Volume 3, Number 14, December 2022 e-ISSN: 2797-6068 and p-ISSN: 2777-0915
Josep Rival Sibuea,
Wateno Oetomo, Risma Marleno
Universitas 17 Agustus 1945
Surabaya, Indonesia
Email: [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected]
|
KEYWORDS Network
PDAM Distribution, Eligibility Investment |
ABSTRACT Clean water is the most basic need for humans and other living things.
In Indonesia, the government's responsibility for fulfilling clean water is
regulated in article 5 of Law Number 7 of 2004 concerning Water Resources,
where the state guarantees everyone's right to obtain water for minimum daily
basic needs in order to fulfill a healthy, clean life. and productive. The
purpose of the research based on the formulation of the problems that occur
is to determine the feasibility analysis of investment in the distribution
network development of PDAM Tirta Bening Lontar in Penkase Oeleta Village,
Alak District, Kupang City, in terms of financial, social and economic
aspects. Data collection methods used in this research are observation and
literature study. Feasibility Investment Analysis using the Pay Back Period
(PBP) Method, Net Present Value (NPV) Method, Internal Rate Of Return (IRR)
Method, Probability Ratio (PR) and Break Event Point (BEP). Based on the
results of the analysis and discussion regarding the feasibility analysis of
the investment from the financial aspect with an investment assessment: Net
Present Value (NVP), Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR), Payback Period (PP) and
Internal Rate Of Return (IRR) the project is feasible to implement. (NPV >
0) so the project is feasible to continue. If BCR ≥ 1, then it is said
that the project is acceptable or feasible. The payback period is 4.24 years.
The criteria for analyzing social and economic aspects are for regional
development funds 30% and general reserve funds 15% including regional
development funds of Rp. 39,515,617.00 and a general reserve fund of Rp.
19,757,809.00. |
INTRODUCTION
Clean water is the most basic needs for humans and
creatures life other . Man could endure without eat in period time 3 days, however they no could endure During that without
consume water drinking). Water is source life for every creature life (Fazly, 2014). In Indonesia, responsibility answer
government to fulfillment of clean water arranged in Article 5 of the Law Number
7 of 2004 concerning Source Water Power, where the state garantees
right everyone for �get
water for need daily minimum To use Fulfill healthy, clean and productive life.
But in fact, the government not yet could Fulfill need over the whole water
society in Indonesia Sriyan, 2010). this supported by.
Problems arise in fulfillment clean water needs is system clean water
distribution to area the place Live resident no smoothly. For resolve matter the
needed network good and capable distribution of clean water for serve clean
water needs for residents in the area. Besides problem distribution is also a
problem capacity from the clean water treatment system (IPA) to constraint with
keep going development total population in the future ( Prihastuti , 2014). With development civilization as
well as the more increase total resident with itself add activity diverse life.
Previously Public local more tend domiciled on the edge river because they with
easy get water on the river, will but because growth increasing population
increases which is also accompanied by enhancement level economy Public so
domicile residents have �growing in the area land located away
from the flow river (Kusuma & Sandhyavitri,
2014).
In line with growth and development total resident
accompanied development and development economy so need to clean water supply
also increased. Development of clean water facilities and infrastructure which
is one of the sector support welfare Public must built in a manner programmed
and sustainable to make it happen even distribution development. PDAM Tirta Bening Lontar as clean
water manager need with quick carry out improvement and development programs
network distribution of clean water in order to get expand service as well as
Upgrade clean water service. Development decisions network distribution this
should take into account appropriateness investment.
Appropriateness investment done for evaluate is something investment worthy done
or no reviewed from a number of aspect. Meaning from
evaluate aspects this is detect possibility exists failure in the activity
turned out to be no profitable.
The purpose of this study was to
determine the feasibility analysis of the development of distribution network
distribution network investment PDAM Tirta Bening Lontar in Penkase Oeleta
Village, Alak District, Kupang City, in terms of financial, social and economic
aspects.
�� The
benefits of this study are to get an overview of the results of the
distribution network development activities of PDAM Tirta Bening Lontar in
Penkase Oeleta Village, Alak District, Kupang City, in terms of financial,
social and economic aspects, as the development of knowledge in the field of
Project Management in the future, the results of this study can be used as
reference material for future research on the same topic and as a guide for
implementing similar projects in the future.
RESEARCH METHOD
Type research used is
studies case. Studies case is study with process and analyze the data obtained
then interesting conclusion . Research location this are in the Village pencase
Oeleta, District Alak, Kupang City, East Nusa Tenggara Province
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Analysis
Appropriateness Investment
a. �� Forecasting
Amount Customer
In count projection increase total customer could use
equation :
Pn � = Po1+ r) n
P2022 = P2021 + (1 + 2.08 % Po) 1
= 44,242 + (1 + 2.08 % Po) 1
= 45,163 SRs
Is known if total
customers in Residential Areas pencase Oeleta, district
Alak, Kupang City, (Po =
44.242 SR) with level rate increase customers (r = 2.08%) then projection
customers in 2022 is (Pn = 45,163 SR) and at the end
year calculation investment namely in 2040 ( Pn = 45,226 SR). Where are
the results calculation the is the next data used in analyze appropriateness
investment to development network distribution of PDAM Tirta
Bening Lontar then magnitude increase customer every
the year could foreseen as seen in Table 1:
Table 1
Projection of the Number
of Customers in Kec. Alak Year 2021 Until 2040
|
No |
Year |
Customer (SR) |
|
1 |
2021 |
45.163 |
|
2 |
2022 |
45,167 |
|
3 |
2023 |
45,170 |
|
4 |
2024 |
45,173 |
|
5 |
2025 |
45,176 |
|
6 |
2026 |
45,180 |
|
7 |
2027 |
45,183 |
|
8 |
2028 |
45,186 |
|
9 |
2029 |
45,190 |
|
10 |
2030 |
45,193 |
|
11 |
2031 |
45,196 |
|
12 |
2032 |
45,200 |
|
13 |
2033 |
45,203 |
|
14 |
2034 |
45,206 |
|
15 |
2035 |
45,210 |
|
16 |
2036 |
45,213 |
|
17 |
2037 |
45,216 |
|
18 |
2038 |
45,219 |
|
19 |
2039 |
45,223 |
|
20 |
2040 |
45,226 |
Source: Data Processing, (2022)
Based on Table 1, it can be
seen that the number of customers in 2040 is
45.226 SR.
b. Estimation of Production and Distribution Costs and Selling Price of
Water
The amount of production costs
and sales revenue can be calculated by the equation:
Cost of Production = Expenditure
Cost
Production Volume
= 5,726,209,226.00 /
1,627,284
= 3518.00
/m3
Revenue ��� = �������� Sales���
Distribution
Volume
= 10,150,125,001.73
/ 1,476,292
=
6,875.00/m3
Consequence leakage 9.28 % then cost production to be:
Pn � = Po (1 + r) 1 = 3,518 (1 + 9.28 %) 1 =
3,846.00 / m3
So sales and costs
operational from 2022 to _ in 2040 can seen in Table 2:
Table 2
Sales and Costs operational
|
Year |
Amount Customer |
Consumption (m3/ year) |
selling price (m3) |
Cost shrinkage (m3) |
Income From Sales Water (C)t |
Cost Production and operational (C)o |
|
A |
B |
C |
D |
E |
F= C x D |
G =
C x E |
|
2021 |
45.163 |
695,774 |
6,875 |
3,846 |
4,783,446,594 |
2,675,946,996 |
|
2022 |
45,167 |
701524 |
6,875 |
3,846 |
4,822,977,500 |
2,698,061,304 |
|
2023 |
45,170 |
723,876 |
6,875 |
3,846 |
4,976,649,150 |
2,784,028,019 |
|
2024 |
45,173 |
752,872 |
6,875 |
3,846 |
5,175,995,138 |
2,895,545,789 |
|
2025 |
45,176 |
787,821 |
6,875 |
3,846 |
5,416,269,513 |
3,029,959,643 |
|
2026 |
45,180 |
815551 |
6,875 |
3,846 |
5,606,912,114 |
3,136,608,581 |
|
2027 |
45,183 |
846198 |
6,875 |
3,846 |
5,817,610,205 |
3,254,476,923 |
|
2028 |
45,186 |
876,845 |
6,875 |
3,846 |
6,028,308,296 |
3,372,345,266 |
|
2029 |
45,190 |
907,492 |
6,875 |
3,846 |
6,239,006,386 |
3,490,213,609 |
|
2030 |
45,193 |
938,139 |
6,875 |
3,846 |
6,449,704,477 |
3,608,081,952 |
|
2031 |
45,196 |
968,786 |
6,875 |
3,846 |
6,660,402,568 |
3,725,950,294 |
|
2032 |
44,287 |
999,433 |
6,875 |
3,846 |
6,871,100,658 |
3,843,818,637 |
|
2033 |
45,203 |
1,030,080 |
6,875 |
3,846 |
7,081,798,749 |
3,961,686,980 |
|
2034 |
45,206 |
1,060,727 |
6,875 |
3,846 |
7,292,496,839 |
4,079,555,323 |
|
2035 |
45,210 |
1,091,374 |
6,875 |
3,846 |
7,503,194,930 |
4,197,423,666 |
|
2036 |
45,213 |
1,122,021 |
6,875 |
3,846 |
7,713,893,021 |
4,315,292,008 |
|
2037 |
45,216 |
1,152,668 |
6,875 |
3,846 |
7,924,591,111 |
4,433,160,351 |
|
2038 |
45,219 |
1,183,315 |
6,875 |
3,846 |
8,135,289,202 |
4,551,028,694 |
|
2039 |
45,223 |
1,213,962 |
6,875 |
3,846 |
8,345,987,293 |
4,668,897,037 |
|
2040 |
45,226 |
1,244,609 |
6,875 |
3,846 |
8,556,685,383 |
4,786,765,379 |
Source:
Data Processing, (2022)
������ Based on Table 2 is known income and
expenses operational experience enhancement every 5 years by 10%.
Discussion
Financial Aspect
Analysis based on financial aspects on
evaluation with use method Net Present
Value (NPV), Benefit Coast Ratio (BCR), Internal
Rate Of Return (IRR), Payback Period e (PP).
a. Net Present Value (NPV)
Net
Present Value (NPV) is based on the concept discount whole cash flow
to mark now. With discount all cash inflow and cash outflow During age project
to mark now then count number net so will is known the difference.
NPV year 2021:
= 4,783,446,594 / (1 + 5.25 %) - 2,675,946,996 / (1 +
5.25 %)
= Rp. 131,718,725 (NPV
> 0)
From the results project NPV calculation
development network distribution obtained NPV value of Rp. 131,718,725 (NPV
> 0). So invest development network distribution area housing area
sub-district reason city kupang worthy for continued
. Positive NPV value or more big of (> 0) indicates
that reception more big compared to with invested value.
So NPV value of 2022 to in 2040 can seen in Table 3:
Table 3
�Net
Present Value from 2022 to year 2040
|
Year |
Revenue From Sales |
Production and Operational Costs |
Interest rate |
|
|
Water (C)t |
(C)o |
NPV 1 |
||
|
2021 |
4,783,446,594 |
2,675,946,996 |
0.0625 |
131,718,725 |
|
2022 |
4,822,977,500 |
2,698,061,304 |
0.0625 |
132,807,262 |
|
2023 |
4,976,649,150 |
2,784,028,019 |
0.0625 |
137,038,821 |
|
2024 |
5,175,995,138 |
2,895,545,789 |
0.0625 |
142,528,084 |
|
2025 |
5,416,269,513 |
3,029,959,643 |
0.0625 |
149,144,367 |
|
2026 |
5,606,912,114 |
3,136,608,581 |
0.0625 |
154,393,971 |
|
2027 |
5,817,610,205 |
3,254,476,923 |
0.0625 |
160,195,830 |
|
2028 |
6,028,308,296 |
3,372,345,266 |
0.0625 |
165,997,689 |
|
2029 |
6,239,006,386 |
3,490,213,609 |
0.0625 |
171,799,549 |
|
2030 |
6,449,704,477 |
3,608,081,952 |
0.0625 |
177,601,408 |
|
2031 |
6,660,402,568 |
3,725,950,294 |
0.0625 |
183,403,267 |
|
2032 |
6,871,100,658 |
3,843,818,637 |
0.0625 |
189.205.126 |
|
2033 |
7,081,798,749 |
3,961,686,980 |
0.0625 |
195,006,986 |
|
2034 |
7,292,496,839 |
4,079,555,323 |
0.0625 |
200,808,845 |
|
2035 |
7,503,194,930 |
4,197,423,666 |
0.0625 |
206,610,704 |
|
2036 |
7,713,893,021 |
4,315,292,008 |
0.0625 |
212,412,563 |
|
2037 |
7,924,591,111 |
4,433,160,351 |
0.0625 |
218,214,423 |
|
2038 |
8,135,289,202 |
4,551,028,694 |
0.0625 |
224,016,282 |
|
2039 |
8,345,987,293 |
4,668,897,037 |
0.0625 |
229,818,141 |
|
2040 |
8,556,685,383 |
4,786,765,379 |
0.0625 |
235,620,000 |
Source : Processing Data, (2022)
b. Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR)
The use of the
Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) is very often used in evaluating projects for the
public interest and not the company's financial interests, in this case the
emphasis is on benefits ( Soeharto, 1997). For knowing the
B/C ratio , there is formula certain can _ used for count it . Required
data including the total cost expenditure and amount income per year .
B/C
ratio formula for year 2021 is as following this :
����������� B/C
ratio = amount revenue / total cost product
BCR ���� ����������� = 4,783,446,594�
����������������������������������� 2,675,946,996
����������������������������������� =
1.78 (BCR > 1)
If BCR ≥ 1,
then it is said that the benefits of the project are greater than the
sacrifices incurred. So that the project can be accepted or feasible . A positive BCR value or
greater than 1 (> 1) indicates that the income is greater than the value
invested. So the distribution network development activities are considered to
be able to provide benefits in the future so that this project is feasible to
run.
c. Payback Period (PP)
The payback period
or payback period (PP) is the time required for the return on investment
capital, calculated from net cash flow. (Suharto, 1997).
PP ����� = (n-1) + (net cash investment / year cash
flow) x 1 year
Information:
PP = Payback Period
n = terms of
return on investment capital
Cash flow =
Revenue - Production
Then the value of
cash flows from 2021 to 2040 can be seen in Table 4:
Table 4
Cash Flow from 2021 to 2040
|
Year |
Revenue |
Cost Production |
Cash Flow |
|
2021 |
4,783,446,594 |
2,675,946,996 |
2,107,499,597 |
|
2022 |
4,822,977,500 |
2,698,061,304 |
2,124,916,196 |
|
2023 |
4,976,649,150 |
2,784,028,019 |
2,192,621,131 |
|
2024 |
5,175,995,138 |
2,895,545,789 |
2,280,449,349 |
|
2025 |
5,416,269,513 |
3,029,959,643 |
2,386,309,870 |
|
2026 |
5,606,912,114 |
3,136,608,581 |
2,470,303,534 |
|
2027 |
5,817,610,205 |
3,254,476,923 |
2,563,133,282 |
|
2028 |
6,028,308,296 |
3,372,345,266 |
2,655,963,029 |
|
2029 |
6,239,006,386 |
3,490,213,609 |
2,748,792,777 |
|
2030 |
6,449,704,477 |
3,608,081,952 |
2,841,622,525 |
|
2031 |
6,660,402,568 |
3,725,950,294 |
2,934,452,273 |
|
2032 |
6,871,100,658 |
3,843,818,637 |
3,027,282,021 |
|
2033 |
7,081,798,749 |
3,961,686,980 |
3,120,111,769 |
|
2034 |
7,292,496,839 |
4,079,555,323 |
3,212,941,517 |
|
2035 |
7,503,194,930 |
4,197,423,666 |
3,305,771,264 |
|
2036 |
7,713,893,021 |
4,315,292,008 |
3,398,601,012 |
|
2037 |
7,924,591,111 |
4,433,160,351 |
3,491,430,760 |
|
2038 |
8,135,289,202 |
4,551,028,694 |
3,584,260,508 |
|
2039 |
8,345,987,293 |
4,668,897,037 |
3,677,090,256 |
|
2040 |
8,556,685,383 |
4,786,765,379 |
3,769,920,004 |
Source : Processing Data, (2022)
PP � = (n-1) + (net
cash investment / year cash flow ) x 1 year
= 4 + (523,253,380 / 2,107,499,597)
x 1 year
= 4 + (0.24) x 1 year
= 4. 24 years
From calculations Payback Period above , get is known period return on capital ie of 4.24 years or exactly 4 years more than 2 months so
that still are below _ period time return ie 5 years
. So that project the could accepted or worthy run.
e. Internal Rate Of
Return (IRR)
Is calculation analysis appropriateness
where level ethnic group interest allowed on a project or NPV=0. First of all
level ethnic group flower raised from 5.25% to 10%. So NPV value of 2021 to
year 2040 with increase 10% interest get seen in Table 5
Table 5
NPV of 2021 to _ year 2040 with increase
10% interest
|
Year |
Revenue from Water Sales (C)t |
Production and Operational Costs (C)o |
Interest Rate (1+10%) |
|
|
NPV2 |
||||
|
2021 |
4,783,446,594 |
2,675,946,996 |
0.11 |
231,824,956 |
|
2022 |
4,822,977,500 |
2,698,061,304 |
0.11 |
233,740,782 |
|
2023 |
4,976,649,150 |
2,784,028,019 |
0.11 |
241,188,324 |
|
2024 |
5,175,995,138 |
2,895,545,789 |
0.11 |
250,849,428 |
|
2025 |
5,416,269,513 |
3,029,959,643 |
0.11 |
262,494,086 |
|
2026 |
5,606,912,114 |
3,136,608,581 |
0.11 |
271,733,389 |
|
2027 |
5,817,610,205 |
3,254,476,923 |
0.11 |
281,944,661 |
|
2028 |
6,028,308,296 |
3,372,345,266 |
0.11 |
292,155,933 |
|
2029 |
6,239,006,386 |
3,490,213,609 |
0.11 |
302,367,206 |
|
2030 |
6,449,704,477 |
3,608,081,952 |
0.11 |
312,578,478 |
|
2031 |
6,660,402,568 |
3,725,950,294 |
0.11 |
322,789,750 |
|
2032 |
6,871,100,658 |
3,843,818,637 |
0.11 |
333,001,022 |
|
2033 |
7,081,798,749 |
3,961,686,980 |
0.11 |
343,212,295 |
|
2034 |
7,292,496,839 |
4,079,555,323 |
0.11 |
353,423,567 |
|
2035 |
7,503,194,930 |
4,197,423,666 |
0.11 |
363,634,839 |
|
2036 |
7,713,893,021 |
4,315,292,008 |
0.11 |
373,846,111 |
|
2037 |
7,924,591,111 |
4,433,160,351 |
0.11 |
384,057,384 |
|
2038 |
8,135,289,202 |
4,551,028,694 |
0.11 |
394,268,656 |
|
2039 |
8,345,987,293 |
4,668,897,037 |
0.11 |
404,479,928 |
|
2040 |
8,556,685,383 |
4,786,765,379 |
0.11 |
414,691,200 |
Source
: Processing Data, (2022)
IRR ���������� =
I2 + ((NPV2 / (NPV2 � NPV1)) + (I1 � I2))
=10% + {(231,824,956 / (231,824,956
- 131,718,725)} + (10% - 5.25%))
= 17.07 %� ( IRR > 5.25%)
With thereby level ethnic group allowable
interest on Development network distribution this is 17.07%. this _ signify
that project this worthy for run because have more IRR tall from level ethnic
group flower deposit .
Aspect Social And
Economic
Feasibility analysis from aspect social
and economic done with hope could Upgrade tarp life Public in need enhancement
welfare nor health impacted society to maximum service, including
:
a. �� For
development funds area 30%
= 30% x NPV = 30% x Rp. 131,718,725 = Rp.
39,515,617.00
b. �� For reserve
funds general 15 %
=
15% x NPV = 15% x Rp. 131,718.72 = Rp. 19,757,809.00
CONCLUSION
Aspect
Financial
Kiteria analysis the
financial aspect is with evaluation investment: Net Present Value (NVP), Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR), Payback Period e (PP) and Internal Rate Of
Return (IRR).
a. Net
Present Value (NPV)
Obtained results
NPV calculation of Rp. 131718725 with level ethnic group flower deposits 5.25%
per annum, (NPV > 0) with thereby appropriateness investment development
network distribution of PDAM Tirta Bening Lontar Residential Area Ward Oeleta
City of Kupang, worth it for carried out.
b. Benefit
Cost Ratio (BCR)
Obtained results
BCR calculation of 1.78 with level ethnic group flower deposit 5.25 % per annum,
BCR ≥ 1 with thereby appropriateness investment development network
distribution of PDAM Tirta Bening
Lontar Residential Area Ward Oeleta City of Kupang, worth it for carried out.
c. Payback
Period e (PP)
Obtained results
calculation of PP in the year 4th (4 years 2 months) where more
small from age planned investment ie 5 years
with thereby appropriateness investment development network distribution of
PDAM Tirta Bening Lontar
Residential Area Ward Oeleta City of Kupang, worth it for carried out.
d. Internal
Rate Of Return (IRR)
Obtained value
17.07 % more big from current desired return that is by 5.25% (17.64% >
5.25%) with thereby appropriateness investment development network distribution
of PDAM Tirta Bening Lontar
Residential Area Ward Oeleta City of Kupang, worth it for carried out.
Aspect
Social and economic
Kiteria analysis aspect
social and economic is for development funds area 30% and reserve fund general
15% including :
a. Development fund area Rp. 39,515,617.00
b. Reserve fund general Rp. 19,757,809.00
�
REFERENCES
�Akbar,
S.A. (2017). Analysis of Use of Clean Water by Households in the Village of
Matsum I City, Medan District, Medan City Area.
Anonymous. [on line]. Available at: [Accessed 30 December 2014]. National
Standards Agency.
2008. concerning Specifications for Water Treatment Installation Package
Units, SNI 6773-2008.
Ardalan, K. (2012). Payback Period: Their Different Cash Flows. Journal of
Economics and Finance Education, 11(2), 10�16.
Central Bureau of Statistics. Statistics of 70 Years of Indonesian
Independence. (2020).
Bierman, H. (2009). Comparing Net Present Value and Internal Rate Of
Return. Economics & Sociology, 4(January), 46�53. Retrieved from
Ahttp://www.qfinance.com/cash-flow-management-best-practice/comparing-net-present-value-and-internal-rate-of-return?
National Standards Agency. 2008. concerning Procedures for Planning Units
for Water Treatment Installation Packages, SNI 6774-2008.
Gede, W. (2013). Investment Feasibility Study for PDAM Distribution
Network Development Pt. Tirtaartha Buanamulia, Badung Regency. Scientific
Journal of Civil Engineering Infrastructure Electronics, 2(1), 1�3.
Gunwan, Randi. 2007. Analysis of the Feasibility of Engineering Economics
in the Utilization of Irrigation Land Bajayu Langau Paya Lombang in Serdang
Badagai Regency. Wahana Hijau. 3:29-41.
Giatman, M. 2006. Engineering Economics. Jakarta: Publisher PT. King of
Grafindo Persada. Joko, Tri. 2010. Production Units in Drinking Water Supply
Systems. Yogyakarta: Science Graha.
Halim, D. (2014). Investment Analysis of the Clean Water Supply System for
the City of Duri (Jurong II River Raw Water Intake). Online Journal of
Engineering Faculty University of Riau Students, 1(2), 1�6.
Hermanus, W. (2003). Investment Analysis Study on Asphalt Mixing Plant
(AMP) PT. Dutasatya Adhipersada in Banjarbaru, To support development in South
Kalimantan Province.
Irawan, DS (n.d.). Investment Feasibility Study for Adding Water Treatment
Plant (IPA) Capacity and Distribution Network Development for PDAM Tirta Tuah
Benua, East Kutai Regency. 2018.
Joko, Tri. 2010. Raw Water Units in Drinking Water Supply Systems.
Yogyakarta: Science Graha. Lutfiyah, Hilda. 2013. Planning for Switching
Control in Parallel Submersible Pump at the Intake Well of the Gresik Water
Treatment Plant (IPA). Civil Engineering. 15:39- 51
Kusuma, JH, & Sandhyavitri, A. (2014). Investment Analysis of the
Drinking Water Supply System in Dumai City Based on Public and Private
Partnerships. Student Online Journal (JOM) in Engineering and Science, 1(2),
1�15.
Mukhtar, AR, Endang, P., & Rahmah, DL (2002). Study of Economic
Feasibility Analysis of Embung Rejoagung in Banyuwangi Regency, East Java Province.
Nasrulah. (2014). Feasibility study of sewage sludge treatment plant in
the city of Salatiga. 16�24. Government Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia
Number 16 of 2005 concerning Development
Drinking Water Supply System, President of the Republic of Indonesia,
Jakarta.
Prihastuti, NE (2014). Factors - Inhibiting Factors in the Implementation
of Electronic Procurement of Goods/Services (E-procurement) at the Public Works
Office of Papua Province. Surabaya: Thesis, Master of Technology Management
Study Program Field of Project Management Expertise, Ten November Institute of
Technology., 40. Retrieved from http://repository.its.ac.id/id/eprint/59860
Sriyana, J. (2010). Small and Medium Enterprise Development Strategy.
Suharto, B. (n.d.). Financial evaluation study on irrigation network
maintenance projects in Malang Regency. 2001.
Supriyono, L., & Fatmawati, L. (2016). Economic Study of the
Construction of the Madiun Sludge Treatment Plant (Iplt). 1(23).
Suripin. (2002). Conservation of Soil and Water Resources. Andi Offset,
Yogyakarta. Syahrir, A., Komara, RT, & Introduction, A. (2015). (Rokan
River Raw Water Intake).
2(2), 1�7.
Josep Rival Sibuea, Wateno Oetomo, Risma Marleno (2022)
First publication right:
Devotion - Journal of Research and Community
Service
This
article is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution- ShareAlike 4.0
International