Determining the satisfaction level of water user association service quality for supporting sustainable rural development

Figures & data

Table 1. Financial statement of WUAs ‘Subur Makmur’ for harvest period II of 2018.

No	Description	Revenue (in Rp)	Expenses (in Rp)	Balance (in Rp)
1	Initial Balance in HP (harvest period). I. 2017	1,766,553,363		1,766,553,363
2	Yield for HP.II.2018	1,990,808,100		3,757,361,463
3	Bank Interests	5,032,154		3,762,393,617
4	Taxes and Administration		1,059,931	3,761,333,686
5	Flood Mitigation		17,024,500	3,744,309,186
6	Operating Costs
	• Fuel		267,979,883	3,476,329,303
	• Electricity Service		83,844,786	3,392,484,517
	• Maintenance		46,373,000	3,346,111,517
	• Administration		149,835,480	3,196,276,037
	• Social Fund		1,150,000	3,195,126,037
	• Miscellaneous		49,268,705	3,145,857,332
7	Return 50% of Net Profit
	a. 20% for Management		339,110,879	3,105,972,380
	b. 10% for Administration		169,555,440	2,936,416,940
	c. 2.5% for Zakat Maal		42,388,860	2,894,028,080
	d. 12.5% for WUA's Cash		211,944,300	2,682,083,781
	e. 50% for Maintenance		847,777,198	1,834,306,583
	f. 5% for Village's Cash		84,777,720	1,749,528,863
8	Revenue 5% of profit	211,944,300		1,961,473,163
Total		4,272,503,913	2,311,030,750	1,961,473,163

Sources: Accountability Report of WUAs Administrators, Harvest Period I, 2018.

Table 2. WUAs contribution to village developers.

No	Service Contribution	Total (in Rp)
1	BPD (Village Representative and Supervisor Agency)	34,091,121.00
2	Village Employees (13 people)	3,050,000.00
3	Village Agencies	31,100,000.00
4	Relevant Agencies	4,050,000.00
5	Community Leaders	1,400,000.00
Total		39,600,000.00

Source: Accountability Report of WUAs Administrators, Harvest Period I, 2018.

Table 3. Correlation guide.

Category	Level of significance
0.00–0.199	Very Low
0.20–0.399	Low
0.40–0.599	Medium
0.60–0.799	Strong
0.80–1.000	Very Strong

Table 4. Respondents’ characteristics (N = 88).

Characteristics	Categories	Frequency	Percentage (%)
Memberships	• Farmers as members	77	87
	• Farmers as members and WUAs administrators	11	13
Farmer position	Owner-Farmer	30	34.1
	Renter-Farmer	40	45.5
	Cultivator-Farmer	18	20.4
Area of acquired agricultural land	0.18–0.297 (in hectare)	4	4.5
	0.298–1.415 (in hectare)	49	55.7
	1.416–2.533 (in hectare)	14	15.9
	2.534–3.651 (in hectare)	7	7.9
	3.652–4.769 (in hectare)	4	4.6
	4.77–5.887 (in hectare)	0	0
	5.888–7.005 (in hectare)	3	3.4
	7.006–8.113 (in hectare)	1	1.1
Age	20–35 years old	14	16
	36–50 years old	51	58
	>50 years old	23	26
Educational background	Out of school	5	5.7
	Primary School	31	35.2
	Junior Secondary School	26	29.5
	Senior Secondary School	18	20.4
	Diploma/Bachelor's Degree	8	9.1
Gender	Males	82	93
	Females	6	7
Domicile	Klotok	25	28.4
	Gisik	18	20.4
	Landean	15	17.1
	Lingit	20	22.7
	Karanganyar	10	11.4

Source: Survey Data, 2018.

Table 5. Correlation between satisfaction and service quality.

			Satisfaction	Service
Spearman's rho	Satisfaction	Correlation Coefficient	1.000	.253*
		Sig. (2-tailed)		.017
		N	88	88
	Service Quality	Correlation Coefficient	.253*	1.000
		Sig. (2-tailed)	.017	.
		N	88	88

*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Table 6. Correlation between satisfaction and each indicator of service quality.

			Tangibles	Reliability	Responsiveness	Assurance	Empathy	Satisfaction
Spearman's rho	Tangibles	Correlation Coefficient	1.000	.479**	.377**	.120	.421**	.182
		Sig. (2-tailed)	.	.000	.000	.264	.000	.090
		N	88	88	88	88	88	88
	Reliability	Correlation Coefficient	.479**	1.000	.366**	.240*	.484**	.381**
		Sig. (2-tailed)	.000	.	.000	.024	.000	.000
		N	88	88	88	88	88	88
	Responsiveness	Correlation Coefficient	.377**	.366**	1.000	.500**	.516**	.079
		Sig. (2-tailed)	.000	.000	.	.000	.000	.465
		N	88	88	88	88	88	88
	Assurance	Correlation Coefficient	.120	.240*	.500**	1.000	.405**	.241*
		Sig. (2-tailed)	.264	.024	.000	.	.000	.024
		N	88	88	88	88	88	88
	Empathy	Correlation Coefficient	.421**	.484**	.516**	.405**	1.000	.246*
		Sig. (2-tailed)	.000	.000	.000	.000	.	.021
		N	88	88	88	88	88	88
	Satisfaction	Correlation Coefficient	.182	.381**	.079	.241*	.246*	1.000
		Sig. (2-tailed)	.090	.000	.465	.024	.021	.
		N	88	88	88	88	88	88

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Table 7. Weight and rank of WUAs members satisfaction.

Satisfaction indicators	Rank	Items	Statistical Test Values
Process	2	Standard service procedure for receiving complaints and solving problems	0.577
Product	1	Development of WUAs facilities and infrastructure for agricultural irrigation service provision.	0.585
Price	4	Contribution charged to members to cover WUAs operating expenses	0.358
Place-Channel	3	Channels used for communication between a member and an administrator and between an administrator and another for the smoothness of agricultural irrigation service provision	0.495
Promotion	7	Information and communication media for providing information regarding WUAs activities and products produced	0.285
Physical Evidence	5	Appearance of facilities and infrastructure owned with regard to irrigation service	0.394
Participants	6	Skill training as problem resolution, application of rewarding	0.310

Table 8. Weight and rank of service quality variables.

Indicators	Items	Weight	Rank
Tangibles	Facility and infrastructure presence (office building, irrigation network, condition of WUAs office, other equipment for water pumping, etc.), appearance, etiquette of WUAs officers or administrators in providing services for members.	0.235	5
Reliability	Forms of cooperation between WUAs administrators and other stakeholders, forms of information for members, forms of problem-solving, etc.	0.393	4
Responsiveness	Response and attitude of WUAs administrators in providing services for members and solving problems.	0.480	3
Assurance	Administrators’ ability to solve problems with the support of facilities and infrastructure, which convinced members about the service provision.	0.495	1
Empathy	Availability of time, attention to complaints, and problem-solving.	0.481	2

Sources: Research data and Statistical Test Values.