Yudha P. HESTON[1]
ABSTRACT
Economic valuation of water use program Water Supply and Sanitation Community Based (PAMSIMAS) have been conducted to illustrate to the beneficiary communities, the importance of sustainability PAMSIMAS program, and values that built.
The analysis was done using the criteria of cost benefit analysis with Cost-Benefit Ratio and Pay Back Period and analysis Ability to Pay. By looking at the economic feasibility, which is characterized by the value of Cost-Benefit Ratio of more than 1.
From the economic valuation is done, the program gained PAMSIMAS cost-benefit ratio in the research location, Tasikmalaya regency 7.42, Banjar regency 7.88 and Kupang city 4.45. Pay back period is less than the age of the project, for 20 years. Beneficiary communities need to get an idea of the economic figures from the valuation.
KEYWORDS: economic, valuation, supply, drinking water, community
INTRODUCTION
Human life can not be separated from the water. A study says, to men grow old; the composition of the water in the human body exceeds 50%. In everyday life human needs for water, not less than 50 liter. Both of these demonstrate the important role of water in sustainable livelihoods. Need for water as an indicator of sustainability of development, have been conducted by the Indonesian government. Activities of a project or program in the availability of water access have been performed. One of the government programs related to water supply and sanitation to communities is a program PAMSIMAS (Drinking Water and Sanitation Management of Community-Based).
PAMSIMAS is real action programs and government and society with the support of the World Bank.
PAMSIMAS Program is a community-based program, so that the sustainability of water supply from PAMSIMAS, it depends on the capacity and capability of the beneficiary communities. One of the government's efforts to increase the sense of program ownership, namely by requiring contributions in cash 4% of the community. So the total contribution from the community is 20% (plus 16% in-kind contributions, in the form of labor and materials).
An effort to get a sense of community, through the financing role, has not been entirely successful. People feel overwhelmed and fundraising efforts are not entirely derived from society. Another effort to get a sense of ownership of the program is to demonstrate the benefits that can be obtained figures of society, from the existence of the program PAMSIMAS. Due to this, the sustainability of water supply, institutional management, order contributions and other development can be enhanced.
The research conducted was to see, great contribution to the cost and value advantages to be gained, so that beneficiaries have a positive response which affect the sustainability of water supply at the sites.
BASIC THEORY
Evaluation of economic feasibility is analyzed using the criteria of cost benefit analysis Cost-Benefit Ratio and Pay Back Period and analysis Ability to Pay. The economic feasibility is indicated if the CBR value of more than 1. The present value obtained by discount it. Discount rate is a certain coefficient that will determine the level of social opportunity cost (Gray, 1997). In Indonesia there is no social interest rate determined in general by Bappenas, but the figures used are usually present at between 10-15% of it. (Gray, 1997). To get the extreme results in this study used the maximum discount rate that is generally used, namely 15%.
Further consideration to consider is to determine the costs and benefits. The cost of the project is classified into four types, namely Preparation Costs, Investment Costs, Operating Costs, and Costs of Maintenance and Repair (Kadariah, 1999). The next component is a benefit. The benefits that will occur on a project can be divided into three namely Benefits Direct, Indirect Benefits and Related Benefits (Kadariah, 1999).
Cost-Benefit Ratio is a comparison analysis to determine the benefits and costs in the implementation PAMSIMAS. The formula used to obtain the value of Cost-Benefit Ratio is:
|
|
Which, Bt: gross social benefits of the project in year t.
Ct: gross social cost of the project in year t.
n: Useful life of the project.
i: Opportunity for social capital expressed as a social discount rate.
A criterion for the second analysis is Pay Back Period. Pay Back Period of time required for the benefits of the project has covered all of the costs previously (Tarin, 2005). To obtain the actual time value, then the costs and benefits that are used are also the true value (with discount). These criteria are the same concept with a Break Event Point, if the time when the input value equal to the value of output, or in a position gain value 0 (zero). An eligibility criterion is obtained if the value of Pay Back Period is less than the predicted age of the project.
METHODOLOGY
Implementation PAMSIMAS will run optimally when the pattern used by using community participation. This participation pattern has implications for the perpetrator or the source of most of the costs of self-help. Thus the picture of the benefits and costs is not enough to conduct a feasibility study. Economic feasibility on the other side also needs to look at executive ability, in this society. This research is a comprehensive economic study by analyzing Ability to Pay. Ability to Pay is an analysis to determine the extent to which communities are able to pay for implementation PAMSIMAS through survey research techniques open question.
Open questions also called unstructured questions are questions that the answer choice is not provided, so that the respondents have to formulate their own answers (Faisal, 1995). This technique was chosen because there is no limit value in determining the level of Ability to Pay. Value of Ability to Pay is generally obtained from the mean value of respondents' answers. If the respondent is able to pay equal or exceed the estimated cost, it is feasible PAMSIMAS developed.
Social feasibility studies conducted to determine the level of community acceptance and willingness to participate were analyzed from the survey data. The survey was conducted to collect socio-economic data that affect the feasibility of implementing community based PAMSIMAS household unit of analysis. Household was chosen as the unit of analysis with the consideration that household is the subject once the main object in the implementation PAMSIMAS. Sampling was carried out by quota sampling technique. This technique is done by determining the sample with a certain amount and according to Faisal (1995) suitable for collecting data about public opinion, like the purpose of this study to determine the perception and the willingness of society to the implementation PAMSIMAS.
Population and Sample
Random sampling design with Cluster Proportional to Population Size transactions are carried out by means of
i. Dividing the study area, ie each county or city sites (Kupang City, Banjar Regency and Tasikmalaya Regency) by 64 household in the sample, into a cluster Sub drawn at random, then from the sub-cluster will be deployed to the village level, namely:
ii. Setting the number of clusters to be selected on the basis of the unity of the desired sample analysis, from district to village.
iii. Setting the number of samples per village via proportional to population size by using the formula:
|
|
· Kupang City
Ø Nunbaun Sabu sub distric = 142 household (3 rukun warga/ community harmony) à sample: 7 household
Ø Naikolan sub district = 399 household (5 rukun warga/ community harmony) à sample: 19 household
Ø Liliba sub district = 791 household (rukun warga/ community harmony) à sample: 38 household
· Tasikmalaya Regency
Ø Wakap Village = 512 household (1 sub village) à sample: 24 household
Ø Cidugaleun Village = 623 household (2 sub village) à sample: 30 household
Ø Cinunjang Village = 212 household (5 sub village) à sample: 10 household
· Banjar Regency
Ø Awang Bangkal Barat Village = 814 household (7 neighbourhood) à sample: 31 household
Ø sungkai baru village = 463 household (2 neighbourhood) à sample: 17 household
Ø lok tamu village = 429 household (2 neighbourhood) à sample: 16 household
DATA AND ANALYSIS
Economic valuation is intended to raise public awareness of beneficiaries, on the implementation of PAMSIMAS. Total cost of activities in each location budgeted Rp. 275,000,000.00 which is obtained from sharing the central government, provincial, district / city and the community. Differences between the sites will be visible on the contribution of the community in the years subsequent to the operation and maintenance PAMSIMAS. Economic valuation analysis conducted for a period of 20 years, which is estimated as a mean age of PAMSIMAS with 16% discount rate.
PAMSIMAS costs consist of construction costs or the clean water and sanitation, the operational costs of Community Self Support Institution or Lembaga Keswadayaan Masyarakat LKM, Clean and Healthy Live Behavior or Perilaku Hidup Bersih dan Sehat PHBS implementation costs, as well as operation and maintenance costs PAMSIMAS. The initial cost PAMSIMAS at each study site as presented in Table 1.
The high allocation of costs for construction, is a good choice, mainly because the infrastructure water supply, is the main aim of the program PAMSIMAS. From table 1. it can be seen that there are two villages in Tasikmalaya (Cidugaleun and Wakap) and one village in Banjar (Lok Tamu) has a large portion of construction costs.
The cost of the establishment of LKM should not have too large portions, because for the operational needs of LKM can use the funds collected if the infrastructure is already running. So that needs a relatively high LKM costs in the city of Kupang, should receive further attention.
Table 1. Initial Cost Development PAMSIMAS
Tasikmalaya Regency
| Component | Cidugaleun Village | Cinunjang Village | Wakap Village |
| Construction cost | Rp. 241.075.055 | Rp. 233.365.550 | Rp. 241.200.000 |
| LKM cost | Rp. 13.056.450 | Rp. 8.852.880 | Rp. 10.261.100 |
| PHBS cost | Rp. 32.781.650 | Rp. 32.781.650 | Rp. 23.539.400 |
| Total | Rp. 275.000.000 | Rp. 274.734.155 | Rp. 275.000. 500 |
Banjar Regency
| Component | Awang BB Village | Sungkai Baru Village | Lok Tamu Village |
| Construction cost | Rp. 237.857.706 | Rp. 235.671.000 | Rp. 240.610.000 |
| LKM cost | Rp. 12.147.000 | Rp. 16.985.000 | Rp.11.890.000 |
| PHBS cost | Rp. 25.000.000 | Rp. 22.344.000 | Rp.22.500.000 |
| Total | Rp. 275.004.706 | Rp. 275.000. 000 | Rp.275.000.000 |
Kupang City
| Component | Naikolan | Liliba | Nunbaunsabu |
| Construction cost | Rp. 188.973.000 | Rp. 214.516.700 | Rp. 195.126.219 |
| LKM cost | Rp. 14.272.000 | Rp. 35.000.000 | Rp. 40.000.000 |
| PHBS cost | Rp. 24.517.500 | Rp. 25.000.000 | Rp. 39.500.000 |
| Total | Rp. 227.762.500 | Rp. 274.516.700 | Rp. 274.626.219 |
Source : RKM (2009) and interview (2010)
Total costs in table 1. issued in the first year. Issued by the next stage for the operation and maintenance costs (OP) means PAMSIMAS. These fees are charged entirely to the user community PAMSIMAS. Cost of each household (HH) is determined based on water consumption and economic group. Payments are made each month by taking into account operational costs and maintenance required compared to the number of existing household. These costs are routinely issued every year. OP costs for each village are shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Operation and Maintenance Costs PAMSIMAS every year
Tasikmalaya Regency
| Component | Cidugaleun Village | Cinunjang Village | Wakap Village |
| OM cost | Rp. 36.855.717 | Rp.43.440.000 | Rp. 11.400.000 |
Banjar Regency
| Component | Awang BB Village | Sungkai Baru Village | Lok Tamu Village |
| OM cost | Rp. 33.987.623 | Rp. 33.987.623 | Rp. 33.336.000 |
Kupang City
| Component | Naikolan | Liliba | Nunbaunsabu |
| OM cost | Rp. 162.000.000 | Rp. 122.040.000 | Rp. 43.200.000 |
Source : RKM (2009) and interview (2010)
The next assessment is to benefit. Direct benefits from the development PAMSIMAS include consumer expenditure efficiency in water consumption and expenditure efficiency from the decrease in disease in another word environmental health improvement. Another benefit is actually the economic improvement of society, but could not valuate because of the wide range predictions and there is no example in research location communities that use water directly in the economy business. Another economic variables benefits difficult to predict, because range area and water economic value is based on the average standard price of water tank. PAMSIMAS target area is region that difficult to acces water supply and difficult to access Regional Company of Water Supply or Perusahaan Daerah Air Minum PDAM facilities. Therefore, assuming the price of water used, is a water tank (truck) to buy, before there PAMSIMAS. The average price of a water tank was Rp. 50,000 with capacity of 5000 liter or 1 liter for Rp. 10. Average water demand based on the questionnaire population 80 liters every day per capita. Each household in the study area average consists of 4 persons. Thus, spending each month to be borne before there PAMSIMAS household is 80 liter x Rp. 10/liter x 4 people x 30 days = Rp. 96 000. Efficiency of expenditure resulting from the expenditure was reduced by the cost / fees incurred for PAMSIMAS now. Table 3 shows the total efficiency of expenditure received by the public water in one year.
Table 3. Total Expenditure for Consumption of Water Efficiency every year
Tasikmalaya Regency
| Village | Served household | contribution every months | Total Efficiency |
| Cidugaluen | 623 | Rp. 15.000 | Rp. 605.556.000 |
| Cinunjang | 724 | Rp. 16.000 | Rp. 695.040.000 |
| Wakap | 190 | Rp. 36.000 | Rp. 136.800.000 |
Banjar Regency
| Village | Served household | contribution every months | Total Efficiency |
| Awang BB | 531 | Rp. 5.000 | Rp. 579.852.000 |
| Sungkai Baru | 444 | Rp. 5.000 | Rp. 484.848.000 |
| Lok Tamu | 463 | Rp. 9.625 | Rp. 479.899.500 |
Kupang City
| Sub district | Served household | contribution every months | Total Efficiency |
| Naikolan | 900 | Rp. 15.000 | Rp. 874.800.000 |
| Liliba | 678 | Rp. 15.000 | Rp. 659.016.000 |
| Nunbaunsabu | 240 | Rp.15.000 | Rp. 233.280.000 |
Source: RKM (2009) and interview (2010)
The next benefit is the efficiency due to the reduction of suffering diseases caused by water and environmental sanitation. In this case the efficiency of each household is assumed to occur is the Rp50000 per annum which was originally issued for treatment (Table 4). Other benefits will be obtained directly if the program continues to develop lan sectors, such as economic enterprises. Therefore it needs the synergy program stakeholders for the implementation of advanced anar PAMSIMAS.
Table 4. Total Health Expenditure Efficiency every year
Tasikmalaya Regency
| Village | Served household | Total Efficiency |
| Cidugaluen | 623 | Rp. 31.150.000 |
| Cinunjang | 724 | Rp. 36.200.000 |
| Wakap | 190 | Rp. 9.500.000 |
Banjar Regency
| Village | Served household | Total Efficiency |
| Awang BB | 531 | Rp. 26.550.000 |
| Sungkai Baru | 444 | Rp. 22.200.000 |
| Lok Tamu | 463 | Rp. 23.150.000 |
Kupang City
| Sub district | Served household | Total Efficiency |
| Naikolan | 900 | Rp. 45.000.000 |
| Liliba | 678 | Rp. 33.900.000 |
| Nunbaunsabu | 240 | Rp. 12.000.000 |
Source: RKM (2009) and interview (2010)
Based on the PAMSIMAS valuated costs and benefits, economic feasibility of using an assumption of 20 years age program and the interest rate discount of 15%. Table 5 shows the value of cash benefits (net benefit) exceed the net cost to get it. The difference is the value of net benefit of both the present value (NPV). NPV in all villages is positive, meaning that cost-benefit ratio will be above 1 (shown in Table 4). Based on this value, economicly PAMSIMAS is feasible to continue in the study area.
Table 5. Result Analysis PAMSIMAS cost-benefit ratio
Tasikmalaya Regency
| Parameter | Cidugaleun Village | Cinunjang Village | Wakap Village |
| Net Cost (15%) | Rp. 510.413.210,38 | Rp. 510.679.055,38 | Rp. 412.557.477,59 |
| Net Benefit (15%) | Rp.4.579.826.258 | Rp. 5.483.995.920,00 | Rp.1.052.335.900 |
| Net Present Value | Rp.4.069.413.047,62 | Rp.4.973.316.864,62 | Rp.639.778.422,41 |
| Cost-Benefit Ratio | 8,97 | 10,74 | 2,55 |
Banjar Regency
| Parameter | Awang BB Village | Sungkai Baru Village | Lok Tamu Village |
| Net Cost (15%) | Rp. 492.921.655,24 | Rp. 492.916.949,24 | Rp. 488.881.448 |
| Net Benefit (15%) | Rp.4.361.849.586 | Rp.3.647.196.264 | Rp.3.618.435.054 |
| Net Present Value | Rp.3.868.927.930,76 | Rp.3.154.279.314,76 | Rp.3.129.553.606 |
| Cost-Benefit Ratio | 8,85 | 7,39 | 7,40 |
Kupang City
| Parameter | Naikolan | Liliba | Nunbaunsabu |
| Net Cost (15%) | Rp. 1.238.460.100 | Rp. 1.037.742.020 | Rp. 549.595.419 |
| Net Benefit (15%) | Rp. 6.616.121.400 | Rp. 4.984.144.788 | Rp.1.764.299.040 |
| Net Present Value | Rp. 5.377.661.300 | Rp. 3.946.402.768 | Rp.1.214.703.621 |
| Cost-Benefit Ratio | 5,34 | 4,80 | 3,21 |
Source: RKM (2009) and interview (2010)
PAMSIMAS development initial cost comparison of the in study location, suggesting that the region has a composition of Tasikmalaya Regency the best allocation of the cost. Banjar Regency relative allocation of costs is almost the same. Cost allocation in Kupang city for PAMSIMAS implementation, requiring more attention.
Tabel 6. PAMSIMAS Initial Cost
| Component | Tasikmalaya Regency | Banjar Regency | Kupang City |
| Construction cost | Rp.238.546.868 | Rp.238.242.902 | Rp.199.538.640 |
| LKM cost | Rp.10.723.477 | Rp.13.131.033 | Rp.29.757.333 |
| PHBS cost | Rp.29.700.900 | Rp.23.627.800 | Rp.29.672.500 |
| Total | Rp.274.911.552 | Rp.275.001.735 | Rp.258.968.473 |
Source : RKM (2009) and interview (2010)
On table 7. can be seen that the operational cost and maintenance of facilities in the city of Kupang PAMSIMAS relatively high. This is understandable because the materials to build facilities to come from Surabaya (East Java), so the price of goods are still high plus postage.
Simak
Baca secara fonetik
Table 7. Facility Operation and Maintenance Costs PAMSIMAS every year
| Component | Tasikmalaya Regency | Banjar Regency | Kupang City |
| OM cost | Rp.30.565.239 | Rp.33.770.415 | Rp.109.080.000 |
Source: RKM (2009) and interview (2010)
In table 8. can be seen the total efficiency expenditures of an urban / rural, in a year if every household keeps using water from PAMSIMAS program. For example, in Kupang city, can perform cost efficiency almost reaches 600 million every year. This can be happen, because previously many people used water tanker trucks as water resources.Simak
Baca secara fonetik
Table 8. Total Expenditure for Water Consumption Efficiency every year
| Regency / City | Served household | Contribution every month | Total Efficiency | Household efficiency |
| Tasikmalaya | 512 | Rp.22.300 | Rp.479.132.000 | Rp.935.805 |
| Banjar | 479 | Rp.6.500 | Rp.514.866.500 | Rp.1.074.878 |
| Kupang | 606 | Rp.15.000 | Rp.589.032.000 | Rp.972.000 |
Source : RKM (2009) and interview (2010)
Total health expenditure efficiency in study location shown in table 9. Cumulatively, there will be a saving of 23 to 30 million, from water use PAMSIMAS. This shows an increase in the level of public health in rural environments.
Table 9. Total Health Expenditure Efficiency every year
| Regency of/City | Served household | Total Efficiency |
| Tasikmalaya | 512 | Rp.25.616.667 |
| Banjar | 479 | Rp.23.966.667 |
| Kupang | 606 | Rp.30.300.000 |
Source : RKM (2009) and interview (2010)
Table 10. shows that drinking water infrastructure investments such as community-based programs need to be maintained because PAMSIMAS has more advantages than it cost. Especially for Kupang city, found in most low-cost benefit ratio compared to two other research sites, but still more than one. However PAMSIMAS form such program needs to continue to be developed, considering the specific condition, which is a less available water source.
Simak
Baca secara fonetik
Table 10. Result Analysis PAMSIMAS cost-benefit ratio
| Parameter | Regency of Tasikmalaya | Regency of Banjar | City Kupang |
| Net Cost (15%) | Rp.477.883.247 | Rp.491.573.350 | Rp.941.932.513 |
| Net Benefit (15%) | Rp.3.705.386.026 | Rp.3.875.826.968 | Rp.4.454.855.076 |
| Net Present Value | Rp.3.227.502.778 | Rp.3.384.253.617 | Rp.3.512.922.563 |
| Cost-Benefit Ratio | 7,42 | 7,88 | 4,45 |
Source: RKM (2009) and interview (2010)
Analysis to determine the pay back period, ie in the year to how much the cost has been offset by the benefits obtained cumulatively. Payback period lies in the intersection of cost and net net benefit (point break event point). From the calculation, showing that the pay back period long before the 20th, and some even before the first year.
CONCLUSION
Total cost of implementation PAMSIMAS Rp. 275,000,000.00, including 4% in cash amounting to Rp 11 million. It used for drinking water and sanitation facilities construction costs, the operational costs of LKM, PHBS implementation costs, as well as operational and maintenance costs means PAMSIMAS very worthy to be invested and developed. This statement is supported by the valuation results in a cost-benefit ratio of 7.42 PAMSIMAS Tasikmalaya Regency, Regency Banjar 7.88 and Kupang City 4.45. The benefit was primarily in the efficiency of expenditure to access drinking water and improve community health status.
Beneficiary community needs to get an idea of the economic figures, after they implemented the program PAMSIMAS. So that together they try to maintain the sustainability of their drinking water supplies independently, through the maintenance of infrastructure institutional management, order fee, and increasing the capacity and capability in the management of drinking water. Especially since the value of benefits, cause payback period can be very quickly accomplished.
REFERENCES
· Material Exposure Dr.Widodo Brontowiyono, in Social Studies Focus Group Disscussion PAMSIMAS Economic Management at Tasikmalaya, June 2010
· Gleick, P.H. 1996. Basic Water Requirements for Human Activities: Meeting Basic Needs. Oakland CA, Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security.
· Pedoman Pelaksanaan Pamsimas di tingkat masyarakat. www.pamsimas.org
· Gray, C., 1997, Pengantar Evaluasi Proyek Edisi Kedua, PT.Gramedia, Jakarta
· Kadariah, 1999, Evaluasi Proyek Analisa Ekonomi Edisi Satu, LPFE-UI, Jakarta
· Faisal, S., 1999, Format-format Penelitian Sosial: Dasar-dasar dan Aplikasi, Rajawali Press, Jakarta
[1] ST.MT, Balai Penelitian dan Pengembangan Sosial Ekonomi Bidang Permukiman,pracastino@yahoo.com, Indonesia
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar