, C. and Niederman, G.V. (2010). Social sustainability assessment literature review. The
sustainability consortium. Arizona State University and University of Arkansas.
Bendixen and Benktzon. (2015). Design for all in Scandinavia e a strong concept. Applied
Ergonomics, 46, 248-257.
Bhakti, I. N. (2004). The transition to democracy in Indonesia: some outstanding problems. The
Asia Pacific Center for Security Studies, 195-206.
Bickerstaff, K., Tolley, R. and Walker, G. (2002). Transport planning and participation: the
rhetoric and realities of public involvement. Journal of Transport Geography, 10, 60-73.
Birgonul, M.T. and Ozdogan, I. (1998). A proposed framework for governmental organization in
the implementation of build-operate transfer (BOT) model. Proceeding of 14th Annual
Conference ARCOM. Reading, UK, 517-526.
Bollen, K.A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Boström, M. (2012). A missing pillar? challenges in theorizing and practicing social sustainability:
introduction to the special issue. Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy, 8, 3-14.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 282
Bozhesku, M.G. (2012). Towards improving strategic environmental assessment follow-up
through stakeholder participation: a case of the Pasquia-Porcupine forest management plan,
Saskatchewan, Canada. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 55(8), 1058-
1074.
Blackstock, K.L., Waylen, K.A., Dunglinson, J. and Marshall, K.M. (2012). Linking process to
outcomes-internal and external criteria for a stakeholder involvement in river basin
management planning. Ecological Economics, 77, 113-122.
Bramley, G., Dempsey, N., Power, S. and Brown, C. (2006) . What is „social sustainability‟, and
how do our existing urban forms perform in nurturing it?. Planning Research Conference.
Bartlett School of Planning, UCL, London.
Bramley, G. and Power, S (2009). Urban form and social sustainability: the role of density
and housing type. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 36, 30 – 48.
Bristol Accord. (2005). Conclusion of ministerial informal on sustainable communities in europe.
The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Eland House, Bressenden Place, London.
Bryman, A. (2001). Social research methods. New York. Oxford University Press
Burgstahler, S. (2012). Universal design: process, principles and applications. College of
Engineering. University of Washington.
Burdge, R.J. and Vanclay, F. (1996). Social impact assessment: a contribution to the state of the art
series. Impact Assessment, 14, 59-86.
Bustaman A. and Ramayandi, A. (2012). An evaluation on institution for public private partnership
(PPP) in Indonesia. Working Paper in Economics and Development Studies. Department of
Economics Padjadjaran University, Indonesia.
Byrne, B.M. (2010). Structural equation modelling with AMOS: basic concepts, applications and
programming. Second Edition. London. Taylor and Francis Group.
Caribbean Natural Resources Institute (CANARI). (2004). Guidelines for participatory planning: a
manual for Caribbean natural resource managers and planners. UNEP Caribbean
Environment Programme.
Carr, G., Blöschl, G. and Loucks, D.P. (2012). Evaluating participation in water resource
management: a review. Water Resource Research, 48, W11401,
doi:10.1029/2011WR011662.
Centre for Universal Design. (2013). Available at:
http://www.ncsu.edu/ncsu/design/cud/about_ud/about_ud.htm.
Chan, A.P.C., Scott, D. and Lam, E.W.M. (2002). Framework of success criteria for design/build
projects. Journal of Management in Engineering, 18(3),120-128.
Chan, A.P.C., Scott, D. and Chan, A.P.L. (2004). Factors affecting the success of a construction
project. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 130, 153-155.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 283
Chan, E.H.W and Lee, G.K.L. (2007). Design considerations for environmental sustainability in
high density development: a case study of Hong Kong. Environmental Development
Sustainability. doi.10.1007/s10668-007-9117-0.
Chan, E. and Lee, G.K.L. (2008). Critical factors for improving social sustainability of urban
renewal projects. Social Indicators Research, 85, 243-256.
Chan, A.P.C, Lam, P.T.I., Chan, D.W.M., Cheung, E. and Ke, Y. (2010). Critical success factors
for PPPs in infrastructure developments: Chinese perspective. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, 136, 484-494.
Chan, A.P.C., Yeung, J.F.Y., Yu, C. C. P., Wang, S.Q. and Ke, Y. (2011). Empirical study of risk
assessment and allocation of public-private partnership projects in China. Journal of
Management in Engineering, 27(3), 136-148.
Chen, C. and Doloi, H. (2008). BOT application in China: driving and impeding factors.
International Journal of Project Management, 26, 388–398.
Chen, Le. (2007). Linking knowledge management to organisational business performance in
construction. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Griffith University, Australia.
Cheung, E., Chan, A.P.C., and Kajewski, S. (2012). Factors contributing to successful public
private partnerships projects. Journal of Facilities Management,10(1), 45-58.
Chua, D.K.H., Kog, Y.C. and Loh., P.K. (1999). Critical success factors for different project
objectives. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 125(3),142-150.
Clarkson, P.J and Coleman, R. (2013). History of inclusive design in the UK. Applied Ergonomics.
Colantonio, A., Dixon, T., Ganser, R., Carpenter, J. And Ngombe, A. (2009). Measuring socially
sustainable urban regeneration in Europe. Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development
(OISD). School of the Built Environment, Oxford Brookes University.
Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) and Department of the
Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR). (2001). The value of urban design.
London.
Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) (2006). The principle of inclusive
design (they include you). Available: www.cabe.org.uk.
Coordinating Ministry for Economic Affairs and Ministry of National Development Planning/
National Development Planning Agency Republic of Indonesia. (2011). Masterplan for
acceleration and expansion of Indonesia economic development 2011 – 2025.
Costello, A.B. and Osborne, J.W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four
recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment Research &
Evaluation, 10, 7, 1-9.
Creswell, J.W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods
Approaches. Fourth Edition. California. SAGE Publications.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 284
Cuthill, M. (2009). Strengthening the „social‟ in sustainable development: developing a conceptual
framework for social sustainability in a rapid urban growth region in Australia. Sustainable
Development. 18, 362–373.
Dalsgaard, P. (2012). Participatory Design in Large-Scale Public Projects: Challenges and
Opportunities. Design, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 28.
Dendena, B. and Corsi, S. (2015). The environmental and social impact assessment: a further step
towards an integrated assessment process. Journal of Cleaner Production, 108, 965-977.
Dempsey, N., Bramley, G., Power, S. And Brown, C. (2009). The social dimension of sustainable
development: defining urban social sustainability. Sustainable Development, 19, 289-300.
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) and Commission for
Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE). (2000). By design: urban design in the
planning system: towards better practice. London. Bressenden Place.
De Wit, A. (1988). Measurement of project success. International Journal of Project Management,
6, 164-170.
De Vaus, D. (2001). Research design in social research. SAGE Publication Ltd., London.
Dimitriou, H.T. (2006). Towards a generic sustainable urban transport strategy for middle-sized
cities in Asia: lessons from Ningbo, Kanpur and Solo. Habitat International, 30, 1082-1099.
Department of the Environment (DoE) (1997). Planning Policy Guidance Note 1: General Policy
and Principles. London The Stationery Office.
Doloi, H, Iyer, K.C. and Sawhney, A. (2011). Structural equation model for assessing impacts of
contractor's performance on project success. International Journal of Project Management,
29, 687-695.
Doloi, H. (2012a). Assessing stakeholders' influence on social performance of infrastructure
projects. Facilities, 30, 531-550.
Doloi, H. (2012b) Understanding impacts of time and correlated construction risks on operational
performance of PPP projects. International Journal of Startegic Property Management 16:
316-337.
Doloi, H. (2013). Cost overruns and failure in project management: understanding the roles
of key stakeholders in construction projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 267-279.
Duncan, T. and Liman, R. (2006). Learning from successful road projects. Operations Evaluation
Department. Asian Development Bank.
Du Plessis, C. (2002). Agenda 21 for sustainable construction in developing countries. A
discussion document. The International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and
Construction CIB and United Nations Environment Programme International Environmental
Technology Centre UNEP-IETC.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 285
Du Plessis, C. (2007). A strategic framework for sustainable construction in developing countries.
Construction Management and Economics, 25, 67–76.
Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP). (2001). Multistage
Environmental and Social Impact Assessment of Road projects. New York. United Nations.
Elkington, J. (1998). Partnerships from cannibals with forks: the triple bottom line of 21 st-century
business. Environmental Quality Management, 37-51.
El-Gohary, N., M., Osman, H., and El-Diraby, T.E. (2006). Stakeholder management for public
private partnerships. International Journal of Project Management, 24,595-604.
Enyedi, G. (2002). Social sustainability of large cities. Ekistics, 69, 412-414.
European Commission. (2007). Measuring progress towards a more sustainable Europe.
Monitoring Report of the Sustainable Development Energy.
Fabrigar, L.R., Wegener, D.T., MacCallum, R.C. and Strahan, E.J. (1999). Evaluating the use of
exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods. 4, 3, 272-299.
Farrel, A.M. and Rudd, J.M. (2009). Factor analysis and discriminant validity: a brief review of
some practical issues. ANZMAC. Aston Business School, Aston University, Birmingham,
B4 7ET, UK.
Federal Highway Administration. (2016) Available at:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/04jul/01.cfm.
Field, A. (2005), Discovering statistics using SPSS. Sage Publication Ltd., London.
Flannery, W. and Cinneide, M.O. (2012). Stakeholder participation in marine spatial planning:
lessons from the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary. Society and Natural Resources
25, 727-742.
Frimpong, Y., Oluwoye, J. and Crawford, L. (2003). Causes of delay and cost overruns in
construction of groundwater projects in a developing countries: Ghana as a case study.
International Journal of Project Management, 21, 321–326.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2014). What you should know about megaprojects and why: an overview. Project
Management Journal, 45, 2, 6-19.
Gan, X., Zuo, J., Ye, K. Skitmore, M. and Xiong, B. (2015). Why sustainable construction? why
not? an owner's perspective. Habitat International, 47, 61-68.
Garson, G.D. (2015). Structural equation modeling. statistical publishing associates. 274 Glen
Drive, Asheboro, NC 27205, USA.
Garvare, R. and Johansson, P. (2007). Management for sustainability-a stakeholder theory. Total
Quality Management, 21, 7, 737 – 74.
Gerbing and Anderson (1988). An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating
unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research, 25, 2,
186-192.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 286
Gerbing, D.W. and Hamilton, J.G. (1996). Viability of exploratory factor analysis as a precursor to
confirmatory factor analysis. A Multidisciplinary Journal, 3(1), 62-72, doi:
10.1080/10705519609540030.
Grimsey, D. and Lewis, M.K. (2005). Are public private partnerships value for money? evaluating
alternative approaches and comparing academic and practitioner views. Accounting Forum,
29,345–378.
Haidar, A. and Ellis Jr., R.D. (2010). Analysis and Improvement of Megaprojects
Performance.Working Paper Proceedings Engineering Project Organizations Conference
South Lake Tahoe, CA.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Barin, B.J., and Anderson, R.E. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis, a
Global Perspective, New Jersey: Pearson.
Hair, J.F., Gabriel, M.L.D.S. and Patel., V.K. (2014). AMOS covariance-based structural equation
modeling (CB-SEM): Guidelines on its application as a marketing research tool. Brazilian
Journal of Marketing – BJM, 13 (2), 44-55.
Handayani, A. (2008). Environmental management in toll road sector towards sustainable urban
transport a study of Jakarta intra urban toll road, Indonesia. MSc Thesis in Urban
Management and Development, Erasmus University of Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Hardwicke, L. (2005), Australian infrastructure report card. Engineers Australia, Canberra,
available at: www.infrastructurereportcard.org.au
Herald Sun (2014). East West Link protests continue in Melbourne. Retrieved from from
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/east-west-link-protests-continue-in-
melbourne/news-story/deb17b54181625824af49ca9a6ef1acd
Heylighen, A. (2007). Sustainable and inclusive design: a matter of knowledge? Local
Environment. 13, 6, 531–540.
Heylighen, A. and Bianchin, M. (2012). How does inclusive design relate to good design?
Designing as deliberative enterprise. Design Studies, 34, 93-110.
Heywood, A. (1999). Political Theory: An Introduction. Macmillan Press Ltd.
Huang, C.C., Wang, Y.M., Wu, T.S and Wang, P.A. (2013). An empirical analysis of the
antecedents and performance consequences of using the moodle platform. International
Journal of Information and Education Technology, 3, 2. 217-221.
Hwang, B.G, Zhao, X. and Gay, M.J.S. (2012). Public private partnership projects in Singapore:
factors, critical risks and preferred risk allocation from the perspective of contractors.
International Journal of Project Management.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.08.003.
Hwangbo, H., Kim, J., Kim, S., and Ji, Y.G. (2015). Toward universal design in public
transportation systems: an analysis of low-floor bus passenger behavior with video

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 287
 observations. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 25
(2), 183–197.
International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) website (2017). Available:
http://www.iaia.org/. Retreived 27 February 2017.
Inclusive Design Toolkit University of Cambridge. (2013) Available at:
http://www.inclusivedesigntoolkit.com/.
Indonesian Infrastructure Guarantee Fund (IIGF). (2012). Kerjasana pemerintah swasta di
Indonesia: Acuan Alokasi Risiko.
Ika, L.A. (2009). Project Success as a topic in project management journals. Project Management
Journal. The Project Management Institute. Published online in Wiley InterScience, 6-19.
IUCN/UNEP/WWF. (1991). Caring for the Earth: a strategy for sustainable living. Gland,
Switzerland.
Indonesian PPP Guide. (2010). Public Private Partnerships (PPP) investor's guide: what private
investors should know about investing in Indonesia‟s infrastructure.
International Conference on Water and the Environment (ICWE). (1992). The Dublin Statement.
Dublin.
Jefferies, M. (2006). Critical success factors of public private sector partnerships: a case study of
the Sydney Opera Dome. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 13,
451-462.
Jeurissen, R. (2000). John Elkington, cannibals with forks: the triple bottom line of
21st century business. Journal of Business Ethics, 23, 231-234.
Jin, X-H, Doloi, H., Gao, S-Y. (2007). Relationship-based determinants of building project
performance in China. Construction Management and Economics, 25, 297-304.
Johansen, F. (1989). Toll road characteristics and toll road experience in selected Southeast
Asia countries. Transpn. Res.-A, 23A (6), 463-466.
Kadir, S. and Jamaludin, M. (2012). Applicability of Malaysian standards and universal design in
public buildings in Putrajaya. ASEAN Conference on Environment-Behaviour Studies.
Bandung, Indonesia: Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences, 659-669.
Ke, Y., Wang, S.Q., Chan, A.P.C., and Lam, P.T.I. (2009) Preferred risk allocation in China‟s
Public–Private Partnership. International Journal of Project Management 28.
Kline, R.B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling, New York: Guilford
Press.
Kompas (2010). Tol JORR W1 mulai beroperasi, warga protes. Retrieved from
http://bola.kompas.com/read/2010/02/19/16005379/Tol.JORR.W1.Mulai.Beroperasi.Warga.
Protes.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 288
Koufteros, X.A. (1998). Testing a model of pull production: A paradigm for manufacturing
research using structural equation modeling. Journal of Operations Management, 17, 467-
488.
Kumar, R. (1997). Research methodology: a step-by-step guide for beginners: Longman.
Kumaraswamy, M.M. and Zhang, X.Q. (2001). Governmental Role in BOT-led Infrastructure
Development. International Journal of Project Management, 19, 195-205.
Kumaraswamy, M.M., Ling, F.Y.Y., Anvuur, A.M. and Rahman, M.M. (2007), Targeting
relationally integrated teams for sustainable PPPs, Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management, 14(6), 581-595.
Kumaraswamy, M., Zou, W. and Zhang, J. (2015). Reinforcing relationships for resilience – by
embedding end-user „people‟ in public–private partnerships. Civil Engineering and
Environmental Systems, 32(1/2), 119–129,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10286608.2015.1022727.
Kwak, Y.H. (2002). Critical success factors in international development project management.
CIB 10th international symposium construction innovation & global
competitiveness, Cincinnati, Ohio, Sept. 9-13.
Kwak, Y.H., Chih, Y. and Ibbs, C.W. (2009). Towards a comprehensive understanding of public
private partnerships for infrastructure development. California Management Review, 51, 51-
78.
Landorf, C. (2011). Evaluating social sustainability in historic urban environments. International
Journal of Heritage Studies, 17 (5), 463–477.
Langdon, P., Johnson, D. Huppert, F. and Clarkson, P.J. (2013). A framework for collecting
inclusive design data for the UK population. Applied Ergonomics, 1-7.
Lee, G.K.L. and Chan, E. H.W. (2008). A sustainability evaluation of government-led urban
renewal projects. Facilities, 26 (13/14), 526-541.
Lee, G.K.L. and Chan, E. H.W. (2008). The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach
for assessment of urban renewal proposals. Soc. Indic. Res. 89, 155-168
doi: 10.1007/s11205-007-9228-x.
Lee, G.K.L. and Chan, E. H.W. (2010). Evaluation of the urban renewal projects in social
dimensions. Property Management, 28 (4), pp. 257 - 269.
Leung, M.Y., Ng, S.T., and Cheung, S.O. (2004). Measuring construction project participant
satisfaction. Construction Management and Economics, 23, 459-471.
Li, B., Akintoye A., Edwards P.J. and Hardcastle, C. (2005a). Critical success factors for PPP/PFI
projects in the UK construction industry. Construction Management and Economics, 23,
459-471.
Li, B., Akintoye, A., Edwards, P.J. and Hardcastle, C. (2005b). The allocation of risk in PPP/PFI
construction projects in the UK. International Journal of Project Management 23: 23-35.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 289
Li, T.H., Ng, S.T. and Skitmore M. (2012). Public participation in infrastructure and construction
projects in China: from an EIA-based to a whole-cycle process. Habitat International, 36,
47-56.
Li, T.H., Ng, S.T. and Skitmore M. (2013). Evaluating stakeholder satisfaction during public
participation in major infrastructure and construction projects: a fuzzy approach. Automation
in Construction, 29, 123-135.
Lim, S.K. (2009). Framework and processes for enhancing sustainability deliverables in Australian
road infrastructure projects. PhD Thesis. School of Urban Development, Queensland
University of Technology (QUT), Australia.
Lim, C.S. and Mohamed, M.Z. (1999). Criteria of project success: an exploratory re-examination.
International Journal of Project Management, 17 (4), 243-248.
Liyanage, C. and Romero, F.V. (2015). Measuring success of PPP transport projects: a cross-case
analysis of toll roads. Transport Reviews. 35(2), 140–161,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2014.994583.
Littig, B. and Grießler, E. (2005). Social sustainability: a catchword between political pragmatism
and social theory. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 8, 65-79.
Lucas, K. and Stanley, J. (2013). Achieving socially sustainable transport in the development
context. The 13th World Conference on Transport Research. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Luyet, V., Schlaepfer, Parlange, M.B. and Buttler, A. (2012). A framework to implement
stakeholder participation in environmental projects. Journal of Environmental Management,
111, 213-219.
Majamaa, W., Junnila, S., Doloi, H., and Niemistö, E. (2008). End-user oriented public-private
partnerships in real estate industry. International Journal of Strategic Property Management,
12, 1–17.
Maruyama, G. (1998). Basics of structural equation modeling. Sage Publication. California.
McCabe, A., Parker, R. and Brown, K. (2011). Social outcomes in the construction industry: the
case of the western australian „percent for art‟policy. Construction Management and
Economics, 29, 929-941.
McKenzie, S. (2004) Social sustainability: towards some definitions. Hawke Research Institute,
University of South Australia.
Meng, X., Zhao, Q., and Shen, Q. (2011). Critical success factors for transfer-operate-transfer
urban water supply projects in China. Journal of Management in Engineering, 127, 243-251.
Meshack, M.V. (2004). Potential and limitations of stakeholders‟ participation in community-based
projects. IDPR 26.
Mintrom, M. (2012). Contemporary Policy Analysis, New York: Oxford University Press.
Mirghani, M.M.O. and Savenije, H.H.G. (1995). Incorporation of people‟s participation in planning
and implementation of water resources projects. Phys. Chem. Earth, 20, 229-236.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 290
Mooi, E. and Sarstedt, M. (2014), A concise guide to market research, Heidelberg: Springer.
Müller, R. and Turner, R. (2007). The influence of project managers on project success criteria and
project success by type of project. European Management Journal, 25, 298-309.
Murphy, K. (2012). The social pillar of sustainable development: a literature review and framework
for policy analysis. Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy, 8, 15-29.
Neuman, W.L. (2012). Basic of social research: qualitative and quantitative approaches. Pearson.
Newcombe, R. (2003). From client to project stakeholders: a stakeholder mapping approach.
Construction Management and Economics, 21, 841-848.
New Zealand Government. (2015). Guide to social cost benefit analysis.
Ng, S.T., Wong, Y.M.W. and Wong, J.M.W. (2010). A structural equation model of feasibility
evaluation and project success for public–private partnerships in Hong Kong. Engineering
Management, IEEE Transactions, 57, 310-322.
Ng, S.T., Wong, Y.M.W. and Wong, M.W. (2012a). Factors influencing the success of PPP at
feasibility stage - a tripartite comparison study in Hong Kong. Habitat International, 36,
423-432.
Ng, S.T., Li, T.H.Y. and Wong, J.M.W. (2012b). Rethinking public participation in infrastructure
projects. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Municipal Engineer, 165 (2),
101-113.
Ng, S.T., Wong, J.M.W. and Wong, K.K.W. (2013). A public private people partnerships (P4)
process framework for infrastructure development in Hong Kong. Cities, 31, 370-381.
OECD (2008). Measuring sustainable development. report of the joint unece/OECD/Eurostat
working group on statistics for sustainable development. United Nations. New York and
Geneva.
OECD. (2009). Society at a glance: OECD Social Indicators. OECD Publishing.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/soc_glance-2011-en.
Olander, S. (2007). Stakeholder impact analysis in construction project management. Construction
Management and Economics, 25, 277–287.
Oman, I. and Spangenberg, J.H. (2002). Assessing Social Sustainability. Sustainable Europe
Research Institute.
Oxford Dictionary. (2016). Available at: http://oxforddictionaries.com/.
Ozdoganm, I.D. and Birgonul, M.T. (2000). A decision support framework for project sponsors in
the planning stage of build-operate-transfer (BOT) project. Construction Management and
Economics, 18, 343-353.
Ozerol, G. and Newig, J. (2008). Evaluating the success of public participation in water resources
management: five key constituents. Water Policy, 10, 639-655.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 291
Panuwatwanich, K. (2008). Modelling the innovation diffusion process in Australian architectural
and engineering design organisations. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Griffith University,
Australia.
Peraturan Pemerintah (PP) (2005). Peraturan Pemerintah Republik Indonesia tentang jalan tol.
Jakarta. Government of Indonesia.
Pinto, J.K. and Slevin, D.P. (1987). Critical success factors in effective project implementation.
Pisu, M. (2010). Tackling the infrastructure challenge in Indonesia.OECD Economics Department
Working Papers, No. 809, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5km5xvc1kk47-en.
Pongsiri, N. (2002). Regulation and public-private partnerships. The International Journal of
Public Sector Management, 15 (6), 487-495.
Poole, R.W. and Samuel, P. (2011). Transportation mega-projects and risk. Reason Foundation
Policy Brief 97.
Presley, A. and Meade, L. (2010). Benchmarking for sustainability: an application to the
sustainable construction industry. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 17 (3), 435-451.
Project Management Institute (PMI). (2008). A guide to the project management body of
knowledge. Pennsylvania.
Public Private Infrastructure (PPI) World Bank. (2013). Available at
http://ppi.worldbank.org/resources/ppi_aboutDb.aspx
Public Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility (PPIAF). (2012). PPP basics and principles of a PPP
framework.
Qiao, L., Wang, S.Q., Tiong, R.L.K. and Chan, T.S. (2001). Framework for critical success factors
of BOT projects in China. The Journal of Project Finance, 53-61.
Raisbeck, P., Duffield, C.F. and Xu, M. (2010). Comparative performance of PPPs and traditional
procurement in Australia. Construction Management and Economics, 28, 345-359.
Reed, M.S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review.
Biological Conservation, 141, 2417-2431.
Rio Charter. (2004). Universal design for sustainable and inclusive development. Available:
http://www.disabilityworld.org/12-02_05/access/riocharter.shtml.
Rolley, S. (1998). Making designs on plans: Observations of distinctions between planning and
design. Landscape Review, 4, 3-9.
Romero, F.V., Liyanage, C. and Roumboutsos, A. (2015), Sustainable PPPs: a comparative
approach for road infrastructure, Case Studies on Transport Policy, 3, 243-250.
Rossetti, R. (2006). The Seven Principles of Universal Design. Action Magazine.
Rostiyanti, S.F. and Tamin, R.Z. (2010). Identification of challanges in public private partnerships
implementation for indonesian toll road. First Makassar International Conference on Civil
Engineering (MICCE 2010). Makassar, 1131-1135.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 292
Sanders, E. B.-N. and Rim, S (2002). From user-centered to participatory design approaches.
Design and the Social Sciences. J. Frascara (Ed.), Taylor & Francis Books Limited.
Sanghi, A., Hankinson, D. and Sundakov, A. (2007). Designing and using public-private
partnership units in infrastructure: lessons from case studies around the world.
Sanoff, H. (2007). Special issue on participatory design. Design Studies, 28, 213-215.
doi:10.1016/j.destud.2007.02.001.
Schwaab, J.A. and Thielmann, S. (2002). Policy guidelines for road transport pricing: a practical
step-by-step approach. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ)
GmbH, Germany; and the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and
the Pacific (ESCAP).
Schumacher, R.E. and Lomax, R.G. (2010). A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling.
New York: Routledge.
Serrador, P. and Turner, R. (2015). The relationship between project success and project efficiency.
Project Management Journal, 46 (1), 30–39.
Shen, L.-Y., Hao, J.L., Tam, V.W.-Y. and Yao, H. (2007). A checklist for assessing sustainability
performance of construction projects. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management. 8(4)
273–281.
Shen, L.-Y., Tam, V.W.Y., Tam, L. and Ji, Y.-B., (2010). Project feasibility study: the key to
successful implementation of sustainable and socially responsible construction management
practice. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18, 254-259.
Shen, L., Wu, Y. and Zhang, X. (2011). Key assessment indicators for the sustainability of
infrastructure projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 137(6), 441-
451.
Shenhar, A. J. Dvir, D., Levy, O. and Maltz, C. (2001). Project success: A Multidimensional
strategic concept. Long Range Planning, 34, 699-725.
Shoemaker, P.J., Tankard, J.W. and Lasorsa, D.L. (2004). How to build social science theories.
London: Sage publication.
Soini, K. and Bikerland, I. (2014). Exploring the scientific discourse on cultural sustainability.
Geoforum, 51, 213–223.
Stopher, P.R. (2004). Reducing road congestion: a reality check. Transport Policy, 11, 117–131.
Sturup, A.S. (2010). Managing mentalities of mega projects: the art of government of mega urban
transport projects. PhD Thesis. Faculty of Architecture Building and Planning, University of
Melbourne.
Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics. Pearson Education, Inc.
Fifth Edition.
Takim, R. and Akintoye, A. (2002). Performance indicators for successful construction project
performance. In: Greenwood, D (Ed.), 18th Annual ARCOM Conference, 2-4 September,

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 293
 University of Northumbria. Association of Researchers in Construction Management, Vol. 2,
545-55.
Tamin, R. Z., Marzuki, P. F., Rostiyanti, S. F., (2011). Complex and uncertain land acquisition: one
of major obstacle in toll road public private partnership project in Indonesia. Society for
Social Management Systems Internet Journal, 1-8. Kochi University of Technology, Japan.
Tang, B,-S., Wong, S.-W. and Lau, C.-H. (2007). Social impact assessment and public participation
in China: A case study of land requisition in Guangzhou. Environmental Impact Assessment
Review, 28,57-72.
Tiong, R.L.K., Yeo, K.-T. and McCarthy, S.C. (1992). Critical success factors in winning BOT
contracts. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 118 (2), 217-228.
Tiong, R.L.K. (1996). CSFs in competitive tendering and negotiation model for BOT projects.
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 122, 205-211.
Tsamboulas, D., Verma, A. and Moraiti, P. (2012). Transport infrastructure provision and
operation: why should governments choose private-public partnership? Research in
Transportation Economics. doi: 10.1016/j.retrec.2012.05.004.
Turner, R. (2002). Role Theory. University of California, Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Ugwu, O.O. and Haupt, T.C. (2007). Key performance indicators and assessment methods for
infrastructure sustainability-a South African construction industry perspective. Building and
Environment, 42, 665–680.
United Nations of Economic and Social Comission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP). (2006).
Sustainable Infrastructure in Asia. Overview and proceedings. Seoul Initiative Policy Forum
on Sustainable Infrastructure. Seoul, Republic of Korea, 6-8 September.
United Nation Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). (2001). Indicators of
sustainable development: framework and methodologies. Commission on Sustainable
Development. Ninth Session. 16 - 27 April, New York.
United Nation Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). (2007). Indicators of
Sustainable Development: Guidelines and Methodologies. Third Edition. United nations,
New York.
Vallance, S., Perkins, H.C. and Dixon, J.E. (2011). What is social sustainability? a clarification of
concepts. Geoforum, 42, 342-348.
Välilä, T. (2005). How expensive are cost savings? on the economics of public-private
partnerships. EIB Papers. ISSN 0257-7755, 10(1), 95-119,
http://hdl.handle.net/10419/44844.
Vanclay, F. (2003). International principles for social impact assessment. Impact Assessment and
Project Appraisal, 21(1), 5-12, doi: 10.3152/147154603781766491.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 294
Vanclay, F. (2004). The triple bottom line and impact assessment: how do TBL, EIA, SIA, SEA
and EMS relate to each other? Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and
Management, 6, 3, 265-288.
Vasquez, R.V. and Klotz, L.E. (2013). Social sustainability considerations during planning
and design: framework of processes for construction projects. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, 139 (1), 80-89.
Vavik, T. and Keitsch, M.M. (2010). Exploring relationships between universal design and social
sustainable development: some methodological aspects to the debate on the sciences of
sustainability. Sustainable Development, 18, 295–305.
Vogt, W.P. (2007). Quantitative Methods for Professionals, Boston: Pearson.
Waller, S., Bradley, M., Hosking, I. and Clarkson, P.J. (2013). Making the case for inclusive
design. Applied Ergonomics, xxx, 1-7.
Walter, M. (2010). Social research methods. South Melbourne. Oxford University.
Whyte, J., Bessant, J. and Neely, A. (2005). Management of creativity and design within the firm.
Imperial College London.
Wibowo, A. (2005). Estimating general threshold traffic levels of typical build, operate, and
transfer toll road projects in Indonesia. Construction Management and Economics, 23, 621-
630.
Wibowo, A. and Mohamed, S. (2010). Risk criticality and allocation in privatised water supply
projects in Indonesia. International Journal of Project Management, 28, 504-513.
Wibowo, A. and Alfen, H.W. (2015). Government-led critical success factors in PPP infrastructure
development. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 5(1), 35-51.
Woltjer, J. (2002). The „public support machine‟: notions of the function of participatory planning
by Dutch infrastructure planners. Planning Practice & Research, 17, 437-453.
World Bank (1994). World development report: infrastructure for development. Oxford University
Press, New York.
World Bank. (1996). The World Bank participation sourcebook. Washington.
World Bank. (2004). Averting an infrastructure crisis: a framework for policy and action. Recent
Economic Development in Infrastructure-Indonesia Infrastructure Department-East Asia and
Pacific Region.
World Bank (2016). Available: https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/indonesia/overview
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED).(1987). Our common future. New
York.
Xu, Y.Y.J.S.Y., Chan, A.P.C., Chan, D.W.M., Wang, S.Q., and Ke, Y. (2010). Developing a risk
assessment model for ppp projects in china-a fuzzy synthetic evaluation approach.
Automation in Construction, 19, 929-943.
Yin, R.K. (2014). Case study research: design and methods, London, UK.: SAGE.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 295
Yuan, J., Skibniewski, M.J., and Li, Q. (2009). Selection of performance objectives and key
performance indicators in public–private partnership projects to achieve value for money.
Construction Management and Economics, 27, 253-270.
Yuan, J., Skibniewski, M.J. Li, Q. and Zheng, L. (2010). Performance objectives selection model
in public-private partnership projects based on the perspective of stakeholders. Journal of
Management in Engineering, 26, 89-104.
Yung, H.K.E. and Chan H.W.E. (2012). Critical social sustainability factors in urban conservation:
the case of the central police station compound in Hong Kong. Facilities, 30, 396-416.
Zhai, L., Xin, Y. and Cheng, C. (2009). Understanding the value of project management from a
stakeholder's perspective: case study of mega-project management. Project Management
Journal, 40, 99-109.
Zhang, P. and Ng, F.F. (2013). Explaining knowledge sharing intention in construction terms in
Hong Kong. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 139, 280-293.
Zhang, X. (2005a). Paving the way for public–private partnerships in infrastructure development.
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 31(1), 71-80.
Zhang, X. (2005b). Critical success factors for public–private partnerships in infrastructure
development. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 131, 3-14.
Zhang, X. (2006a). Public clients‟ best value perspectives of public private
partnerships in infrastructure development. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 132(2), 107-114.
Zhang, X. (2006b). Factor analysis of public clients‟ best-value objective in public–privately
partnered infrastructure projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
132(9), 956-964.
Zhang, J., Zou, W. and Kumaraswamy, M. (2015). Developing public private people partnership
(4P) for post disaster infrastructure procurement. International Journal of Disaster
Resilience in the Built Environment, 6 (4), 468 – 484.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads | 296
 APPENDIX A
Interview Form for Preliminary Survey

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads
 FACULTY OF ARCHITECTURE, BUILDING AND PLANNING
THE UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE

FORM WAWANCARA
Perspektif Stakeholder Dalam Mencapai Manfaat Sosial Proyek dari Jalan-Jalan Tol di Indonesia

Kepada Yth.
Bpk/Ibu Ahli dan Praktisi Pembangunan Jalan Tol
Di Tempat

Saya Mohammad Arif Rohman, staf pengajar di Jurusan Teknik Sipil, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember
(ITS) Surabaya yang sedang menempuh studi S3 (Program Doktor) di Faculty of Architecture, Building and
Planning, University of Melbourne, Australia. Terkait dengan studi tersebut, saat ini Saya sedang melakukan
penelitian untuk mengetahui hubungan antara tingkat kepuasan sosial masyarakat, kinerja partisipasi
stakeholder, kinerja desain proyek dan kinerja peran pemerintah pada proyek-proyek KPS bidang jalan tol di
Indonesia. Hubungan variabel penelitian tersebut dapat dilihat pada Lampiran form wawancara ini.
Penelitian ini merupakan bagian dari studi Saya dan telah mendapatkan persetujuan dari Human Research
Ethics Committee, University of Melbourne, Australia.

Sehubungan dengan itu Saya bermaksud memohon kesediaan Bapak/Ibu selaku ahli atau praktisi
pembangunan jalan tol untuk ikut berpartisipasi dalam penelitian ini melalui survei wawancara. Wawancara
ini merupakan tahap pertama dari survei penelitian Saya dimana dimaksudkan untuk mendapatkan indikator
yang relevan dari beberapa indikator yang telah diidentifikasi dari literatur. Hasil wawancara ini akan
digunakan pada survei tahap kedua, yaitu survei kuesioner atau survei utama. Informasi yang diberikan dari
wawancara ini akan dijaga kerahasiaannya dan hanya digunakan untuk kepentingan penelitian.

Sekiranya memerlukan informasi tambahan mengenai penelitian ini, Bapak/Ibu dapat menghubungi
Mohammad Arif Rohman, dengan nomor HP: +6281330782183 atau alamat email: arif.its@gmail.com
atau arohman@student.unimelb.edu.au. Apabila bermaksud menyampaikan saran terkait dengan
pelaksanaan survei ini, Anda dapat menghubungi Executive Officer, Human Research Ethics, The University
of Melbourne, di nomor telp: +61383442073, atau nomor faks: +61393476739. Demikian, Saya sampaikan
terima kasih atas perhatian dan partisipasi Bapak/Ibu.

Hormat Kami,

Peneliti / Mahasiswa S3 Pembimbing Utama Pembimbing Kedua

Mahasiswa
Mohammad S3
Arif Rohman Pembimbing
Dr. Hemanta Doloi Dr. Christopher Heywood

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads A-1
BAGIAN I. PENILAIAN VARIABEL PENELITIAN
Petunjuk Pengisian:
Bapak/Ibu dapat memberikan penilaian mengenai relevansi indikator penelitian dengan memberikan tanda
centang (√) di kolom tingkat relevansi pada tabel di bawah. Pilihan tingkat relevansi tersebut ada lima
macam, yaitu 1=tidak relevan, 2=sedikit relevan, 3=cukup relevan, 4=relevan dan 5=sangat relevan.
Bapak/Ibu juga dapat memberikan masukan mengenai indikator yang masih overlap (tumpang tindih)
maupun kurang jelas maksudnya sehingga berpotensi menimbulkan pemahaman yang berbeda. Anda juga
dapat memberikan komentar pada kolom yang disediakan dan menambahkan indikator lain yang dirasa
relevan namun belum dimasukkan dalam daftar tersebut.

Tidak Sangat
Relevan Relevan

1 2 3 4 5

SUB BAGIAN A. KEPUASAN SOSIAL MASYARAKAT

Pada penelitian ini, kepuasan sosial yang dimaksud adalah ditinjau dari aspek sosial dan dari perspektif
masyarakat terdampak yang sekaligus menjadi pengguna jalan tol. Sedangkan istilah jalan tol di sini
mengacu pada keseluruhan bagian jalan tol dan jalan penghubung di sekitarnya. Bagian jalan tol dan jalan
penghubungnya tersebut meliputi overpass/underpass, pagar pembatas, bangunan pengaman dll.).
Selanjutnya berdasarkan batasan di atas, mohon diberikan tingkat relevansi beberapa indikator berikut
apabila digunakan untuk mengukur tingkat kepuasan sosial dari perspektif masyarakat terdampak yang
sekaligus pengguna jalan tol.

Indikator Kepuasan Tingkat Relevansi

No. Komentar
Sosial Masyarakat
1 2 3 4 5
1. Fasilitas publik yang aman untuk digunakan.

2. Fasilitas publik yang nyaman untuk digunakan.

3. Tingkat kejahatan yang minimal.

4. Memberikan manfaat ekonomi kepada masyarakat.

5. Mengurangi waktu tempuh perjalanan.

6. Tidak mengakibatkan rusaknya hubungan sosial di

masyarakat.
7. Tingkat polusi yang minimal.

8. Ketersediaan ruang terbuka.

9. Menimbulkan rasa bangga dan rasa memiliki.

10. Menjaga warisan peninggalan buddaya.

11. Menyediakan sarana pendidikan dan pelatihan.

12. Melibatkan masayarakat dalam proses pengambilan

keputusan.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads A-2
 Indikator Kepuasan Tingkat Relevansi
No. Komentar
Sosial Masyarakat
1 2 3 4 5
13. Kesetaraan akses bagi siapa saja.

14. Tarif yang dapat dijangkau oleh siapa saja.

15. Ketertiban kondisi lalu lintas.

16. Meningkatkan dukungan masayarakat (mereduksi

sikap oposisi) terhadap proyek.

17. Indikator lain : ............................

18. Indikator lain : ............................

SUB BAGIAN B. PARTISIPASI MASYARAKAT

Proses partisipasi yang dimaksudkan di sini adalah adalah proses dimana masyarakat terlibat secara aktif
dalam kegiatan penyampaian aspirasi untuk mengambil keputusan terkait pembangunan jalan tol yang
berdampak kepada mereka. Masyarakat yang dimaksud adalah masyarakt terdampak yang sekaligus
menjadi pengguna jalan tol. Selanjutnya berdasarkan batasan di atas, mohon diberikan tingkat relevansi
beberapa indikator berikut ini untuk mengukur kinerja partisipasi masyarakat.

Tingkat
No. Indikator Partisipasi Masyarakat Relevansi Komentar
1 2 3 4 5
1. Melibatkan seluruh perwakilan masyarakat
terdampak.
2. Merupakan proses yang transparan.

3. Menetapkan tata cara/aturan pelaksanaan.

4. Menyediakan informasi yang cukup bagi semua

masyarakat.
5. Tersedia waktu yang cukup.

6. Proses yang interaktif (terjadi dialog yang

konstruktif dengan masukan yang luas dari semua
masyarakat).
7. Kepemimpinan yang tepat dari institusi yang
menjadi penanggung jawab utama.
8. Dapat membangun proses belajar (pembangunan
kapasitas masyarakat).
9. Meningkatkan kerjasama dan tingkat
kesepahaman diantara peserta.
10. Adanya penghormatan terhadap proses dan
keputusan yang telah dicapai.
11. Sebuah proses yang kontinyu (berkelanjutan).

12. Menghasilkan rencana yang komprehensif.

13. Disepakati oleh masyarakat secara luas sehingga

memiliki legitimasi yang kuat.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads A-3
 Tingkat Relevansi Komentar
No Indikator Partisipasi Masyarakat
1 2 3 4 5
15. Hasil partisipasi dapat dilaksanakan.

16. Indikator lain : ............................

17. Indikator lain : ............................

SUB BAGIAN C. DESAIN PROYEK

Desain (rancang bangun) yang dimaksud adalah meliputi seluruh desain jalan tol beserta jalan
penghubungnya sekaligus fasilitas pendukungnya semisal underpass, overpass, pagar pembatas dll.
Selanjutnya berdasarkan batasan di atas, mohon diberikan tingkat relevansi beberapa indikator berikut
untuk mengukur kinerja desain jalan tol.

Tingkat Relevansi
No Indikator Desain Proyek Komentar
1 2 3 4 5
1. Melibatkan masyarakat dalam proses desain.

2. Dapat mengakomodasi keinginan/kebutuhan

masyarakat.
3. Meminimalkan dampak buruk akibat
kecelakaan/aksi yang tidak dinginkan).
4. Dapat digunakan dengan nyaman dengan tingkat
kelelahan minimum.
5. Tersedia ruang/jarak yang cukup untuk manuver
(pergerakan) kendaraan.
6. Komunikatif (menyampaikan informasi secara
efektif kepada pengguna, terlepas dari kemampuan
tingkat respon pengguna).
7. Indah (aestetis) dan menyenangkan.

8. Ramah lingkungan.

9. Indikator lain : ............................

10. Indikator lain : ............................

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads A-4
SUB BAGIAN D. PERAN PEMERINTAH
Pemerintah yang dimaksud adalah meliputi seluruh unsur, yaitu eksekutif, legislatif dan yudikatif di tingkat
pusat, provinsi, kabupaten/kota, kecamatandan desa. Selanjutnya berdasarkan batasan di atas, mohon
diberikan tingkat relevansi beberapa indikator berikut ini untuk mengukur kinerja peran pemerintah di
proyek jalan tol.

Indikator Peran Pemerintah Tingkat Relevansi

No Komentar
1 2 3 4 5
1. Mewujudkan kondisi politik yang stabil dan
kondusif.
2. Mewujudkan kondisi ekonomi yang stabil dan
kondusif.
3. Melaksanakan penegakan hukum yang adil dan
transparan.

4. Pemberantasan korupsi.

5. Penyederhanaan proses birokrasi.

6. Memilih proyek jalan tol yang tepat untuk skema

Kerjasama Pemerintah dan Swasta (KPS).

7. Menyelesaikan masalah pembebasan lahan.

8. Menyelesaikan masalah sosial yang timbul (protes

dari masyarakat).
9. Menyediakan jaminan dan dukungan yang tepat
kepada pihak swasta.
10. Mengelola proses pelelangan (tender) secara
transparan dan adil.
11. Berkomunikasi secara intensif dengan stakeholder
yang terlibat untuk meminimalisir terjadinya
perselisihan.
12. Melakukan pengawasan kinerja pihak swasta.

13. Indikator lain : ............................

14. Indikator lain : ............................

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads A-5
BAGIAN II. INFORMASI LATAR BELAKANG RESPONDEN

Petunjuk Pengisian:

Untuk kelengkapan analisis kami, mohon dapat diberikan informasi terkait latar belakang Bapak/Ibu, dengan
mengisi jawaban dan memberi tanda centang (√) pada alternatif jawaban yang disediakan.
1. Nama : ___________________________
2. Nama instansi (apabila relevan) : ___________________________
3. Posisi/jabatan (apabila relevan) : ___________________________
4. Nomor Telp : ___________________________
5. Email : ___________________________
6. Pengalaman kerja (apabila relevan) :
□ < 5 tahun □ 5-10 tahun □ 11-15 tahun □16 – 20 tahun □ >20 tahun
7. Jumlah keterlibatan Anda dalam proyek Kerjasama Pemerintah dan Swasta (KPS) jalan tol:
□ 1-2 proyek □ 3-4 proyek □ 5-6 proyek
□ 7-8 proyek □ 9-10 proyek □ >10 proyek
8. Pendidikan:
□ S3 (Doktor) □ S2 (Magister)
□ S1 (Sarjana) □ Lainnya,_______________

------------------ Akhir dari wawancara. Terima kasih atas partisipasi anda ------------------

LAMPIRAN HUBUNGAN ANTAR VARIABEL PENELITIAN

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads A-6
 FACULTY OF ARCHITECTURE, BUILDING AND PLANNING
THE UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE

INTERVIEW FORM
Stakeholder Perspectives on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads

Dear
Respected Experts in Toll Road Projects Development
In Indonesia

I am Mohammad Arif Rohman, a lecturer of Department of Civil Engineering, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh
Nopember (ITS), Surabaya who is pursuing Doctorate Programme at Faculty of Architecture, Building and
Planning, University of Melbourne, Australia. Currently, I am conducting research which aims to investigate
the relationship among the performance of government role, community participation, toll road design and
the level of community social satisfaction in toll road projects under Public Private Partnership scheme
(PPP). Research variables relationships can be seen in this interview attachment. This research is part of my
study and has been approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee, University of Melbourne, Australia.

As toll road experts or practitioners you are invited to participate in the above research project through this
interview. The interview is the first phase of the survey research which aims in obtaining relevant indicators
from several indicators that have been identified from the literature. Furthermore, the interview results will
be used in the second stage of the survey, namely questionnaire survey or the main survey. The information
provided from this interview will be kept confidential and only used for research purposes.

Should you require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me, Mohammad Arif Rohman
at mobile number: +6281330782183, email: arif.its@gmail.com or arohman@student.unimelb.edu.au.
Should you have any concerns about the conduct of the survey, you are welcome to contact the Executive
Officer, Human Research Ethics, The University of Melbourne, at phone number: +61 38344 2073, fax: +61
39 347 6739. Finally, I would like to thank for your attention and participation.

Best regards,

PhD Student Supervisor Co-Supervisor

Mohammad Arif Rohman Dr. Hemanta Doloi Dr. Christopher Heywood

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads A-7
SECTION I. RESEARCH INDICATORS ASSESSMENT
Instruction:
Please provide an assessment of the relevance research indicators by providing a check mark (√) in
relevance level column in table below. There are five options provided, namely 1 = not relevant, 2 = slightly
relevant, 3 = quite relevant, 4 = relevant and 5 = very relevant. You can provide some comments regarding
the overlap or less clear indicators that potentially cause confusion. You can also leave a comment in the
space provided and add other indicators which seem relevant but have not been included in the list.

Not Very
Relevant Relevant
1 2 3 4 5

SUB SECTION A. COMMUNITY SOCIAL SATISFACTION

In this study, satisfaction is viewed from the social aspect and from the perspective of affected community as
well as the toll road users. While the term toll road refers to the overall toll road sections and the connecting
roads including its supporting facilities such as overpass / underpass, guardrail, etc. With reference to the
above definition please rate your assessment regarding to the relevance of the social indicators to measure
the level of community social satisfaction.

Relevance Level
No Indicators of Community Social Satisfaction Comments
1 2 3 4 5
1. Safe public facilities for every group of people.

2. Convenient public facilities.

3. Secure (lack of crime) public facilities.

4. Provides economic benefits to local community

(e.g, increase in land prices, business growth,
etc.).
5. Reduces travelling time.

6. Maintains community social cohesion.

7. Less pollutant (the level of pollution is still

tolerable).
8. Adequate open space (between the toll road and
its surrounding areas).
9. Provides pride and sense of belonging.

10. Preserves cultural and natural heritage.

11. Provides facility for education and training.

12. Community involvement in decision-making.

13. Equal access opportunity.

14. Affordable tariff for the community.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads A-8
 Relevance Level
No Indicators of Community Social Satisfaction Comments
1 2 3 4 5
15. Regulation compliance of the traffic condition.

16. Increase community supports(less opposition)

17. Other indicator :...................................

18. Other indicator :...................................

SUB SECTION B. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

Participation is defined as a process by which people are actively involved in the decision-making process in
the toll road development affecting them. With reference to the above definition please rate your assessment
regarding to the relevance level of the indicators to measure the performanceof community participation
process.

Relevance Level
No Indicators of Community Participation Comments
1 2 3 4 5
1. Involving all community representatives in the
participation process.
2. Transparent process.
3. Establishing rules of conduct.

4. Provides adequate information for the

community.
5. Sufficient time allocated for the communities to
be involved in the participation process.
6. Interactive process.
7. Appropriate leadership of the
facilitator/moderator.
8. Building community understanding about the toll
road development.
9. Increasing the cooperation between the
government, private sectors and community.
10. All parties respect to the community participation
process.
11. Continuous community participation process.

12. A comprehensive outcome.

13. Outcome is widely accepted by the community.

14. The participation outcome is equally distributed

to the community.
15. Implementable participation outcome.

16. Other indicator:...................................

17. Other indicator:...................................

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads A-9
SUB SECTION C. PROJECT DESIGN
As is in the previous section, in this study the toll road term refers to the overall toll road section and the
connecting roads including its supporting facilities such as overpass / underpass, guardrail, etc. With
reference to the above definition please rate your assessment regarding to the relevance level of the
indicators to measure the level of toll road design performance.

Relevance Level
No Indicators of Toll Roads Design Performance Comments
1 2 3 4 5
1. Community involvement in the design process
which affected them.
2. Accommodates community needs.

3. Minimize hazards and adverse consequences of

accidents.
4. Able to be used with minimum fatigue.

5. Provides adequate space for vehicle maneuver.

6. The situation and conditionis easily

understandable by users.
7. Aesthetic.

8. Environmental friendly.

9. Other indicator:...................................

10. Other indicator:...................................

SUB SECTION D. GOVERNMENT’S ROLE PERFORMANCE

In this research, the government is defined as the government in all level from central to village level. With
reference to the above definition please rate your assessment regarding to the relevance level of the
indicators to measure the level of government‟s role performance.

Relevance Level
No Indicators of Government’s Role Performance Comments
1 2 3 4 5
1. Realizes stable and conducive political condition.

2. Realizes stable and conducive economic

conditions.
3. Law enforcement.

4. Corruption eradication.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads A-10
 Relevance Level
No Indicators of Government’s Role Performance Comments
1 2 3 4 5
5. Simplify bureaucratic procedures.

6. Selects appropriate (feasible) project for PPP

scheme.
Sol Solving the problem of land acquisition.
vin
g 7.
8. Solving social problems (community aspiration
related to environmental issues).
9. Provides appropriate support for the private
sectort (ex: provide flexibility in tariff
adjustment).
10. Conducting a good (transparent) procurement.

11. Intensively communicate to stakeholders to

minimize dispute.
12. Controlling private sector performance.

13. Other indicator:...................................

14. Other indicator:...................................

SECTION II. RESPONDENT BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Instruction:

Please complete the following information for our analysis by filling the answer in the space provided and
put check mark (√) to the options that have been given. We will maintain the confidentiality of information
provided.
1. Name : __________________________________
2. Name of institution (where relevant) : __________________________
3. Position (where relevant) : ___________________________
4. Email (where relevant) : ___________________________
5. Work experience (where relevant) :
□ <5 years □ 5-10 years □ 11-15 years □16 – 20 years □>20 years
4) Your involvement in Public Private Partnerships (PPP) toll road projects:
□ 1-2 projects □ 3-4 projects □ 5-6 projects
□ 7-8 projects □ 9-10 projects □ >10 projects
5) Education:
□ Doctorate/PhD □ Master □ Bachelor
□ Senior High School □ Junior High School □ Others,(please specify):_____

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads A-11
 ATTACHMENT OF RESEARCH VARIABLES RELATIONSHIPS

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads A-12
 APPENDIX B
Questionnaire for main survey

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads
 PERNYATAAN KEGIATAN PENELITIAN
FACULTY OF ARCHITECTURE, BUILDING AND PLANNING
THE UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE

Kepada Yth.
Bapak/Ibu Responden Penelitian
Kategori Sektor Pemerintah
Di Tempat

Saya Mohammad Arif Rohman, staf pengajar Jurusan Teknik Sipil, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember
(ITS) Surabaya yang sedang menempuh studi S3 di Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning, University
of Melbourne, Australia. Saat ini Saya sedang melakukan penelitian yang bertujuan untuk mengetahui
hubungan antara kinerja peran pemerintah, partisipasi masyarakat, desain (rancang bangun) jalan tol
dan tingkat pencapaian kepuasan sosial masyarakat pada proyek Jalan Tol dengan skema Kerjasama
Pemerintah dan Swasta (KPS). Penelitian ini merupakah bagian dari studi saya dan telah disetujui oleh
Human Research Ethics Committee, University of Melbourne, Australia.

Salah satu responden pada penelitian ini adalah pegawai pemerintah yang pernah terlibat dalam
pembangunan jalan tol yang dilaksanakan setelah tahun 1998. Pegawai yang dimaksud adalah mereka
yang mengetahui proses partisipasi atau penyampaian aspirasi oleh masyarakat dan saat ini masih
mengetahui kondisi jalan tol tersebut. Untuk itu apabila Bapak/Ibu termasuk dalam kriteria responden
tersebut, dimohon agar Anda dapat meluangkan sedikit waktu (sekitar 20-30 menit) guna berpartisipasi dalam
survei ini sehingga dapat bermanfaat bagi pengembangan pengetahuan di bidang pembangunan jalan tol di
Indonesia. Apabila Anda bersedia berpartisipasi pada survei ini, silahkan melengkapi kuesioner dan
mengirimkannya kembali kepada Saya melalui amplop dengan perangko balasan yang telah disertakan pada
kuesioner ini.

Saya informasikan bahwa partisipasi dalam survei ini adalah bersifat sukarela dan semua informasi yang
diberikan akan dijaga kerahasiaannya serta hanya digunakan untuk kepentingan akademis. Hasil penelitian
mungkin akan disampaikan pada konferensi akademik, disertasi, jurnal ilmiah maupun bab buku. Sekiranya
Bapak/Ibu membutuhkan informasi tambahan, dimohon dapat menghubungi saya,
Mohammad Arif Rohman, dengan nomor HP: +6281330782183, email: arif.its@gmail.com atau
arohman@student.unimelb.edu.au. Sedangkan jika bermaksud menyampaikan saran terkait dengan
pelaksanaan survei, Anda dapat menghubungi Executive Officer, Human Research Ethics, The University of
Melbourne, di nomor telp: +61 38344 2073, faks: +61 39347 6739. Demikian, atas perhatian dan partisipasi
Bapak/Ibu, kami ucapkan terima kasih.

Mahasiswa S3 Pembimbing Utama Pembimbing Kedua

Mohammad Arif Rohman Dr. Hemanta Doloi Dr. Christopher Heywood

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads B-1
 KUESIONER PENELITIAN (SEKTOR PEMERINTAH)
Perspektif Stakeholder untuk Mencapai Manfaat Sosial Proyek
Pada Jalan-Jalan Tol di Indonesia

Petunjuk Umum Pengisian:

Bapak/Ibu dapat menjawab kuesioner dengan mengisi jawaban maupun memberi tanda centang (√) pada
salah satu alternatif jawaban yang disediakan. Kami informasikan bahwa tidak ada jawaban benar atau salah
pada survei ini, sehingga Anda dimohon dapat memilih jawaban yang paling mendekati pemahaman Anda.
Mohon Bapak/Ibu dapat menjawab semua pertanyaan dalam kuesioner ini agar data dapat dianalisis
dengan baik.
BAGIAN I. PENDAHULUAN
1. Apakah Anda pernah/sedang bekerja di lembaga pemerintahan? □ Ya □ Tidak
2. Selaku pegawai pemerintah, apakah Anda pernah terlibat dalam membahas rencana pembangunan
proyek jalan tol di salah satu tahapan pembangunan (misal: pembahasan awal rencana proyek, studi
kelayakan, perancangan, konstruksi) yang dilakukan setelah tahun 1998 dan saat ini sudah
beroperasi? □ Ya □ Tidak
3. Apakah Anda mengetahui proses partisipasi/ penyampaian aspirasi oleh masyarakat (misal: saat
sosialisasi awal proyek, pelaksanaan Analisis Mengenai Dampak Lingkungan (AMDAL), musyawarah
pembebasan tanah, dll.) terkait pembangunan jalan tol tersebut? □ Ya □ Tidak
4. Apakah Anda menggunakan atau mengetahui kondisi jalan tol tersebut saat ini? □ Ya □ Tidak
5. Di bawah ini adalah daftar nama jalan tol yang termasuk dalam obyek penelitian kami. Jika Anda
menjawab YA pada seluruh pertanyaan No. 1 sampai 4 di atas, apakah proyek jalan tol yang Anda
maksudkan tersebut termasuk dalam salah satu proyek yang menjadi obyek penelitian kami di bawah ini?
□ Ya □ Tidak
Jika Anda menjawab YA, silahkan memilih salah satu nama proyek jalan tol yang Anda maksudkan
dengan memberi tanda centang dan mohon melanjutkan ke pertanyaan No. 6. (jika pernah terlibat lebih
dari satu proyek, Anda dapat memilih satu proyek yang menurut Anda penting).

□ Jalan Tol Waru-Juanda (Jawa Timur)
□ Jalan Tol Semarang-Solo (Seksi Semarang – Ungaran,
Jawa Tengah)
□ Jalan Tol Kanci-Pejagan (Jawa Barat-Jawa Tengah)
□ Jalan Tol Cikampek-Padalarang (Jawa Barat)
□ Jalan Tol Jakarta Outer Ring Road (JORR)
W1 (Penjaringan-Kembangan, Jabodetabek)
□ Jalan Tol Jakarta Outer Ring Road (JORR)
E1 (Hankam Raya-Cikunir, Jabodetabek)
□ Jalan Tol Jakarta Outer Ring Road (JORR)
E2 (Cikunir-Cakung, Jabodetabek)
□ Jalan Tol Ulujami-Serpong(Jabodetabek)

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads B-2
 Namun jika Anda menjawab TIDAK pada salah satu atau pada semua pertanyaan No. 1 sampai 5 di
atas, maka Anda belum memenuhi kriteria sebagai responden pada penelitian ini dan survei dapat
diakhiri. Namun kami sangat berharap agar Bapak/Ibu dapat meneruskan kuesioner ini kepada orang
yang diperkirakan memenuhi kriteria sebagai responden agar dapat direspon dan dikirimkan kembali
kepada kami.
6. Termasuk dalam kategori yang mana lembaga Anda saat itu?:
□ Pemerintah Pusat □ Pemerintah Provinsi □ Pemerintah Kabupaten/Kota
□ Pemerintah Kecamatan □ Pemerintah Desa □ Lainnya,(mohon disebutkan),___________
7. Perkiraan tahun pembangunan jalan tol yang Anda pilih : _______________

BAGIAN II. PENILAIAN INDIKATOR PENELITIAN

Petunjuk Pengisian:
Silahkan memilih hanya satu jawaban dengan memberikan tanda silang (X) atau melingkari pilihan Anda
terhadap pernyataan pada sub bagian A, B, C dan D. Pilihan jawaban ada 5, yaitu: Angka 1 = Sangat
Tidak Setuju, 2 = Tidak Setuju, 3 = Netral, 4 = Setuju, dan 5 = Sangat Setuju.

SUB BAGIAN A. TINGKAT KEPUASAN SOSIAL MASYARAKAT

Pada penelitian ini, kepuasan ditinjau dari aspek sosial dan dari sudut pandang masyarakat
terdampak yang sekaligus menjadi pengguna jalan tol. Sedangkan istilah jalan tol mengacu pada
keseluruhan bagian jalan tol dan jalan penghubung menuju jalan tol. Jalan penghubung adalah jalan
yang menghubungkan antara jalan arteri dengan jalan tol. Bagian-bagian pada jalan tol dan jalan
penghubungnya tersebut meliputi fasilitas pendukung seperti overpass/underpass, pagar pembatas, dll.
Selanjutnya dengan mengacu pada proyek jalan tol yang telah Anda pilih di atas, silahkan Anda memberikan
penilaian terhadap kepuasan sosial masyarakat pada saat ini berdasarkan kriteria pada tabel berikut.
Sangat
Tidak Sangat
Tidak Netral Setuju
No. Indikator Kepuasan Sosial Masyarakat Setuju Setuju
Setuju
1. Keberadaan jalan tol beserta jalan penghubungnya tersebut aman (tidak 1 2 3 4 5
membahayakan keselamatan masyarakat/minimum terjadi kecelakaan lalu-lintas).
2. Situasi di jalan tol beserta jalan penghubungnya tersebut aman (tidak 1 2 3 4 5
mengakibatkan terjadinya kerawanan lingkungan (misal: tindak kekerasan,
perbuatan asusila, dll).
3. Keberadaan jalan tol beserta jalan penghubungnya tersebut memberikan manfaat 1 2 3 4 5
ekonomi kepada masyarakat setempat (misal: mengakibatkan naiknya harga
tanah, merangsang pertumbuhan usaha, dll.).
4. Keberadaan jalan tol beserta jalan penghubungnya tersebut dapat mengurangi 1 2 3 4 5
waktu tempuh perjalanan.
5. Keberadaan jalan tol beserta jalan penghubungnya tersebut tidak mengakibatkan 1 2 3 4 5
terganggunya ikatan sosial masyarakat terdampak (misal: hubungan sosial antar
masyarakat menjadi kurang harmonis, akses jalan masyarakat menjadi sulit, dll.).

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads B-3
 Sangat
Tidak Sangat
Tidak Netral Setuju
No. Indikator Kinerja Partisipasi Masyarakat Setuju Setuju
Setuju
6. Tingkat pencemaran/permasalahan lingkungan (polusi suara, debu, getaran, 1 2 3 4 5
sampah, banjir, lingkungan kumuh, dll.) akibat adanya jalan tol beserta jalan
penghubungnya tersebut masih bisa ditoleransi.
7. Terdapat ruang terbuka yang cukup antara jalan tol beserta jalan penghubungnya 1 2 3 4 5
tersebut dengan wilayah sekitarnya.
8. Selama ini masyarakat telah dilibatkan dalam proses pengambilan keputusan 1 2 3 4 5
terkait pembangunan jalan tol yang berdampak kepada mereka (pendapat
masyarakat telah diakomodasi dalam proses pengambilan keputusan).
9. Semua pengguna kendaraan bermotor roda empat atau lebih mempunyai hak 1 2 3 4 5
yang sama untuk menggunakan jalan tol tersebut.
10. Kondisi jalan tol beserta jalan penghubungnya tersebut nyaman. 1 2 3 4 5
11. Tarif jalan tol tersebut terjangkau oleh masyarakat. 1 2 3 4 5
12. Lalu-lintas di sepanjang jalan tol dan jalan penghubungnya tersebut lancar (tidak 1 2 3 4 5
terjadi banyak hambatan di jalan tol, pintu tol maupun jalan penghubungnya).
13. Lalu-lintas di jalan tol beserta jalan penghubungnya tersebut tertib (minimum 1 2 3 4 5
terjadi pelanggaran lalu-lintas).
14. Sarana pelayanan jalan tol (misal:patroli jalan tol, mobil derek, informasi kondisi 1 2 3 4 5
jalan tol, tempat istirahat dll.) telah tersedia secara memadai di jalan tol tersebut.
15. Saat ini masyarakat terdampak merasa mendukung keberadaan jalan tol beserta 1 2 3 4 5
jalan penghubungnya tersebut.

SUB BAGIAN B. KINERJA PARTISIPASI MASYARAKAT

Pada penelitian ini yang dimaksud sebagai partisipasi masyarakat adalah proses dimana masyarakat
terlibat secara aktif dalam kegiatan penyampaian aspirasi untuk mengambil keputusan terkait
pembangunan jalan tol yang berdampak kepada mereka. Contoh bentuk proses partisipasi tersebut
adalah presentasi kepada masyarakat terdampak, pertemuan (musyawarah), survei kuesioner,
kunjungan lapangan sekaligus interaksi dengan masyarakat, dll. Selanjutnya dengan mengacu pada
proyek jalan tol di atas, mohon diberikan penilaian terhadap proses partisipasi masyarakat saat itu
berdasarkan kriteria pada tabel di bawah ini.

Sangat
Tidak Sangat
Tidak Netral Setuju
No. Indikator Kinerja Partisipasi Masyarakat Setuju
Setuju Setuju

1. Seluruh perwakilan masyarakat terdampak dilibatkan dalam proses partisipasi 1 2 3 4 5

tersebut.
2. Proses partisipasi tersebut dilakukan secara transparan (pelaksanaan partisipasi 1 2 3 4 5
diketahui seluruh masyarakat terdampak).
3. Terdapat mekanisme (tata cara pelaksanaan) pada proses partisipasi tersebut. 1 2 3 4 5
4. Masyarakat terdampak mendapatkan informasi yang cukup jelas (memadai) saat 1 2 3 4 5
proses partisipasi.
5. Tersedia waktu yang cukup bagi masyarakat terdampak dalam proses 1 2 3 4 5
partisipasi (mendapatkan informasi, memahami dan memberikan masukan).
6. Masyarakat terdampak bisa memberikan masukan yang luas saat proses 1 2 3 4 5
partisipasi (terjadi komunikasi dua arah yang membangun saat kegiatan).

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads B-4
 Sangat
No. Indikator Kinerja Partisipasi Masyarakat Tidak Sangat
Tidak Netral Setuju
Setuju Setuju
Setuju
7. Proses partisipasi dipimpin oleh moderator/fasilitator yang tepat (bisa 1 2 3 4 5
mengarahkan proses dengan baik sehingga dapat menghasilkan keputusan
yang disepakati bersama).
8. Melalui proses partisipasi yang diadakan, masyarakat terdampak menjadi 1 2 3 4 5
paham terhadap maksud dan rencana pembangunan jalan tol tersebut.
9. Proses partisipasi tersebut dapat meningkatkan kerjasama antara pihak yang 1 2 3 4 5
terlibat (pemerintah, swasta dan masyarakat) sehingga proses pembangunan
jalan tol menjadi lebih lancar.
10. Proses partisipasi dilakukan secara kontinyu (mulai tahap awal pembangunan 1 2 3 4 5
hingga saat ini).
11. Keputusan (hasil) proses partisipasi tersebut bersifat komprehensif (telah 1 2 3 4 5
mempertimbangkan semua aspek secara menyeluruh).
12. Keputusan (hasil) proses partisipasi tersebut bisa disepakati secara luas oleh 1 2 3 4 5
masyarakat terdampak.
13. Keputusan (hasil) proses partisipasi tersebut telah diinformasikan kembali 1 2 3 4 5
kepada seluruh masyarakat terdampak.
14. Keputusan (hasil) proses partisipasi tersebut bisa dilaksanakan. 1 2 3 4 5
15. Semua pihak yang terlibat (pihak pemerintah, swasta dan masyarakat) 1 2 3 4 5
menghormati hasil proses partisipasi tersebut (berkomitmen untuk
melaksanakan hasil kesepakatan).

SUB BAGIAN C. KINERJA DESAIN JALAN TOL

Seperti telah dijelaskan sebelumnya, pada penelitian ini istilah jalan tol mengacu pada pada
keseluruhan bagian jalan tol dan jalan penghubung menuju jalan tol tersebut, termasuk fasilitas
pendukungnya seperti overpass/underpass, pagar pembatas, dll. Selanjutnya dengan mengacu pada
proyek jalan tol yang Anda pilih di atas, mohon diberikan penilaian terhadap kinerja desain (rancang bangun)
jalan tol dan fasilitas pendukungnya berdasarkan kriteria pada tabel berikut ini.

Sangat
Tidak Sangat
Tidak Netral Setuju
No. Indikator Kinerja Desain Jalan Tol Setuju Setuju
Setuju
1. Masyarakat ikut dilibatkan (pendapat masyarakat telah diakomodasi) pada 1 2 3 4 5
desain jalan tol beserta jalan penghubungnya yang berdampak terhadap mereka.
2. Kondisi jalan tol beserta jalan penghubungnya tersebut telah sesuai dengan 1 2 3 4 5
kebutuhan masyarakat terdampak.
3. Kondisi jalan tol beserta jalan penghubungnya tersebut dapat meminimalkan 1 2 3 4 5
dampak buruk akibat kecelakaan.
4. kondisi jalan tol beserta jalan penghubungnya tersebut nyaman (hanya 1 2 3 4 5
mengakibatkan kelelahan minimum saat digunakan).
5. Kondisi jalan tol beserta jalan penghubungnya tersebut memiliki jarak/ruang yang 1 2 3 4 5
cukup untuk manuver kendaraan.
6. Situasi dan kondisi jalan tol beserta jalan penghubungnya tersebut mudah 1 2 3 4 5
dipahami saat digunakan oleh masyarakat.
7. Jalan tol beserta jalan penghubungnya tersebut aestetis (indah). 1 2 3 4 5
8. Jalan tol beserta jalan penghubungnya tersebut ramah lingkungan (tidak 1 2 3 4 5
mengakibatkan terjadinya kerusakan ekosistem/lingkungan).

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads B-5
SUB BAGIAN D. KINERJA PERAN PEMERINTAH
Pemerintah yang dimaksud pada penelitian ini meliputi keseluruhan tingkat pemerintahan, mulai
pemerintah pusat sampai dengan pemerintah desa. Beberapa pernyataan pada bagian ini akan merujuk
pada peran pemerintah secara umum (tidak hanya terbatas pada bidang jalan tol) untuk menggambarkan
kondisi peran pemerintah pada pembangunan jalan tol saat itu. Selanjutnya dengan mengacu pada proyek
jalan tol yang sudah Anda pilih, mohon diberikan penilaian peran pemerintah berdasarkan kriteria pada tabel
berikut ini.
Sangat
No Tidak Sangat
Indikator Kinerja Peran Pemerintah pada Proyek Jalan Tol Tidak
Setuju
Netral Setuju
Setuju
Setuju
1. Pada saat dilaksanakannya pembangunan jalan tol, situasi politik stabil (tidak 1 2 3 4 5
terjadi gejolak politik yang mengganggu jalannya pemerintahan).
2. Pada saat dilaksanakannya pembangunan jalan tol, kondisi perekonomian stabil 1 2 3 4 5
(harga barang-barang kebutuhan sehari-hari dapat terjangkau oleh masyarakat).
3. Pada saat dilaksanakannya pembangunan jalan tol, prosedur (tata cara) 1 2 3 4 5
pelayanan di lembaga pemerintahan dapat dilakukan dengan mudah dan cepat
(misal: pengurusan surat perijinan, KTP, SIM, dll.).
4. Pada saat dilaksanakannya pembangunan jalan tol, upaya pemberantasan 1 2 3 4 5
korupsi dilaksanakan secara konsisten (misal: masyarakat terbebas dari pungutan
tidak resmi saat mengurus surat perijinan, KTP, SIM, dll.).
5. Pada saat dilaksanakannya pembangunan jalan tol, upaya penegakan hukum 1 2 3 4 5
dilakukan secara tegas (misal: aparat melakukan tindakan tegas apabila terjadi
pelanggaran lalu-lintas oleh masyarakat).
6. Proses pembebasan lahan untuk konstruksi jalan tol beserta jalan 1 2 3 4 5
penghubungnya tersebut berjalan dengan lancar (waktu pembebasan lahan tidak
berlarut-larut).
7. Aspirasi masyarakat akibat dampak negatif pembangunan jalan tol tersebut dapat 1 2 3 4 5
diselesaikan dengan pendekatan yang tepat (masyarakat terdampak bisa
menerima solusi yang ditawarkan dengan baik).
8. Komunikasi/hubungan antara pihak pemerintah dengan swasta (pengembang 1 2 3 4 5
jalan tol) terjalin dengan baik (tidak terjadi perseteruan antara pemerintah dan
pengembang yang bisa berdampak pada terbengkalainya aktivitas
pembangunan).
9. Pelaksanaan pekerjaan konstruksi jalan tol tersebut tidak mengakibatkan 1 2 3 4 5
gangguan terhadap aktivitas masyarakat (misal: getaran, kebisingan, debu,
kemacetan, dll).
10. Pengembang jalan tol memiliki kemampuan untuk menyelesaikan seluruh pemba- 1 2 3 4 5
ngunan jalan tol dengan tepat waktu (dapat memenuhi target waktu
pengoperasian jalan tol).
11. Hasil pekerjaan konstruksi jalan tol beserta jalan penghubungnya tersebut 1 2 3 4 5
berkualitas baik (tidak cepat rusak/tahan lama).
12. Pemeliharaan seluruh fasilitas jalan tol beserta jalan penghubungnya tersebut 1 2 3 4 5
dilakukan secara rutin (kondisi jalan tol dan jalan penghubungnya tersebut terawat
dengan baik).
13. Jangka waktu antar kenaikan tarif tol tersebut tidak terlalu lama (berdasarkan 1 2 3 4 5
peraturan pemerintah kenaikan tarif tol adalah setiap 2 tahun sekali).
14. Saat ini banyak masyarakat yang menggunakan jalan tol tersebut. 1 2 3 4 5

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads B-6
BAGIAN III. INFORMASI LATAR BELAKANG RESPONDEN
Mohon Bapak/Ibu dapat melengkapi informasi berikut ini untuk bahan analisis. Kami akan menjaga kerahasiaan
informasi yang diberikan.
1. Nama : ________________________
2. Nama instansi : ________________________
3. Alamat kantor : ________________________
4. Kontak personal (apabila relevan)
 Telp. / HP : _______________________
 Email : _______________________
5. Posisi/jabatan (apabila relevan) :
□ Kepala Dinas/Instansi □ Kepala Bidang □ Kepala Seksi
□ Staf □ Lainnya (mohon disebutkan) :________________
6. Pengalaman kerja :
□ < 5 tahun □ 5-10 tahun □ 11-15 tahun □16 – 20 tahun □ >20 tahun
7. Tingkat pendidikan :
□ Doktor/S3 □ Magister/S2 □ Sarjana/S1
□ Diploma/D3 □ SMA □ Lainnya (mohon disebutkan) :___________
8. Kategori bidang pendidikan : □ Teknik □ Non Teknik

------------------Akhir dari Survei Kuesioner. Terima Kasih Atas Perhatian dan Partisipasi Anda--------------------

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads B-7
 PLAIN LANGUAGE STATEMENT
FACULTY OF ARCHITECTURE, BUILDING AND PLANNING
THE UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE

Dear
Respected Respondent of
Government Sector

I am Mohammad Arif Rohman, a lecturer of the Department of Civil Engineering, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh
Nopember (ITS), Surabaya who is pursuing a Doctorate Programme at the Faculty of Architecture, Building
and Planning, University of Melbourne, Australia. Currently, I am conducting research which aims to
investigate the relationship among the performance of government’s role, community participation,
toll road design and the level of community social satisfaction in toll road projects under the Public
Private Partnership scheme (PPP). This research is part of my study and has been approved by the Human
Research Ethics Committee, University of Melbourne, Australia.

One of the target respondents in this research is government staff who has been involved in the toll
road projects’ development which have been developed after 1998. The intended staff must be the
people who have been involved in or informed about the community participation during the project
development and know the selected toll roads’ condition in the operational stage. Therefore, if you are
included in the aforementioned respondent criteria, I wish your participation in this 20-30 minute survey. It is
hoped that the results will give some beneficial contribution for knowledge development in the field of toll road
projects in Indonesia. If you would like to participate in this survey, please complete the questionnaire and
kindly return it to my address by using the stamped envelope provided.

The participation in this survey is voluntary and all information provided will be kept confidential and will be
used only for academic purposes. The results of the research may be presented at academic conferences, in
the dissertation, journal papers and book chapters. Should you require additional information, please do not
hesitate to contact me, Mohammad Arif Rohman at mobile number: +6281330782183, email: arif.its
@gmail.com or arohman@student.unimelb.edu.au. Should you have any concerns about the conduct of the
survey, you are welcome to contact the Executive Officer, Human Research Ethics, The University of
Melbourne, at phone number: +61 38344 2073, fax: +61 39 347 6739. Finally, I would like to thank you for
your attention and participation.

PhD Student Supervisor Co-Supervisor

Mohammad Arif Rohman Dr. Hemanta Doloi Dr. Christopher Heywood

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads B-8
 RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE (GOVERNMENT SECTOR)
Stakeholder Perspectives on Achieving Project Social Benefit
from Indonesian Toll Roads

Instruction:
Please respond to the questionnaire by filling the answers in the space provided and putting a check mark
(√) to the options that have been given. We would like to inform you that there are no right or wrong
answers in this survey, so please answer the question by choosing the option that is closest to your
understanding. Please answer all the questions in the questionnaire so that the data can be
properly analyzed.

SECTION I. INTRODUCTION
1. Have you ever worked in a government institution? □ Yes □ No
2. As a government employee, have you ever been involved in a stage of toll road development
(e.g.: initiation, feasibility study, design, construction) which has been built after 1998 and is
currently being operated? □ Yes □ No
3. Have you ever been involved in or informed about community participation/ community aspirations (e.g.: at
the project initiation, discussion of Environmental Impact Assessment, discussion of land acquisition)
related to the toll road development? □ Yes □ No
4. Do you know the current condition of the related toll road? □ Yes □ No
5. The following toll road projects are being considered for the purpose of our current study. If you answer
YES to all questions No. 1 to 4, is the project that you intend included as one of our research objects?
□ Yes □ No
If YES, please circle one of the listed toll roads and please continue to question No 6. (If you are involved
more than one project, please choose one of them which is most important for you).
□ Jalan Tol Waru-Juanda (Jawa Timur) □ Jalan Tol Jakarta Outer Ring Road (JORR)
W1 (Penjaringan-Kembangan, Jabodetabek)
□ Jalan Tol Semarang-Solo (Seksi Semarang – Ungaran, □ Jalan Tol Jakarta Outer Ring Road (JORR)
Jawa Tengah) E1 (Hankam Raya-Cikunir, Jabodetabek)
□ Jalan Tol Kanci-Pejagan (Jawa Barat-Jawa Tengah) □ Jalan Tol Jakarta Outer Ring Road (JORR)
E2 (Cikunir-Cakung, Jabodetabek)
□ Jalan Tol Cikampek-Padalarang (Jawa Barat) □ Jalan Tol Ulujami-Serpong(Jabodetabek)

However, if you answer NO to either one or all of the questions No. 1 to 5, then you have not met our
respondent criteria. Thank you for your participation.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads B-9
6. What was your institution role at the time?
□ Central government □ Provincial government □ District/city government
□ Sub district government □ Village government □ Other, (please specify), _____________
7. Year (estimate) of the toll road development which you are selected : ________________

SECTION II. RESEARCH INDICATORS ASSESSMENT

Instruction:
Please rate your agreement for several statements provided in Sub section A, B, C and D by putting a cross
sign (X) to the five options provided. The options are 1 =Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral,
4 = Agree, and 5 = Strongly Agree.

SUB SECTION A. COMMUNITY SOCIAL SATISFACTION

In this study, satisfaction is viewed from the social aspect and from the perspective of the affected
community as well as the toll road users. The term toll road refers to the overall toll road sections and the
connecting roads.Connecting road is a road that connects an artery road to a toll road. Toll road and its
connecting roads comprise its supporting facilities such as overpass / underpass, guardrail, etc. With reference
to the toll road project that you have choosen, please rate your assessment to some indicators of social
satisfaction according to several criteria in the table below.

No. Indicators of Community Social Satisfaction Strongly Neut- Strongly

Disagree Agree
Disagree ral Agree

1. The existence of the toll road condition including its connecting roads is 1 2 3 4 5
safe (does not harm the community safety/minimum of traffic accident).
2. The existence of the toll road including its connecting roads is secure (does 1 2 3 4 5
not cause socially prone condition such as violence, sexual misconduct,
etc. ).
3. Toll road including its connecting roads provides economic benefits to local 1 2 3 4 5
community (e.g, increase in land prices, the growth of business, etc.).
4. Toll road including its connecting roads reduces travelling time. 1 2 3 4 5
5. The existence of the toll road including its connecting roads does not 1 2 3 4 5
cause breaks to community social cohesiveness (i.e.: does not cause
social cohesiveness disharmony, difficulty in community transport access,
etc.).
6. The level of pollution (noise, dust, vibration, waste, flood, dirty environment 1 2 3 4 5
etc.) caused by the existence of toll road including its connecting roads is
still tolerable.
7. There is an adequate open space between the toll road, including its 1 2 3 4 5
connecting roads, and its surrounding areas.
8. Community has been involved in the decision-making process of toll road 1 2 3 4 5
development which has affected them (community opinion has been
accommodated in the decision-making process).
9. Motorway users (four wheels and above vehicles) have equal access to the 1 2 3 4 5
toll road.
10. Toll road condition including its connecting roads is convenient. 1 2 3 4 5

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads B-10
No. Indicators of Community Social Satisfaction Strongly Neut- Strongly
Disagree Agree
Disagree ral Agree
11. Toll road tariff is affordable for the community. 1 2 3 4 5
12. Traffic along the toll road and its connecting roads are smooth (not many 1 2 3 4 5
obstacles along the road, toll gate or its connection roads) .
13. There is regulation compliance for the toll road traffic including its 1 2 3 4 5
connecting roads (minimum traffic regulation break).
14. There are adequate services (e.g.: toll road patrol, tow truck, information 1 2 3 4 5
relating to toll road condition, rest area, etc.) on the toll road.
15. Community has supported the existence of the toll road including its 1 2 3 4 5
connecting roads.

SUB SECTION B. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION PERFORMANCE

In this research, participation is defined as a process by which people are actively involved in
the decision-making process in the toll road development affecting them. An examples of
participation processes are presentations, meetings, questionnaire survey, field trips and direct
interaction with community, etc. With reference to the toll road project that you have chosen, please rate
your assessment to some indicators of community participation at the time according to several criteria in
the table below.

No. Indicators of Community Participation Performance Strongly Neut- Strongly

Disagree Agree
Disagree ral Agree
1. All affected community representatives were involved in the participation 1 2 3 4 5
process.
2. Participation process was conducted transparently (the participation 1 2 3 4 5
process was known by all affected community).
3. There was a rule establishment (mechanism) in the participation process. 1 2 3 4 5
4. Affected communities received adequate information during the process 1 2 3 4 5
of participation.
5. There was sufficient time for the affected communities to be involved in 1 2 3 4 5
the participation process (to receive the information, understand, and
give the input or opinion).
6. Affected communities provided widely constructive inputs during the 1 2 3 4 5
participation process (there is constructive dialogue in the participation
process).
7. Participation process was led by an appropriate moderator/facilitator. 1 2 3 4 5
8. Participation process allowed the affected community to understanding 1 2 3 4 5
about the toll road development.
9. Participation process increased the cooperation between parties involved 1 2 3 4 5
(the government, private sectors and community) so as to streamline the
development process.
10. Participation process was conducted continuously (start from the early 1 2 3 4 5
phase of development until the time being).
11. The outcome of the participation process was comprehensive 1 2 3 4 5
(considered many aspects) .
12. The participation outcome was widely accepted by the community. 1 2 3 4 5
13. The participation outcome was equally distributed to the community. 1 2 3 4 5
14. The participation outcome was implementable. 1 2 3 4 5
15. All parties (government, private and public sectors) respected the 1 2 3 4 5
outcome (committed to implement the decisions which have been made).

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads B-11
SUB SECTION C. TOLL ROAD DESIGN PERFORMANCE
As is in the previous section, in this study the toll road term refers to the overall toll road section and
the connecting roads including its supporting facilities such as overpass / underpass, guardrail, etc.
Furthermore, with reference to the toll road project that you have chosen, please rate your assessment to some
indicators of the design of toll road and its connecting roads including of its supporting facilities according to
several criteria in the table below.

Strongly Neut- Strongly

No. Indicators of Toll Road Design Performance Disagree Agree
Disagree ral Agree

1. The community was involved in the design process of the toll road 1 2 3 4 5
including its connecting roads which affected them.
2. The design of the toll road including its connecting roads considered the 1 2 3 4 5
community needs.
3. The condition of toll road and its connecting roads is safe (minimized the 1 2 3 4 5
adverse consequences of accidents).
4. The condition of toll road and its connecting roads is comfortable (resulting 1 2 3 4 5
in less fatigue).
5. The design of the toll road including its connecting roads has provided 1 2 3 4 5
appropriate space for vehicle maneuvers.
6. The situation of toll road and its connecting roads is easily understandable 1 2 3 4 5
by users.
7. The design of the toll road including its connecting roads considered 1 2 3 4 5
aesthetic aspects.
8. The design of the toll road including its connecting roads was 1 2 3 4 5
environmentally friendly.

SUB SECTION D. GOVERNMENT’S ROLE PERFORMANCE

In this research, the government is defined as the government in all levels from central to village level.
Several statement in this section will refer to the general government’s role (not only limited to toll road sector)
to describe the government’s role in the toll road development at the time. With reference to the toll road project
that you have choosen, please rate your assessment to some indicators of the government role performance in
the toll road project according to several criteria in the table below.

No Strongly Neut- Strongly

Indicators of Government’s Role Performance in Toll Road Projects Disagree
Disagree
ral
Agree
Agree

1. At the time of the toll road development, the political situation was stable 1 2 3 4 5
(there were no political situation which interfered with government
activities).
2. At the time of the toll road development, the economic condition was stable 1 2 3 4 5
(commodity price was affordable for the community).
3. At the time of the toll road development, the community found bureaucratic 1 2 3 4 5
service easy (ex: permit and approval letter, citizen ID and driving
application procedures, etc.).
4. At the time of the toll road development, corruption eradication was 1 2 3 4 5
consistently conducted (community was free from extortion when dealing
with government institution).

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads B-12
 No Strongly Neut- Strongly
Indicators of Government Role Performance in Toll Road Projects Disagree
Disagree
ral
Agree
Agree

5. At the time of the construction of the toll road, law enforcement was 1 2 3 4 5
consistently executed (ex: officer decisively acts to the traffic offender).
6. The process of land acquisition for the toll road and its connecting roads 1 2 3 4 5
ran smoothly (land acquisition did not happen in very long time).
7. Community aspirations due to the negative impacts of the construction of 1 2 3 4 5
the toll road could be solved well.
8. There was a good communication between government and toll road 1 2 3 4 5
developer (no conflict arose between them which resulted in the delay of
the construction of the toll road and its connecting roads).
9. The construction activity did not interfer with community activities (ex: 1 2 3 4 5
vibration, noise, air pollution, congestion, etc.).
10. Developer was capable to complete the entire construction work within the 1 2 3 4 5
targetted time (successfully achieved the operation targeted time of the toll
road).
11. The quality of the toll road and its connecting roads construction is good 1 2 3 4 5
(the damage does not happens quickly).
12. Maintenance of the entire facility along the road connecting highway is well 1 2 3 4 5
managed (toll road and its connecting roads condition are always in good
condition).
13. The duration between two tariff adjustments of the toll road was not too 1 2 3 4 5
long (according to the rule, the tariff adjustment duration is once every 2
years).
14. Many people are using the toll road. 1 2 3 4 5

SECTION III. RESPONDENT BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Please complete the following information for our analysis. We will maintain the confidentiality of information
provided.
1. Name : ________________________
2. Name of institution (where relevant) : _________________
3. Office address: ________________________
4. Personal contact (where relevant)
 Telp./ Mobile : _______________________
 Email : _______________________
5. Position (where relevant) :
□ Director/ General Manager □ Division Manager □ Sub Division Manager
□ Staff □ Other (please specify) :___________
6. Work experience (where relevant):
□ < 5 years □ 5-10 years □ 11-15 years □16 – 20 years □ >20 years
7. Education :
□ Doctorate/PhD □ Masters □ Bachelor
□ Diploma □ Senior High School □ Others, (please specify) :________
8. Type of education : □ Engineering □ Non Engineering

------------------------ End of questionnaire. Thank you for your attention and participation -----------------------

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads B-13
 PERNYATAAN KEGIATAN PENELITIAN
FACULTY OF ARCHITECTURE, BUILDING AND PLANNING
THE UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE

Kepada Yth.
Bapak/Ibu Responden Penelitian
Kategori Sektor Swasta
Di Tempat

Saya Mohammad Arif Rohman, staf pengajar Jurusan Teknik Sipil, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember
(ITS) Surabaya yang sedang menempuh studi S3 di Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning, University
of Melbourne, Australia. Saat ini Saya sedang melakukan penelitian yang bertujuan untuk mengetahui
hubungan antara kinerja peran pemerintah, partisipasi masyarakat, desain (rancang bangun) jalan tol
dan tingkat pencapaian kepuasan sosial masyarakat pada proyek Jalan Tol dengan skema Kerjasama
Pemerintah dan Swasta (KPS). Penelitian ini merupakah bagian dari studi saya dan telah disetujui oleh
Human Research Ethics Committee, University of Melbourne, Australia.

Salah satu responden pada penelitian ini adalah pegawai swasta yang pernah terlibat dalam
pembangunan jalan tol yang dilaksanakan setelah tahun 1998. Pegawai yang dimaksud adalah mereka
yang mengetahui proses partisipasi atau penyampaian aspirasi oleh masyarakat dan saat ini masih
mengetahui kondisi jalan tol tersebut. Untuk itu apabila Bapak/Ibu termasuk dalam kriteria responden
tersebut, dimohon agar Anda dapat meluangkan sedikit waktu (sekitar 20-30 menit) guna berpartisipasi dalam
survei ini sehingga dapat bermanfaat bagi pengembangan pengetahuan di bidang pembangunan jalan tol di
Indonesia. Apabila Anda bersedia berpartisipasi pada survei ini, silahkan melengkapi kuesioner dan
mengirimkannya kembali kepada Saya melalui amplop dengan perangko balasan yang telah disertakan pada
kuesioner ini

Saya informasikan bahwa partisipasi dalam survei ini adalah bersifat sukarela dan semua informasi yang
diberikan akan dijaga kerahasiaannya serta hanya digunakan untuk kepentingan akademis. Hasil penelitian
mungkin akan disampaikan pada konferensi akademik, disertasi, jurnal ilmiah maupun bab buku. Sekiranya
Bapak/Ibu membutuhkan informasi tambahan, dimohon dapat menghubungi saya,
Mohammad Arif Rohman, dengan nomor HP: +6281330782183, email: arif.its@gmail.com atau
arohman@student.unimelb.edu.au. Sedangkan jika bermaksud menyampaikan saran terkait dengan
pelaksanaan survei, Anda dapat menghubungi Executive Officer, Human Research Ethics, The University of
Melbourne, di nomor telp: +61 38344 2073, faks: +61 39347 6739. Demikian, atas perhatian dan partisipasi
Bapak/Ibu, kami ucapkan terima kasih.

Mahasiswa S3 Pembimbing Utama Pembimbing Kedua

Mohammad Arif Rohman Dr. Hemanta Doloi Dr. Christopher Heywood

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads B-14
 KUESIONER PENELITIAN (SEKTOR SWASTA)
Stakeholder Perspectives on Achieving Project Social Benefit
from Indonesian Toll Roads

Petunjuk Umum Pengisian:

Bapak/Ibu dapat menjawab kuesioner dengan mengisi jawaban maupun memberi tanda centang (√) pada
salah satu alternatif jawaban yang disediakan. Kami informasikan bahwa tidak ada jawaban benar atau
salah pada survei ini, sehingga Anda dimohon dapat memilih jawaban yang paling mendekati pemahaman
Anda. Mohon Bapak/Ibu dapat menjawab semua pertanyaan dalam kuesioner ini agar data dapat
dianalisis dengan baik.
BAGIAN I. PENDAHULUAN
1. Apakah Anda pernah/sedang bekerja di perusahaan yang ikut terlibat dalam salah satu tahapan
pembangunan jalan tol (misal: tahap perencanaan awal proyek, studi kelayakan, desain (rancang bangun),
konstruksi)? □ Ya □ Tidak
2. Selaku pegawai perusahaan tersebut, apakah Anda juga pernah terlibat pada salah satu tahapan
pembangunan jalan tol yang dilaksanakan setelah tahun 1998 dan saat ini sudah beroperasi? □ Ya
□ Tidak
3. Apakah Anda pernah mengetahui proses partisipasi/ penyampaian aspirasi oleh masyarakat (misal: saat
sosialisasi awal rencana proyek, diskusi (musyawarah) Analisis Mengenai Dampak Lingkungan (AMDAL),
musyawarah pembebasan tanah, pelaksanaan pekerjaan konstruksi dll.) pada pembangunan jalan tol
tersebut? □ Ya □ Tidak
4. Apakah Anda menggunakan atau mengetahui kondisi jalan tol tersebut saat ini? □ Ya □ Tidak
5. Di bawah ini adalah daftar nama jalan tol yang termasuk dalam obyek penelitian kami. Jika Anda menjawab
YA pada seluruh pertanyaan No. 1 sampai 4 di atas, apakah proyek jalan tol yang Anda maksudkan
tersebut termasuk dalam salah satu proyek yang menjadi obyek penelitian kami di bawah ini?
□ Ya □ Tidak
Jika Anda menjawab YA, silahkan memilih salah satu nama proyek jalan tol yang Anda maksudkan dengan
memberi tanda centang dan mohon melanjutkan ke pertanyaan No. 6. (jika pernah terlibat lebih dari satu
proyek, Anda dapat memilih satu proyek yang menurut Anda penting).
□ Jalan Tol Waru-Juanda (Jawa Timur) □ Jalan Tol Jakarta Outer Ring Road (JORR)
W1 (Penjaringan-Kembangan, Jabodetabek)
□ Jalan Tol Semarang-Solo (Seksi Semarang – Ungaran, □ Jalan Tol Jakarta Outer Ring Road (JORR)
Jawa Tengah) E1 (Hankam Raya-Cikunir, Jabodetabek)
□ Jalan Tol Kanci-Pejagan (Jawa Barat-Jawa Tengah) □ Jalan Tol Jakarta Outer Ring Road (JORR)
E2 (Cikunir-Cakung, Jabodetabek)
□ Jalan Tol Cikampek-Padalarang (Jawa Barat) □ Jalan Tol Ulujami-Serpong(Jabodetabek)

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads B-15
 Namun jika Anda menjawab TIDAK pada salah satu atau pada semua pertanyaan No. 1 sampai 5 di
atas, maka mohon maaf Anda belum memenuhi kriteria sebagai responden pada penelitian ini dan survei
dapat diakhiri. Terima kasih atas partisipasi Anda.
6. Termasuk dalam kategori yang mana lembaga Anda saat itu?:
□ Pengembang (Badan Usaha Jalan Tol/BUJT) □ Konsultan perencana/pengawas
□ Kontraktor □ Lainnya,(mohon disebutkan),___________
7. Perkiraan tahun pembangunan jalan tol yang Anda pilih : _______________

BAGIAN II. PENILAIAN INDIKATOR PENELITIAN

Petunjuk Pengisian:
Silahkan memilih hanya satu jawaban dengan memberikan tanda silang (X) atau melingkari pilihan Anda
terhadap pernyataan pada sub bagian A, B, C dan D. Pilihan jawaban ada 5, yaitu: Angka 1 = Sangat
Tidak Setuju, 2 = Tidak Setuju, 3 = Netral, 4 = Setuju, dan 5 = Sangat Setuju.

SUB BAGIAN A. TINGKAT KEPUASAN SOSIAL MASYARAKAT

Pada penelitian ini, kepuasan ditinjau dari aspek sosial dan dari sudut pandang masyarakat
terdampak yang sekaligus menjadi pengguna jalan tol. Sedangkan istilah jalan tol mengacu pada
keseluruhan bagian jalan tol dan jalan penghubung menuju jalan tol. Jalan penghubung adalah jalan
yang menghubungkan antara jalan arteri dengan jalan tol. Bagian-bagian pada jalan tol dan jalan
penghubungnya tersebut meliputi fasilitas pendukung seperti overpass/underpass, pagar pembatas, dll.
Selanjutnya dengan mengacu pada proyek jalan tol yang telah Anda pilih di atas, silahkan Anda memberikan
penilaian terhadap kepuasan sosial masyarakat pada saat ini berdasarkan kriteria pada tabel berikut.

Sangat
Tidak Sangat
Tidak Netral Setuju
No. Indikator Kepuasan Sosial Masyarakat Setuju
Setuju Setuju

1. Keberadaan jalan tol beserta jalan penghubungnya tersebut aman (tidak 1 2 3 4 5

membahayakan keselamatan masyarakat/minimum terjadi kecelakaan lalu-lintas).
2. Situasi di jalan tol beserta jalan penghubungnya tersebut aman (tidak 1 2 3 4 5
mengakibatkan terjadinya kerawanan lingkungan (misal: tindak kekerasan,
perbuatan asusila, dll).
3. Keberadaan jalan tol beserta jalan penghubungnya tersebut memberikan manfaat 1 2 3 4 5
ekonomi kepada masyarakat setempat (misal: mengakibatkan naiknya harga
tanah, merangsang pertumbuhan usaha, dll.).
4. Keberadaan jalan tol beserta jalan penghubungnya tersebut dapat mengurangi 1 2 3 4 5
waktu tempuh perjalanan.
5. Keberadaan jalan tol beserta jalan penghubungnya tersebut tidak mengakibatkan 1 2 3 4 5
terganggunya ikatan sosial masyarakat terdampak (misal: hubungan sosial antar
masyarakat menjadi kurang harmonis, akses jalan masyarakat menjadi sulit, dll.).
6. Tingkat pencemaran/permasalahan lingkungan (polusi suara, debu, getaran, 1 2 3 4 5
sampah, banjir, lingkungan kumuh, dll.) akibat adanya jalan tol beserta jalan
penghubungnya tersebut masih bisa ditoleransi.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads B-16
 Sangat
Tidak Sangat
Tidak Netral Setuju
No. Indikator Kepuasan Sosial Masyarakat Setuju Setuju
Setuju
7. Terdapat ruang terbuka yang cukup antara jalan tol beserta jalan 1 2 3 4 5
penghubungnya tersebut dengan wilayah sekitarnya.
8. Selama ini masyarakat telah dilibatkan dalam proses pengambilan keputusan 1 2 3 4 5
terkait pembangunan jalan tol yang berdampak kepada mereka (pendapat
masyarakat telah diakomodasi dalam proses pengambilan keputusan).
9. Semua pengguna kendaraan bermotor roda empat atau lebih mempunyai hak 1 2 3 4 5
yang sama untuk menggunakan jalan tol tersebut.
10. Kondisi jalan tol beserta jalan penghubungnya tersebut nyaman. 1 2 3 4 5
11. Tarif jalan tol tersebut terjangkau oleh masyarakat. 1 2 3 4 5
12. Lalu-lintas di sepanjang jalan tol dan jalan penghubungnya tersebut lancar (tidak 1 2 3 4 5
terjadi banyak hambatan di jalan tol, pintu tol maupun jalan penghubungnya).
13. Lalu-lintas di jalan tol beserta jalan penghubungnya tersebut tertib (minimum 1 2 3 4 5
terjadi pelanggaran lalu-lintas).
14. Sarana pelayanan jalan tol (misal:patroli jalan tol, mobil derek, informasi kondisi 1 2 3 4 5
jalan tol, tempat istirahat dll.) telah tersedia secara memadai di jalan tol tersebut.
15. Saat ini masyarakat terdampak merasa mendukung keberadaan jalan tol 1 2 3 4 5
beserta jalan penghubungnya tersebut.

SUB BAGIAN B. KINERJA PARTISIPASI MASYARAKAT

Pada penelitian ini yang dimaksud sebagai partisipasi masyarakat adalah proses dimana masyarakat
terlibat secara aktif dalam kegiatan penyampaian aspirasi untuk mengambil keputusan terkait
pembangunan jalan tol yang berdampak kepada mereka. Contoh bentuk proses partisipasi tersebut
adalah presentasi kepada masyarakat terdampak, pertemuan (musyawarah), survei kuesioner,
kunjungan lapangan sekaligus interaksi dengan masyarakat, dll. Selanjutnya dengan mengacu pada
proyek jalan tol di atas, mohon diberikan penilaian terhadap proses partisipasi masyarakat saat itu
berdasarkan kriteria pada tabel di bawah ini.
Sangat
Tidak Sangat
Tidak Netral Setuju
No. Indikator Kinerja Partisipasi Masyarakat Setuju
Setuju Setuju

1. Seluruh perwakilan masyarakat terdampak dilibatkan dalam proses partisipasi 1 2 3 4 5

tersebut.
2. Proses partisipasi tersebut dilakukan secara transparan (pelaksanaan partisipasi 1 2 3 4 5
diketahui seluruh masyarakat terdampak).
3. Terdapat mekanisme (tata cara pelaksanaan) pada proses partisipasi tersebut. 1 2 3 4 5
4. Masyarakat terdampak mendapatkan informasi yang cukup jelas (memadai) saat 1 2 3 4 5
proses partisipasi.
5. Tersedia waktu yang cukup bagi masyarakat terdampak dalam proses 1 2 3 4 5
partisipasi (mendapatkan informasi, memahami dan memberikan masukan).
6. Masyarakat terdampak bisa memberikan masukan yang luas saat proses 1 2 3 4 5
partisipasi (terjadi komunikasi dua arah yang membangun saat kegiatan).
7. Proses partisipasi dipimpin oleh moderator/fasilitator yang tepat (bisa 1 2 3 4 5
mengarahkan proses dengan baik sehingga dapat menghasilkan keputusan yang
disepakati bersama).
8. Melalui proses partisipasi yang diadakan, masyarakat terdampak menjadi paham 1 2 3 4 5
terhadap maksud dan rencana pembangunan jalan tol tersebut.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads B-17
 Sangat
Tidak Sangat
Tidak Netral Setuju
No. Indikator Kinerja Partisipasi Masyarakat Setuju
Setuju Setuju

9. Proses partisipasi tersebut dapat meningkatkan kerjasama antara pihak yang 1 2 3 4 5

terlibat (pemerintah, swasta dan masyarakat) sehingga proses pembangunan
jalan tol menjadi lebih lancar.
10. Proses partisipasi dilakukan secara kontinyu (mulai tahap awal pembangunan 1 2 3 4 5
hingga saat ini).
11. Keputusan (hasil) proses partisipasi tersebut bersifat komprehensif (telah 1 2 3 4 5
mempertimbangkan semua aspek secara menyeluruh).
12. Keputusan (hasil) proses partisipasi tersebut bisa disepakati secara luas oleh 1 2 3 4 5
masyarakat terdampak.
13. Keputusan (hasil) proses partisipasi tersebut telah diinformasikan kembali 1 2 3 4 5
kepada seluruh masyarakat terdampak.
14. Keputusan (hasil) proses partisipasi tersebut bisa dilaksanakan. 1 2 3 4 5
15. Semua pihak yang terlibat (pihak pemerintah, swasta dan masyarakat) 1 2 3 4 5
menghormati hasil proses partisipasi tersebut (berkomitmen untuk melaksanakan
hasil kesepakatan).

SUB BAGIAN C. KINERJA DESAIN JALAN TOL

Seperti telah dijelaskan sebelumnya, pada penelitian ini istilah jalan tol mengacu pada pada
keseluruhan bagian jalan tol dan jalan penghubung menuju jalan tol tersebut, termasuk fasilitas
pendukungnya seperti overpass/underpass, pagar pembatas, dll. Selanjutnya dengan mengacu pada
proyek jalan tol yang Anda pilih di atas, mohon diberikan penilaian terhadap kinerja desain (rancang bangun)
jalan tol dan fasilitas pendukungnya berdasarkan kriteria pada tabel berikut ini.

Sangat
Tidak Sangat
No. Indikator Kinerja Desain Jalan Tol Tidak Netral Setuju
Setuju Setuju
Setuju
1. Masyarakat ikut dilibatkan (pendapat masyarakat telah diakomodasi) pada 1 2 3 4 5
desain jalan tol beserta jalan penghubungnya yang berdampak terhadap mereka.
2. Kondisi jalan tol beserta jalan penghubungnya tersebut telah sesuai dengan 1 2 3 4 5
kebutuhan masyarakat terdampak.
3. Kondisi jalan tol beserta jalan penghubungnya tersebut aman (dapat 1 2 3 4 5
meminimalkan dampak buruk akibat kecelakaan).
4. Kondisi jalan tol beserta jalan penghubungnya tersebut nyaman (hanya 1 2 3 4 5
mengakibatkan kelelahan minimum saat digunakan).
5. Kondisi jalan tol beserta jalan penghubungnya tersebut memiliki jarak/ruang yang 1 2 3 4 5
cukup untuk manuver kendaraan.
6. Situasi dan kondisi jalan tol beserta jalan penghubungnya tersebut mudah 1 2 3 4 5
dipahami saat digunakan oleh masyarakat.
7. Jalan tol beserta jalan penghubungnya tersebut aestetis (indah). 1 2 3 4 5
8. Jalan tol beserta jalan penghubungnya tersebut ramah lingkungan (tidak 1 2 3 4 5
mengakibatkan terjadinya kerusakan ekosistem/lingkungan).

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads B-18
SUB BAGIAN D. KINERJA PERAN PEMERINTAH
Pemerintah yang dimaksud pada penelitian ini meliputi keseluruhan tingkat pemerintahan, mulai
pemerintah pusat sampai dengan pemerintah desa. Beberapa pernyataan pada bagian ini akan merujuk
pada peran pemerintah secara umum (tidak hanya terbatas pada bidang jalan tol) untuk menggambarkan
kondisi peran pemerintah pada pembangunan jalan tol saat itu. Selanjutnya dengan mengacu pada proyek
jalan tol yang sudah Anda pilih, mohon diberikan penilaian peran pemerintah berdasarkan kriteria pada tabel
berikut ini.
Sangat
No Tidak Sangat
Indikator Kinerja Peran Pemerintah pada Proyek Jalan Tol Tidak
Setuju
Netral Setuju
Setuju
Setuju
1. Pada saat dilaksanakannya pembangunan jalan tol, situasi politik stabil (tidak terjadi 1 2 3 4 5
gejolak politik yang mengganggu jalannya pemerintahan).
2. Pada saat dilaksanakannya pembangunan jalan tol, kondisi perekonomian stabil 1 2 3 4 5
(harga barang-barang kebutuhan sehari-hari dapat terjangkau oleh masyarakat).
3. Pada saat dilaksanakannya pembangunan jalan tol, prosedur (tata cara) pelayanan 1 2 3 4 5
di lembaga pemerintahan dapat dilakukan dengan mudah dan cepat (misal:
pengurusan surat perijinan, KTP, SIM, dll.).
4. Pada saat dilaksanakannya pembangunan jalan tol, upaya pemberantasan korupsi 1 2 3 4 5
dilaksanakan secara konsisten (misal: masyarakat terbebas dari pungutan tidak
resmi saat mengurus surat perijinan, KTP, SIM, dll.).
5. Pada saat dilaksanakannya pembangunan jalan tol, upaya penegakan hukum 1 2 3 4 5
dilakukan secara tegas (misal: aparat melakukan tindakan tegas apabila terjadi
pelanggaran lalu-lintas oleh masyarakat).
6. Proses pembebasan lahan untuk konstruksi jalan tol beserta jalan penghubungnya 1 2 3 4 5
tersebut berjalan dengan lancar (waktu pembebasan lahan tidak berlarut-larut).
7. Aspirasi masyarakat akibat dampak negatif pembangunan jalan tol tersebut dapat 1 2 3 4 5
diselesaikan dengan pendekatan yang tepat (masyarakat terdampak bisa menerima
solusi yang ditawarkan dengan baik).
8. Komunikasi/hubungan antara pihak pemerintah dengan swasta (pengembang jalan 1 2 3 4 5
tol) terjalin dengan baik (tidak terjadi perseteruan antara pemerintah dan
pengembang yang bisa berdampak pada terbengkalainya aktivitas pembangunan).
9. Pelaksanaan pekerjaan konstruksi jalan tol tersebut tidak mengakibatkan gangguan 1 2 3 4 5
terhadap aktivitas masyarakat (misal: getaran, kebisingan, debu, kemacetan, dll).
10. Pengembang jalan tol memiliki kemampuan untuk menyelesaikan seluruh pemba- 1 2 3 4 5
ngunan jalan tol dengan tepat waktu (dapat memenuhi target waktu pengoperasian
jalan tol).
11. Hasil pekerjaan konstruksi jalan tol beserta jalan penghubungnya tersebut 1 2 3 4 5
berkualitas baik (tidak cepat rusak/tahan lama).
12. Pemeliharaan seluruh fasilitas jalan tol beserta jalan penghubungnya tersebut 1 2 3 4 5
dilakukan secara rutin (kondisi jalan tol dan jalan penghubungnya tersebut terawat
dengan baik).
13. Jangka waktu antar kenaikan tarif tol tersebut tidak terlalu lama (berdasarkan 1 2 3 4 5
peraturan pemerintah kenaikan tarif tol adalah setiap 2 tahun sekali).
14. Saat ini banyak masyarakat yang menggunakan jalan tol tersebut. 1 2 3 4 5

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads B-19
BAGIAN III. INFORMASI LATAR BELAKANG RESPONDEN
Mohon Bapak/Ibu dapat melengkapi informasi berikut ini untuk bahan analisis. Kami akan menjaga kerahasiaan
informasi yang diberikan.
1. Nama : ________________________
2. Nama instansi : ________________________
3. Alamat kantor : _______________________
4. Kontak personal (apabila relevan)
 Telp. / HP : _______________________
 Email : _______________________
5. Posisi/jabatan :
□ Direktur □ Manajer umum □ Manajer bagian
□ Pengawas □ Pelaksana □ Lainnya (mohon disebutkan) :____________
6. Pengalaman kerja (apabila relevan) :
□ < 5 tahun □ 5-10 tahun □ 11-15 tahun □16 – 20 tahun □ >20 tahun
7. Tingkat pendidikan :
□ Doktor/S3 □ Magister/S2 □ Sarjana/S1
□ Sarjana Muda/D3 □ SMA □ Lainnya (mohon disebutkan) :___________
8. Kategori bidang pendidikan : □ Teknik □ Non Teknik

------------------Akhir dari Survei Kuesioner. Terima Kasih Atas Perhatian dan Partisipasi Anda--------------------

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads B-20
 PLAIN LANGUAGE STATEMENT
FACULTY OF ARCHITECTURE, BUILDING AND PLANNING
THE UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE

Dear
Respected Respondent of
Private Sector

I am Mohammad Arif Rohman, a lecturer of the Department of Civil Engineering, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh
Nopember (ITS), Surabaya who is pursuing a Doctorate Programme at the Faculty of Architecture, Building
and Planning, University of Melbourne, Australia. Currently, I am conducting research which aims to
investigate the relationship among the performance of government’s role, community participation,
toll road design and the level of community social satisfaction in toll road projects under the Public
Private Partnership scheme (PPP). This research is part of my study and has been approved by the Human
Research Ethics Committee, University of Melbourne, Australia.

One of the target respondents in this research is private staff who have been involved in toll road
project’s development which have been developed after 1998. The intended staff must be people who
have been involved in or informed about the community participation during the project development
and know the selected toll roads’ condition in the operational stage. Therefore, if you are included in the
aforementioned respondent criteria, I wish your participation in this 20-30 minute survey. It is hoped that the
results will give some beneficial contribution for knowledge development in the field of toll road projects in
Indonesia. If you would like to participate in this survey, please complete the questionnaire and kindly return it
to my address by using the stamped envelope provided.

The participation in this survey is voluntary and all information provided will be kept confidential and will be
used only for academic purposes. The results of the research may be presented at academic conferences, in
the dissertation, journal papers and book chapters. Should you require additional information, please do not
hesitate to contact me, Mohammad Arif Rohman at mobile number: +6281330782183, email: arif.its
@gmail.com or arohman@student.unimelb.edu.au. Should you have any concerns about the conduct of the
survey, you are welcome to contact the Executive Officer, Human Research Ethics, The University of
Melbourne, at phone number: +61 38344 2073, fax: +61 39 347 6739. Finally, I would like to thank you for
your attention and participation.

PhD Student Supervisor Co-Supervisor

Mohammad Arif Rohman Dr. Hemanta Doloi Dr. Christopher Heywood

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads B-21
 RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE (PRIVATE SECTOR)

Stakeholder Perspectives on Achieving Project Social Benefit

from Indonesian Toll Roads

Instruction:
Please respond to the questionnaire by filling the answers in the space provided and putting a check mark (√)
to the options that have been given. We would like to inform you that there are no right or wrong answers in
this survey, so please answer the question by choosing the option that is closest to your understanding. Please
answer all the questions in the questionnaire so that the data can be properly analyzed.

SECTION I. INTRODUCTION
1. Have you ever worked in a company involved to a stage of a toll road development (e.g.: initiation,
feasibility study, design, construction)? □ Yes □ No
2. As the related company employee, have you ever involved to a stage of toll road development which has
been built after 1998 and is currently being operated? □ Yes □ No
3. Have you ever been involved in or informed about the community participation/ community aspirations
(e.g.: at the project initiation, discussion of Environmental Impact Assessment, discussion of land
acquisition) related to the toll road development? □ Yes □ No
4. Do you know the current condition of the related toll road? □ Yes □ No
5. The following toll road projects are being considered for the purpose of our current study. If you answer
YES to all questions No. 1 to 4, is the project that you intend included as one of our research object? □
Yes □ No
If YES, please circle one of the listed toll roads and please continue to question No 6. (If you are involved
more than one project, please choose one of them which is most important for you).

□ Jalan Tol Waru-Juanda (Jawa Timur)
□ Jalan Tol Semarang-Solo (Seksi Semarang – Ungaran,
Jawa Tengah)
□ Jalan Tol Kanci-Pejagan (Jawa Barat-Jawa Tengah)
□ Jalan Tol Cikampek-Padalarang (Jawa Barat)
□ Jalan Tol Jakarta Outer Ring Road (JORR)
W1 (Penjaringan-Kembangan, Jabodetabek)
□ Jalan Tol Jakarta Outer Ring Road (JORR)
E1 (Hankam Raya-Cikunir, Jabodetabek)
□ Jalan Tol Jakarta Outer Ring Road (JORR)
E2 (Cikunir-Cakung, Jabodetabek)
□ Jalan Tol Ulujami-Serpong(Jabodetabek)

However, if you answer NO to either one or all of the questions No. 1 to 5, then you have not met our
respondent criteria. Thank you for your participation.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads B-22
6. What was your institution category?
□ Toll road developer □ Toll road consultant
□ Contractor □ Other, (please specify), ___________________
7. Year (estimate) of the toll road development which you are selected : ________________

SECTION II. RESEARCH INDICATORS ASSESSMENT

Instruction:
Please rate your agreement for several statements provided in Sub section A, B, C and D by putting a cross
sign (X) to the five options provided. The options are 1 =Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral,
4 = Agree, and 5 = Strongly Agree.

SUB SECTION A. COMMUNITY SOCIAL SATISFACTION

In this study, satisfaction is viewed from the social aspect and from the perspective of the affected
community as well as the toll road users. The term toll road refers to the overall toll road sections and the
connecting roads.Connecting road is a road that connects an artery road to a toll road. Toll road and
its connecting roads comprise its supporting facilities such as overpass / underpass, guardrail, etc. With
reference to the toll road project that you have choosen, please rate your assessment to some indicators of
social satisfaction according to several criteria in the table below.

Strongly Neut- Strongly

Disagree Agree
No. Indicators of Community Social Satisfaction Disagree ral Agree

1. The existence of the toll road condition including its connecting roads is 1 2 3 4 5
safe (does not harm the community safety/minimum of traffic accident).
2. The existence of the toll road including its connecting roads is secure (does 1 2 3 4 5
not cause socially prone condition such as violence, sexual misconduct,
etc. ).
3. Toll road including its connecting roads provides economic benefits to local 1 2 3 4 5
community (e.g, increase in land prices, the growth of business, etc.).
4. Toll road including its connecting roads reduces travelling time. 1 2 3 4 5
5. The existence of the toll road including its connecting roads does not 1 2 3 4 5
cause breaks to community social cohesiveness (i.e.: does not cause
social cohesiveness disharmony, difficulty in community transport access,
etc.).
6. The level of pollution (noise, dust, vibration, waste, flood, dirty environment 1 2 3 4 5
etc.) caused by the existence of toll road including its connecting roads is
still tolerable.
7. There is an adequate open space between the toll road, including its 1 2 3 4 5
connecting roads, and its surrounding areas.
8. Community has been involved in the decision-making process of toll road 1 2 3 4 5
development which has affected them (community opinion has been
accommodated in the decision-making process).

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads B-23
 Strongly Neut- Strongly
Disagree Agree
No. Indicators of Community Social Satisfaction Disagree ral Agree

9. Motorway users (four wheels and above vehicles) have equal access to the 1 2 3 4 5
toll road.
10. Toll road condition including its connecting roads is convenient. 1 2 3 4 5
11. Toll road tariff is affordable for the community. 1 2 3 4 5
12. Traffic along the toll road and its connecting roads are smooth (not many 1 2 3 4 5
obstacles along the road, toll gate or its connection roads) .
13. There is regulation compliance for the toll road traffic including its 1 2 3 4 5
connecting roads (minimum traffic regulation break).
14. There are adequate services (e.g.: toll road patrol, tow truck, information 1 2 3 4 5
relating to toll road condition, rest area, etc.) on the toll road.
15. Community has supported the existence of the toll road including its 1 2 3 4 5
connecting roads.

SUB SECTION B. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION PERFORMANCE

In this research, participation is defined as a process by which people are actively involved in the
decision-making process in the toll road development affecting them. An examples of participation
processes are presentations, meetings, questionnaire survey, field trips and direct interaction with
community, etc. With reference to the toll road project that you have choosen, please rate your assessment to
some indicators of community participation at the time according to several criteria in the table below.

No. Indicators of Community Participation Performance Strongly Neut- Strongly

Disagree Agree
Disagree ral Agree
1. All affected community representatives were involved in the participation 1 2 3 4 5
process.
2. Participation process was conducted transparently (the participation 1 2 3 4 5
process was known by all affected community).
3. There was a rule establishment (mechanism) in the participation process. 1 2 3 4 5
4. Affected communities received adequate information during the process of 1 2 3 4 5
participation.
5. There was sufficient time for the affected communities to be involved in the 1 2 3 4 5
participation process (to receive the information, understand, and give the
input or opinion).
6. Affected communities provided widely constructive inputs during the 1 2 3 4 5
participation process (there is constructive dialogue in the participation
process).
7. Participation process was led by an appropriate moderator/facilitator. 1 2 3 4 5
8. Participation process allowed the affected community to understanding 1 2 3 4 5
about the toll road development.
9. Participation process increased the cooperation between parties involved 1 2 3 4 5
(the government, private sectors and community) so as to streamline the
development process.
10. Participation process was conducted continuously (start from the early 1 2 3 4 5
phase of development until the time being).

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads B-24
No. Indicators of Community Participation Performance Strongly Disagr Neut- Strongly
Agree
Disagree ee ral Agree
11. The outcome of the participation process was comprehensive (considered 1 2 3 4 5
many aspects) .
12. The participation outcome was widely accepted by the community. 1 2 3 4 5
13. The participation outcome was equally distributed to the community. 1 2 3 4 5
14. The participation outcome was implementable. 1 2 3 4 5
15. All parties (government, private and public sectors) respected the outcome 1 2 3 4 5
(committed to implement the decisions which have been made).

SUB SECTION C. TOLL ROAD DESIGN PERFORMANCE

As is in the previous section, in this study the toll road term refers to the overall toll road section and
the connecting roads including its supporting facilities such as overpass / underpass, guardrail, etc.
Furthermore, with reference to the toll road project that you have chosen, please rate your assessment to some
indicators of the design of toll road and its connecting roads including of its supporting facilities according to
several criteria in the table below.

Strongly Neut- Strongly

No. Indicators of Toll Road Design Performance Disagree Agree
Disagree ral Agree

1. The community was involved in the design process of the toll road 1 2 3 4 5
including its connecting roads which affected them.
2. The design of the toll road including its connecting roads considered the 1 2 3 4 5
community needs.
3. The condition of toll road and its connecting roads is safe (minimized the 1 2 3 4 5
adverse consequences of accidents).
4. The condition of toll road and its connecting roads is comfortable (resulting 1 2 3 4 5
in less fatigue).
5. The design of the toll road including its connecting roads has provided 1 2 3 4 5
appropriate space for vehicle maneuvers.
6. The situation of toll road and its connecting roads is easily understandable 1 2 3 4 5
by users.
7. The design of the toll road including its connecting roads considered 1 2 3 4 5
aesthetic aspects.
8. The design of the toll road including its connecting roads was 1 2 3 4 5
environmentally friendly.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads B-25
SUB SECTION D. GOVERNMENT’S ROLE PERFORMANCE
In this research, the government is defined as the government in all levels from central to village level.
Several statement in this section will refer to the general government’s role (not only limited to toll road sector)
to describe the government’s role in the toll road development at the time. With reference to the toll road project
that you have choosen, please rate your assessment to some indicators of the government role performance in
the toll road project according to several criteria in the table below.

No Strongly Neut- Strongly

Indicators of Government’s Role Performance in Toll Road Projects Disagree
Disagree
ral
Agree
Agree

1. At the time of the toll road development, the political situation was stable 1 2 3 4 5
(there were no political situation which interfered with government
activities).
2. At the time of the toll road development, the economic condition was stable 1 2 3 4 5
(commodity price was affordable for the community).
3. At the time of the toll road development, the community found bureaucratic 1 2 3 4 5
service easy (ex: permit and approval letter, citizen ID and driving
application procedures, etc.).
4. At the time of the toll road development, corruption eradication was 1 2 3 4 5
consistently conducted (community was free from extortion when dealing
with government institution).
5. At the time of the construction of the toll road, law enforcement was 1 2 3 4 5
consistently executed (ex: officer decisively acts to the traffic offender).
6. The process of land acquisition for the toll road and its connecting roads 1 2 3 4 5
ran smoothly (land acquisition did not happen in very long time).
7. Community aspirations due to the negative impacts of the construction of 1 2 3 4 5
the toll road could be solved well.
8. There was a good communication between government and toll road 1 2 3 4 5
developer (no conflict arose between them which resulted in the delay of
the construction of the toll road and its connecting roads).
9. The construction activity did not interfer with community activities (ex: 1 2 3 4 5
vibration, noise, air pollution, congestion, etc.).
10. Developer was capable to complete the entire construction work within the 1 2 3 4 5
targetted time (successfully achieved the operation targeted time of the toll
road).
11. The quality of the toll road and its connecting roads construction is good 1 2 3 4 5
(the damage does not happens quickly).
12. Maintenance of the entire facility along the road connecting highway is well 1 2 3 4 5
managed (toll road and its connecting roads condition are always in good
condition).
13. The duration between two tariff adjustments of the toll road was not too 1 2 3 4 5
long (according to the rule, the tariff adjustment duration is once every 2
years).
14. Many people are using the toll road. 1 2 3 4 5

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads B-26
SECTION III. RESPONDENT BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Please complete the following information for our analysis. We will maintain the confidentiality of information
provided.
1. Name : ________________________
2. Name of institution (where relevant) ________________________
3. Office address : ________________________
4. Personal contact (where relevant)
 Telp./ Mobile : _______________________
 Email : _______________________
5. Position (where relevant):
□ Director □ General Manager □ Division Manager
□ Supervisor □ Staff □ Other (please specify) :___________
6. Work experience (where relevant):
□ < 5 years □ 5-10 years □ 11-15 years □16 – 20 years □ >20 years
7. Education :
□ Doctorate/PhD □ Masters □ Bachelor
□ Senior High School □ Junior High School □ Others, (please specify) :________
8. Type of education : □ Engineering □ Non Engineering

------------------------ End of questionnaire. Thank you for your attention and participation -----------------------

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads B-27
 PERNYATAAN KEGIATAN PENELITIAN
FACULTY OF ARCHITECTURE, BUILDING AND PLANNING
THE UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE

Kepada Yth.
Bapak/Ibu Responden Penelitian
Kategori Masyarakat Terdampak Pembangunan Jalan Tol
Di Tempat

Saya Mohammad Arif Rohman, staf pengajar Jurusan Teknik Sipil, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember
(ITS) Surabaya yang sedang menempuh studi S3 di Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning, University
of Melbourne, Australia. Saat ini Saya sedang melakukan penelitian yang bertujuan untuk mengetahui
hubungan antara kinerja peran pemerintah, partisipasi masyarakat, desain (rancang bangun) jalan tol
dan tingkat pencapaian kepuasan sosial masyarakat pada proyek Jalan Tol dengan skema Kerjasama
Pemerintah dan Swasta (KPS). Penelitian ini merupakah bagian dari studi saya dan telah disetujui oleh
Human Research Ethics Committee, University of Melbourne, Australia.

Salah satu responden pada penelitian ini adalah masyarakat terdampak pembangunan jalan tol yang
juga sekaligus sebagai pengguna jalan tol tersebut. Masyarakat yang dimaksud juga pernah terlibat
dalam proses partisipasi atau penyampaian aspirasi masyarakat. Untuk itu apabila Bapak/Ibu termasuk
dalam kriteria responden tersebut, dimohon agar Anda dapat meluangkan sedikit waktu (sekitar 20-30 menit)
guna berpartisipasi dalam survei ini sehingga dapat bermanfaat bagi pengembangan pengetahuan di bidang
pembangunan jalan tol di Indonesia.

Saya informasikan bahwa partisipasi dalam survei ini adalah bersifat sukarela dan semua informasi yang
diberikan akan dijaga kerahasiaannya serta hanya digunakan untuk kepentingan akademis. Hasil penelitian
mungkin akan disampaikan pada konferensi akademik, disertasi, jurnal ilmiah maupun bab buku. Sekiranya
Bapak/Ibu membutuhkan informasi tambahan, dimohon dapat menghubungi saya,
Mohammad Arif Rohman, dengan nomor HP: +6281330782183, email: arif.its@gmail.com atau
arohman@student.unimelb.edu.au. Sedangkan jika bermaksud menyampaikan saran terkait dengan
pelaksanaan survei, Anda dapat menghubungi Executive Officer, Human Research Ethics, The University of
Melbourne, di nomor telp: +61 38344 2073, faks: +61 39347 6739. Demikian, atas perhatian dan partisipasi
Bapak/Ibu, kami ucapkan terima kasih.

Mahasiswa S3 Pembimbing Utama Pembimbing Kedua

Mohammad Arif Rohman Dr. Hemanta Doloi Dr. Christopher Heywood

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads B-28
 KUESIONER PENELITIAN (SEKTOR MASYARAKAT)
Perspektif Stakeholder untuk Mencapai Manfaat Sosial Proyek
Pada Jalan-Jalan Tol di Indonesia

Petunjuk Umum Pengisian:

Bapak/Ibu dapat menjawab kuesioner dengan mengisi jawaban maupun memberi tanda centang (√) pada
salah satu alternatif jawaban yang disediakan. Kami informasikan bahwa tidak ada jawaban benar atau
salah pada survei ini, sehingga Anda diharapkan dapat memilih jawaban yang paling mendekati pemahaman
Anda. Agar data dapat dianalisis dengan baik mohon Bapak/Ibu dapat menjawab semua pertanyaan
dalam kuesioner ini.

BAGIAN I. PENDAHULUAN
1. Apakah Anda tinggal di lokasi dekat jalan tol yang dibangun setelah 1998 dan saat ini sudah
beroperasi? □ Ya □ Tidak
2. Apakah Anda merasakan dampak lingkungan akibat pembangunan jalan tol tersebut? □ Ya □ Tidak
3. Apakah Anda pernah menggunakan jalan tol tersebut? □ Ya □ Tidak
4. Apakah saat itu Anda terlibat dalam proses partisipasi atau pernah menyampaikan aspirasi terkait rencana
pembangunan jalan tol tersebut? □ Ya □ Tidak
5. Apabila Anda menjawab YA pada seluruh pertanyaan di atas, Anda dimohon dapat melanjutkan ke
pertanyaan No. 5. Namun jika Anda menjawab TIDAK pada salah satu atau pada semua pertanyaan
di atas, maka mohon maaf Anda belum memenuhi kriteria sebagai responden pada penelitian ini dan
survei dapat diakhiri. Terima kasih atas partisipasi Anda.
6. Apakah peran Anda pada proses partisipasi atau penyampaian aspirasi saat itu?
□ Individu masyarakat □ Tokoh masyarakat □ Lainnya (mohon disebutkan), ___________________
7. Berikut ini adalah daftar nama proyek yang termasuk dalam obyek penelitian kami. Silahkan memilih
dengan mencentang nama proyek jalan tol yang Anda maksudkan tersebut.
□ Jalan Tol Waru-Juanda (Jawa Timur) □ Jalan Tol Jakarta Outer Ring Road (JORR)
W1 (Penjaringan-Kembangan, Jabodetabek)
□ Jalan Tol Semarang-Solo (Seksi Semarang – Ungaran, □ Jalan Tol Jakarta Outer Ring Road (JORR)
Jawa Tengah) E1 (Hankam Raya-Cikunir, Jabodetabek)
□ Jalan Tol Kanci-Pejagan (Jawa Barat-Jawa Tengah) □ Jalan Tol Jakarta Outer Ring Road (JORR)
E2 (Cikunir-Cakung, Jabodetabek)
□ Jalan Tol Cikampek-Padalarang (Jawa Barat) □ Jalan Tol Ulujami-Serpong(Jabodetabek)

8. Perkiraan tahun pembangunan jalan tol yang Anda pilih : _______________

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads B-29
 BAGIAN II. PENILAIAN INDIKATOR PENELITIAN
Petunjuk Pengisian:
Silahkan memilih hanya satu jawaban dengan memberikan tanda silang (X) atau melingkari pilihan Anda
terhadap pernyataan pada sub bagian A, B, C dan D. Pilihan jawaban ada 5, yaitu: Angka 1 = Sangat
Tidak Setuju, 2 = Tidak Setuju, 3 = Netral, 4 = Setuju, dan 5 = Sangat Setuju.

SUB BAGIAN A. TINGKAT KEPUASAN SOSIAL MASYARAKAT

Pada penelitian ini, kepuasan ditinjau dari aspek sosial dan dari sudut pandang masyarakat
terdampak yang sekaligus menjadi pengguna jalan tol. Sedangkan istilah jalan tol mengacu pada
keseluruhan bagian jalan tol dan jalan penghubung menuju jalan tol. Jalan penghubung adalah jalan
yang menghubungkan antara jalan arteri dengan jalan tol. Bagian-bagian pada jalan tol dan jalan
penghubungnya tersebut meliputi fasilitas pendukung seperti overpass/underpass, pagar pembatas, dll.
Selanjutnya dengan mengacu pada proyek jalan tol yang telah Anda pilih di atas, silahkan Anda memberikan
penilaian terhadap kepuasan sosial masyarakat pada saat ini berdasarkan kriteria pada tabel berikut.

Sangat
Tidak Sangat
Tidak Netral Setuju
No. Indikator Kepuasan Sosial Masyarakat Setuju Setuju
Setuju
1. Keberadaan jalan tol beserta jalan penghubungnya tersebut aman (tidak 1 2 3 4 5
membahayakan keselamatan masyarakat/minimum terjadi kecelakaan lalu-lintas).
2. Situasi di jalan tol beserta jalan penghubungnya tersebut aman (tidak 1 2 3 4 5
mengakibatkan terjadinya kerawanan lingkungan (misal: tindak kekerasan,
perbuatan asusila, dll).
3. Keberadaan jalan tol beserta jalan penghubungnya tersebut memberikan manfaat 1 2 3 4 5
ekonomi kepada masyarakat setempat (misal: mengakibatkan naiknya harga
tanah, merangsang pertumbuhan usaha, dll.).
4. Keberadaan jalan tol beserta jalan penghubungnya tersebut dapat mengurangi 1 2 3 4 5
waktu tempuh perjalanan.
5. Keberadaan jalan tol beserta jalan penghubungnya tersebut tidak 1 2 3 4 5
mengakibatkan terganggunya ikatan sosial masyarakat terdampak (misal:
hubungan sosial antar masyarakat menjadi kurang harmonis, akses jalan
masyarakat menjadi sulit, dll.).
6. Tingkat pencemaran/permasalahan lingkungan (polusi suara, debu, getaran, 1 2 3 4 5
sampah, banjir, lingkungan kumuh, dll.) akibat adanya jalan tol beserta jalan
penghubungnya tersebut masih bisa ditoleransi.
7. Terdapat ruang terbuka yang cukup antara jalan tol beserta jalan 1 2 3 4 5
penghubungnya tersebut dengan wilayah sekitarnya .
8. Selama ini masyarakat telah dilibatkan dalam proses pengambilan keputusan 1 2 3 4 5
terkait pembangunan jalan tol yang berdampak kepada mereka (pendapat
masyarakat telah diakomodasi dalam proses pengambilan keputusan).
9. Semua pengguna kendaraan bermotor roda empat atau lebih mempunyai hak 1 2 3 4 5
yang sama untuk menggunakan jalan tol tersebut.
10. Kondisi jalan tol beserta jalan penghubungnya tersebut nyaman. 1 2 3 4 5
11. Tarif jalan tol tersebut terjangkau oleh masyarakat. 1 2 3 4 5
12. Lalu-lintas di sepanjang jalan tol dan jalan penghubungnya tersebut lancar (tidak 1 2 3 4 5
terjadi banyak hambatan di jalan tol, pintu tol maupun jalan penghubungnya).

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads B-30
 Sangat
No. Indikator Kepuasan Sosial Masyarakat Tidak Sangat
Tidak Netral Setuju
Setuju Setuju
Setuju
13. Lalu-lintas di jalan tol beserta jalan penghubungnya tersebut tertib (minimum 1 2 3 4 5
terjadi pelanggaran lalu-lintas).
14. Sarana pelayanan jalan tol (misal:patroli jalan tol, mobil derek, informasi kondisi 1 2 3 4 5
jalan tol, tempat istirahat dll.) telah tersedia secara memadai di jalan tol tersebut.
15. Saat ini masyarakat terdampak merasa mendukung keberadaan jalan tol beserta 1 2 3 4 5
jalan penghubungnya tersebut.

SUB BAGIAN B. KINERJA PARTISIPASI MASYARAKAT

Pada penelitian ini yang dimaksud sebagai partisipasi masyarakat adalah proses dimana masyarakat
terlibat secara aktif dalam kegiatan penyampaian aspirasi untuk mengambil keputusan terkait
pembangunan jalan tol yang berdampak kepada mereka. Contoh bentuk proses partisipasi tersebut
adalah presentasi kepada masyarakat terdampak, pertemuan (musyawarah), survei kuesioner,
kunjungan lapangan sekaligus interaksi dengan masyarakat, dll. Selanjutnya dengan mengacu pada
proyek jalan tol di atas, mohon diberikan penilaian terhadap proses partisipasi masyarakat saat itu
berdasarkan kriteria pada tabel di bawah ini.

Sangat
Tidak Sangat
Tidak Netral Setuju
No. Indikator Kinerja Partisipasi Masyarakat Setuju Setuju
Setuju
1. Seluruh perwakilan masyarakat terdampak dilibatkan dalam proses partisipasi 1 2 3 4 5
tersebut.
2. Proses partisipasi tersebut dilakukan secara transparan (pelaksanaan partisipasi 1 2 3 4 5
diketahui seluruh masyarakat terdampak).
3. Terdapat mekanisme (tata cara pelaksanaan) pada proses partisipasi tersebut. 1 2 3 4 5
4. Masyarakat terdampak mendapatkan informasi yang cukup jelas (memadai) saat 1 2 3 4 5
proses partisipasi.
5. Tersedia waktu yang cukup bagi masyarakat terdampak dalam proses 1 2 3 4 5
partisipasi (mendapatkan informasi, memahami dan memberikan masukan).
6. Masyarakat terdampak bisa memberikan masukan yang luas saat proses 1 2 3 4 5
partisipasi (terjadi komunikasi dua arah yang membangun saat kegiatan).
7. Proses partisipasi dipimpin oleh moderator/fasilitator yang tepat (bisa 1 2 3 4 5
mengarahkan proses dengan baik sehingga dapat menghasilkan keputusan yang
disepakati bersama).
8. Melalui proses partisipasi yang diadakan, masyarakat terdampak menjadi paham 1 2 3 4 5
terhadap maksud dan rencana pembangunan jalan tol tersebut.
9. Proses partisipasi tersebut dapat meningkatkan kerjasama antara pihak yang 1 2 3 4 5
terlibat (pemerintah, swasta dan masyarakat) sehingga proses pembangunan
jalan tol menjadi lebih lancar.
10. Proses partisipasi dilakukan secara kontinyu (mulai tahap awal pembangunan 1 2 3 4 5
hingga saat ini).
11. Keputusan (hasil) proses partisipasi tersebut bersifat komprehensif (telah 1 2 3 4 5
mempertimbangkan semua aspek secara menyeluruh).
12. Keputusan (hasil) proses partisipasi tersebut bisa disepakati secara luas oleh 1 2 3 4 5
masyarakat terdampak.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads B-31
 Sangat
Tidak Sangat
Tidak Netral Setuju
No. Indikator Kinerja Partisipasi Masyarakat Setuju
Setuju Setuju

13. Keputusan (hasil) proses partisipasi tersebut telah diinformasikan kembali 1 2 3 4 5

kepada seluruh masyarakat terdampak.
14. Keputusan (hasil) proses partisipasi tersebut bisa dilaksanakan. 1 2 3 4 5
15. Semua pihak yang terlibat (pihak pemerintah, swasta dan masyarakat) 1 2 3 4 5
menghormati hasil proses partisipasi tersebut (berkomitmen untuk melaksanakan
hasil kesepakatan).

SUB BAGIAN C. KINERJA DESAIN JALAN TOL

Seperti telah dijelaskan sebelumnya, pada penelitian ini istilah jalan tol mengacu pada pada
keseluruhan bagian jalan tol dan jalan penghubung menuju jalan tol tersebut, termasuk fasilitas
pendukungnya seperti overpass/underpass, pagar pembatas, dll. Selanjutnya dengan mengacu pada
proyek jalan tol yang Anda pilih di atas, mohon diberikan penilaian terhadap kinerja desain (rancang bangun)
jalan tol dan fasilitas pendukungnya berdasarkan kriteria pada tabel berikut ini.

Sangat
Tidak Sangat
Tidak Netral Setuju
No. Indikator Kinerja Desain Jalan Tol Setuju Setuju
Setuju
1. Masyarakat ikut dilibatkan (pendapat masyarakat telah diakomodasi) pada 1 2 3 4 5
desain jalan tol beserta jalan penghubungnya yang berdampak terhadap
mereka.
2. Kondisi jalan tol beserta jalan penghubungnya tersebut telah sesuai 1 2 3 4 5
dengan kebutuhan masyarakat terdampak.
3. Kondisi jalan tol beserta jalan penghubungnya tersebut dapat meminimalkan 1 2 3 4 5
dampak buruk akibat kecelakaan (aman).
4. kondisi jalan tol beserta jalan penghubungnya tersebut nyaman (hanya 1 2 3 4 5
mengakibatkan kelelahan minimum saat digunakan).
5. Kondisi jalan tol beserta jalan penghubungnya tersebut memiliki jarak/ruang 1 2 3 4 5
yang cukup untuk manuver kendaraan.
6. Situasi dan kondisi jalan tol beserta jalan penghubungnya tersebut mudah 1 2 3 4 5
dipahami saat digunakan oleh masyarakat.
7. Jalan tol beserta jalan penghubungnya tersebut aestetis (indah). 1 2 3 4 5
8. Jalan tol beserta jalan penghubungnya tersebut ramah lingkungan (tidak 1 2 3 4 5
mengakibatkan terjadinya kerusakan ekosistem/lingkungan).

SUB BAGIAN D. KINERJA PERAN PEMERINTAH

Pemerintah yang dimaksud pada penelitian ini meliputi keseluruhan tingkat pemerintahan, mulai
pemerintah pusat sampai dengan pemerintah desa. Beberapa pernyataan pada bagian ini akan merujuk
pada peran pemerintah secara umum (tidak hanya terbatas pada bidang jalan tol) untuk menggambarkan
kondisi peran pemerintah pada pembangunan jalan tol saat itu. Selanjutnya dengan mengacu pada proyek
jalan tol yang sudah Anda pilih, mohon diberikan penilaian peran pemerintah berdasarkan kriteria pada tabel
berikut ini.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads B-32
 Sangat
No Tidak Sangat
Indikator Kinerja Peran Pemerintah pada Proyek Jalan Tol Tidak
Setuju
Netral Setuju
Setuju
Setuju
1. Pada saat dilaksanakannya pembangunan jalan tol, situasi politik stabil 1 2 3 4 5
(tidak terjadi gejolak politik yang mengganggu jalannya pemerintahan).
2. Pada saat dilaksanakannya pembangunan jalan tol, kondisi perekonomian 1 2 3 4 5
stabil (harga barang-barang kebutuhan sehari-hari dapat terjangkau oleh
masyarakat).
3. Pada saat dilaksanakannya pembangunan jalan tol, prosedur (tata cara) 1 2 3 4 5
pelayanan di lembaga pemerintahan dapat dilakukan dengan mudah dan
cepat (misal: pengurusan surat perijinan, KTP, SIM, dll.).
4. Pada saat dilaksanakannya pembangunan jalan tol, upaya pemberantasan 1 2 3 4 5
korupsi dilaksanakan secara konsisten (misal: masyarakat terbebas dari
pungutan tidak resmi saat mengurus surat perijinan, KTP, SIM, dll.).
5. Pada saat dilaksanakannya pembangunan jalan tol, upaya penegakan hukum 1 2 3 4 5
dilakukan secara tegas (misal: aparat melakukan tindakan tegas apabila terjadi
pelanggaran lalu-lintas oleh masyarakat).
6. Proses pembebasan lahan untuk konstruksi jalan tol beserta jalan 1 2 3 4 5
penghubungnya tersebut berjalan dengan lancar (waktu pembebasan lahan tidak
berlarut-larut).
7. Aspirasi masyarakat akibat dampak negatif pembangunan jalan tol tersebut 1 2 3 4 5
dapat diselesaikan dengan pendekatan yang tepat (masyarakat terdampak
bisa menerima solusi yang ditawarkan dengan baik).
8. Komunikasi/hubungan antara pihak pemerintah dengan swasta (pengembang 1 2 3 4 5
jalan tol) terjalin dengan baik (tidak terjadi perseteruan antara pemerintah dan
pengembang yang bisa berdampak pada terbengkalainya aktivitas
pembangunan).
9. Pelaksanaan pekerjaan konstruksi jalan tol tersebut tidak mengakibatkan 1 2 3 4 5
gangguan terhadap aktivitas masyarakat (misal: getaran, kebisingan, debu,
kemacetan, dll).
10. Pengembang jalan tol memiliki kemampuan untuk menyelesaikan seluruh 1 2 3 4 5
pemba-ngunan jalan tol dengan tepat waktu (dapat memenuhi target waktu
pengoperasian jalan tol).
11. Hasil pekerjaan konstruksi jalan tol beserta jalan penghubungnya tersebut 1 2 3 4 5
berkualitas baik (tidak cepat rusak/tahan lama).
12. Pemeliharaan seluruh fasilitas jalan tol beserta jalan penghubungnya 1 2 3 4 5
tersebut dilakukan secara rutin (kondisi jalan tol dan jalan penghubungnya
tersebut terawat dengan baik).
13. Jangka waktu antar kenaikan tarif tol tersebut tidak terlalu lama 1 2 3 4 5
(berdasarkan peraturan pemerintah kenaikan tarif tol adalah setiap 2 tahun
sekali).
14. Saat ini banyak masyarakat yang menggunakan jalan tol tersebut. 1 2 3 4 5

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads B-33
BAGIAN III. INFORMASI LATAR BELAKANG RESPONDEN
Mohon Bapak/Ibu dapat melengkapi informasi berikut ini untuk bahan analisis. Kami akan menjaga kerahasiaan
informasi yang diberikan.
1. Nama : ________________________
2. Kontak personal (apabila relevan):
 Telp. / HP : ________________________
 Email : ________________________
 Alamat tempat tinggal : ________________________
3. Jenis pekerjaan (apabila relevan) :
□ Pegawai Negeri Sipil (PNS) □ Karyawan Swasta □ Pensiunan PNS/Swasta
□ Wiraswasta/pengusaha □ Lainnya (mohon disebutkan) : ____________
4. Nama instansi (apabila relevan) : ________________________
5. Posisi/jabatan (apabila relevan) :
□ Direktur □ Manajer umum □ Manajer bagian
□ Pengawas □ Staf pelaksana □ Lainnya (mohon disebutkan) :_____________
6. Pengalaman kerja (apabila relevan) :
□ < 5 tahun □ 5-10 tahun □ 11-15 tahun □16 – 20 tahun □ >20 tahun
7. Tingkat pendidikan :
□ Doktor/S3 □ Magister/S2 □ Sarjana/S1
□ Diploma/D3 □ SMA □ Lainnya (mohon disebutkan) :____________
8. Kategori bidang pendidikan : □ Teknik □ Non Teknik

------------------Akhir dari Survei Kuesioner. Terima Kasih Atas Perhatian dan Partisipasi Anda--------------------

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads B-34
 PLAIN LANGUAGE STATEMENT
FACULTY OF ARCHITECTURE, BUILDING AND PLANNING
THE UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE

Dear
Respected Respondent of
Affected Community of Toll Road Development

I am Mohammad Arif Rohman, a lecturer of Department of Civil Engineering, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh
Nopember (ITS), Surabaya who is pursuing Doctorate Programme at Faculty of Architecture, Building and
Planning, University of Melbourne, Australia. Currently I am conducting research which aims to
investigate the relationship among the performance of government role, community participation, toll
road design and the level of community social satisfaction in toll road projects under Public Private
Partnership scheme (PPP). This research is part of my study and has been approved by the Human
Research Ethics Committee, University of Melbourne, Australia.

One of the target respondents in this research are the community who are environmentally affected by
toll road projects as well as being toll road users. They have also been involved in the participation
process in the toll road projects which have been developed after 1998 and are being operated.
Therefore, if you are included in aforementioned respondent criteria, I wish your participation in this 20-30
minute survey. It is hoped that the result will give some beneficial contribution for knowledge development in
the field of toll road projects in Indonesia.

The participation in this survey is voluntary and all information provided will be kept confidential and will be
used only for academic purposes. The results of the research may be presented at academic conferences, in
the dissertation, journal papers and book chapters. Should you require additional information, please do not
hesitate to contact me, Mohammad Arif Rohman at mobile number: +6281330782183, email: arif.its
@gmail.com or arohman@student.unimelb.edu.au. Should you have any concerns about the conduct of the
survey, you are welcome to contact the Executive Officer, Human Research Ethics, The University of
Melbourne, at phone number: +61 38344 2073, fax: +61 39 347 6739. Finally, I would like to thank you for
your attention and participation.

PhD Student Supervisor Co-Supervisor

Mohammad Arif Rohman Dr. Hemanta Doloi Dr. Christopher Heywood

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads B-35
 RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE (COMMUNITY SECTOR)
Stakeholder Perspectives on Achieving Project Social Benefit
from Indonesian Toll Roads

Instruction:
Please respond to the questionnaire by filling the answers in the space provided and putting a check mark
(√) to the options that have been given. We would like to inform you that there are no right or wrong
answers in this survey, so please answer the question by choosing the option that is closest to your
understanding. Please answer all the questions in the questionnaire so that the data can be
properly analyzed.

SECTION I. INTRODUCTION
1. Do you reside near a toll road site built after 1998 which is currently being operated?
□ Yes □ No
2. Have you been environmentally affected? □ Yes □ No
3. Are you this toll road user? □ Yes □ No
4. Were you involved in the participation process or community aspirations related to the toll road
development?
□ Yes □ No
5. If you answer YES to all above questions, please continue to question no. 5. However, if you answer NO
to either one or all of them, then you have not met our respondent criteria. Thank you for your
participation.
6. What was your role in the community participation or aspiration process at that time?
□ Individual □ Community leader □ Others, (please specify), _______________
7. The following toll road projects are being considered for the purpose of our current study. Please circle toll
road project’s name which related to the above questions.
□ Jalan Tol Waru-Juanda (Jawa Timur) □ Jalan Tol Jakarta Outer Ring Road (JORR)
W1 (Penjaringan-Kembangan, Jabodetabek)
□ Jalan Tol Semarang-Solo (Seksi Semarang – Ungaran, □ Jalan Tol Jakarta Outer Ring Road (JORR)
Jawa Tengah) E1 (Hankam Raya-Cikunir, Jabodetabek)
□ Jalan Tol Kanci-Pejagan (Jawa Barat-Jawa Tengah) □ Jalan Tol Jakarta Outer Ring Road (JORR)
E2 (Cikunir-Cakung, Jabodetabek)
□ Jalan Tol Cikampek-Padalarang (Jawa Barat) □ Jalan Tol Ulujami-Serpong(Jabodetabek)

9. Year (estimate) of the toll road development which you are selected : ________________

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads B-36
SECTION II. RESEARCH INDICATORS ASSESSMENT
Instruction:
Please rate your agreement for several statements provided in Sub section A, B, C and D by putting a cross
sign (X) to the five options provided. The options are 1 =Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neutral,
4 = Agree, and 5 = Strongly Agree.

SUB SECTION A. COMMUNITY SOCIAL SATISFACTION

In this study, satisfaction is viewed from the social aspect and from the perspective of the affected
community as well as the toll road users. The term toll road refers to the overall toll road sections and the
connecting roads.Connecting road is a road that connects an artery road to a toll road. Toll road and its
connecting roads comprise its supporting facilities such as overpass / underpass, guardrail, etc. With reference
to the toll road project that you have choosen, please rate your assessment to some indicators of social
satisfaction according to several criteria in the table below.

Strongly Neut- Strongly

Disagree Agree
No. Indicators of Community Social Satisfaction Disagree ral Agree

1. The existence of the toll road condition including its connecting roads is safe 1 2 3 4 5
(does not harm the community safety/minimum of traffic accident).
2. The existence of the toll road including its connecting roads is secure (does 1 2 3 4 5
not cause socially prone condition such as violence, sexual misconduct, etc. ).
3. Toll road including its connecting roads provides economic benefits to local 1 2 3 4 5
community (e.g, increase in land prices, the growth of business, etc.).
4. Toll road including its connecting roads reduces travelling time. 1 2 3 4 5
5. The existence of the toll road including its connecting roads does not cause 1 2 3 4 5
breaks to community social cohesiveness (i.e.: does not cause social
cohesiveness disharmony, difficulty in community transport access, etc.).
6. The level of pollution (noise, dust, vibration, waste, flood, dirty environment 1 2 3 4 5
etc.) caused by the existence of toll road including its connecting roads is still
tolerable.
7. There is an adequate open space between the toll road, including its 1 2 3 4 5
connecting roads, and its surrounding areas.
8. Community has been involved in the decision-making process of toll road 1 2 3 4 5
development which has affected them (community opinion has been
accommodated in the decision-making process).
9. Motorway users (four wheels and above vehicles) have equal access to the toll 1 2 3 4 5
road.
10. Toll road condition including its connecting roads is convenient. 1 2 3 4 5
11. Toll road tariff is affordable for the community. 1 2 3 4 5
12. Traffic along the toll road and its connecting roads are smooth (not many 1 2 3 4 5
obstacles along the road, toll gate or its connection roads) .
13. There is regulation compliance for the toll road traffic including its connecting 1 2 3 4 5
roads (minimum traffic regulation break).
14. There are adequate services (e.g.: toll road patrol, tow truck, information 1 2 3 4 5
relating to toll road condition, rest area, etc.) on the toll road.
15. Community has supported the existence of the toll road including its 1 2 3 4 5
connecting roads.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads B-37
SUB SECTION B. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION PERFORMANCE
In this research, participation is defined as a process by which people are actively involved in the
decision-making process in the toll road development affecting them. An examples of participation
processes are presentations, meetings, questionnaire survey, field trips and direct interaction with
community, etc. With reference to the toll road project that you have choosen, please rate your assessment to
some indicators of community participation at the time according to several criteria in the table below.

No. Indicators of Community Participation Performance Strongly Neut- Strongly

Disagree Agree
Disagree ral Agree
1. All affected community representatives were involved in the participation 1 2 3 4 5
process.
2. Participation process was conducted transparently (the participation 1 2 3 4 5
process was known by all affected community).
3. There was a rule establishment (mechanism) in the participation process. 1 2 3 4 5
4. Affected communities received adequate information during the process of 1 2 3 4 5
participation.
5. There was sufficient time for the affected communities to be involved in the 1 2 3 4 5
participation process (to receive the information, understand, and give the
input or opinion).
6. Affected communities provided widely constructive inputs during the 1 2 3 4 5
participation process (there is constructive dialogue in the participation
process).
7. Participation process was led by an appropriate moderator/facilitator. 1 2 3 4 5
8. Participation process allowed the affected community to understanding 1 2 3 4 5
about the toll road development.
9. Participation process increased the cooperation between parties involved 1 2 3 4 5
(the government, private sectors and community) so as to streamline the
development process.
10. Participation process was conducted continuously (start from the early 1 2 3 4 5
phase of development until the time being).
11. The outcome of the participation process was comprehensive (considered 1 2 3 4 5
many aspects) .
12. The participation outcome was widely accepted by the community. 1 2 3 4 5
13. The participation outcome was equally distributed to the community. 1 2 3 4 5
14. The participation outcome was implementable. 1 2 3 4 5
15. All parties (government, private and public sectors) respected the outcome 1 2 3 4 5
(committed to implement the decisions which have been made).

SUB SECTION C. TOLL ROAD DESIGN PERFORMANCE

As is in the previous section, in this study the toll road term refers to the overall toll road section and
the connecting roads including its supporting facilities such as overpass / underpass, guardrail, etc.
Furthermore, with reference to the toll road project that you have chosen, please rate your assessment to some
indicators of the design of toll road and its connecting roads including of its supporting facilities according to
several criteria in the table below.

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads B-38
 Strongly Neut- Strongly
No. Indicators of Toll Road Design Performance Disagree Agree
Disagree ral Agree

1. The community was involved in the design process of the toll road 1 2 3 4 5
including its connecting roads which affected them.
2. The design of the toll road including its connecting roads considered the 1 2 3 4 5
community needs.
3. The condition of toll road and its connecting roads is safe (minimized the 1 2 3 4 5
adverse consequences of accidents).
4. The condition of toll road and its connecting roads is comfortable (resulting 1 2 3 4 5
in less fatigue).
5. The design of the toll road including its connecting roads has provided 1 2 3 4 5
appropriate space for vehicle maneuvers.
6. The situation of toll road and its connecting roads is easily understandable 1 2 3 4 5
by users.
7. The design of the toll road including its connecting roads considered 1 2 3 4 5
aesthetic aspects.
8. The design of the toll road including its connecting roads was 1 2 3 4 5
environmentally friendly.

SUB SECTION D. GOVERNMENT’S ROLE PERFORMANCE

In this research, the government is defined as the government in all levels from central to village level.
Several statement in this section will refer to the general government’s role (not only limited to toll road sector)
to describe the government’s role in the toll road development at the time. With reference to the toll road project
that you have choosen, please rate your assessment to some indicators of the government role performance in
the toll road project according to several criteria in the table below.

No Strongly Neut- Strongly

Indicators of Government’s Role Performance in Toll Road Projects Disagree
Disagree
ral
Agree
Agree

1. At the time of the toll road development, the political situation was stable 1 2 3 4 5
(there were no political situation which interfered with government
activities).
2. At the time of the toll road development, the economic condition was stable 1 2 3 4 5
(commodity price was affordable for the community).
3. At the time of the toll road development, the community found bureaucratic 1 2 3 4 5
service easy (ex: permit and approval letter, citizen ID and driving
application procedures, etc.).
4. At the time of the toll road development, corruption eradication was 1 2 3 4 5
consistently conducted (community was free from extortion when dealing
with government institution).
5. At the time of the construction of the toll road, law enforcement was 1 2 3 4 5
consistently executed (ex: officer decisively acts to the traffic offender).
6. The process of land acquisition for the toll road and its connecting roads 1 2 3 4 5
ran smoothly (land acquisition did not happen in very long time).
7. Community aspirations due to the negative impacts of the construction of 1 2 3 4 5
the toll road could be solved well.
8. There was a good communication between government and toll road 1 2 3 4 5
developer (no conflict arose between them which resulted in the delay of
the construction of the toll road and its connecting roads).

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads B-39
 No Strongly Neut- Strongly
Indicators of Government’s Role Performance in Toll Road Projects Disagree
Disagree
ral
Agree
Agree
9. The construction activity did not interfer with community activities (ex: 1 2 3 4 5
vibration, noise, air pollution, congestion, etc.).
10. Developer was capable to complete the entire construction work within the 1 2 3 4 5
targetted time (successfully achieved the operation targeted time of the toll
road).
11. The quality of the toll road and its connecting roads construction is good 1 2 3 4 5
(the damage does not happens quickly).
12. Maintenance of the entire facility along the road connecting highway is well 1 2 3 4 5
managed (toll road and its connecting roads condition are always in good
condition).
13. The duration between two tariff adjustments of the toll road was not too 1 2 3 4 5
long (according to the rule, the tariff adjustment duration is once every 2
years).
14. Many people are using the toll road. 1 2 3 4 5

SECTION III. RESPONDENT BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Please complete the following information for our analysis. We will maintain the confidentiality of information
provided.
1. Name : ________________________
2. Personal contact (where relevant)
 Telp./ Mobile : _______________________
 Email : _______________________
 Adress : _______________________
3. Occupation (where relevant) :
□ Government employee □ Private employee □ Retired employee
□ Employer □ Others, (please specify) : ____________
4. Name of institution (where relevant) : ________________________
5. Position (where relevant):
□ Director □ General Manager □ Division Manager
□ Supervisor □ Staff □ Other (please specify) :___________
6. Work experience (where relevant):
□ < 5 years □ 5-10 years □ 11-15 years □16 – 20 years □ >20 years
7. Education :
□ Doctorate/PhD □ Masters □ Bachelor
□ Diploma □ Senior High School □ Others, (please specify) :________
8. Type of education : □ Engineering □ Non Engineering

------------------------ End of questionnaire. Thank you for your attention and participation -----------------------

Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads B-40
Minerva Access is the Institutional Repository of The University of Melbourne

Author/s:
Rohman, Mohammad Arif

Title:
Stakeholders’ perspective on achieving project social benefit from Indonesian toll roads

Date:
2017

Persistent Link:
http://hdl.handle.net/11343/192348

File Description:
Stakeholders’ Perspective on Achieving Project Social Benefit from Indonesian Toll Roads

Terms and Conditions:

Terms and Conditions: Copyright in works deposited in Minerva Access is retained by the
copyright owner. The work may not be altered without permission from the copyright owner.
Readers may only download, print and save electronic copies of whole works for their own
personal non-commercial use. Any use that exceeds these limits requires permission from
the copyright owner. Attribution is essential when quoting or paraphrasing from these works.