Quantitative Assessment and Strategic Planning for Jeneberang River Crossing Services

Urban mobility in many riverine cities relies on small-scale crossings that are often operated informally with minimal regulation and safety oversight. These services provide essential access and time savings, yet they also raise concerns about safety, service quality, and long-term sustainability—recurring themes in the literature on informal transport and ferry safety, as well as in indicator-based approaches to sustainable transport planning. As stated in the study [1], informal transport plays a crucial role in urban mobility in developing countries. This study responds to those concerns in the context of the Jeneberang River, South Sulawesi, Indonesia, where crossings are conducted using traditional boats and basic pier infrastructure.

Research on public transport service quality is well established. As highlighted by de Oña and de Oña [2], quality-of-service studies based on customer satisfaction surveys have grown substantially in recent decades. Foundational constructs (e.g., SERVQUAL) and diagnostic tools such as importance-performance analysis (IPA) are frequently applied to buses and formal transit systems. Previous studies [2, 3] have extensively evaluated customer satisfaction in bus and rail contexts using the customer satisfaction index (CSI) and IPA yet applications to informal river ferry systems remain scarce. Few studies quantitatively assess user satisfaction for community-operated crossings, prioritize attributes for improvement, and translate diagnostics into implementable strategies consistent with sustainability principles. Addressing this gap has practical significance for secondary cities where informal services bridge critical access needs.

The Jeneberang River case features six short crossing routes along a ~9 km corridor between the Barombong Bridge and the Gowa Twin Bridges. Services are community-operated, primarily carrying passengers and motorcycles on traditional boats with limited safety equipment and information systems. Users report substantial travel-time savings relative to congested road alternatives, but persistent issues around safety, pier/road access, and service information indicate the need for structured evaluation and prioritized upgrades. Previous work on the Jeneberang corridor has analysed crossing demand and fleet requirements, but not user satisfaction [4].

3.1 Validation test

Before distributing the questionnaire, testing is first carried out on the questions that will be included in the questionnaire. In the validity test, two provisions determine whether the question used is valid, namely the r table value and the significance value. In the test, 28 respondents were used. With the r table provisions for 28 people of 0.3610. A question is declared valid if r count > r table. For a significant value, the significant value must be < 0.05 for the question to be declared valid. in line with previous studies that use Pearson product–moment correlation for item validity testing [8]). The critical values for the Pearson product–moment correlation coefficient (r-table) were determined using standard statistical tables [9] and follow conventional treatments of correlation analysis in applied statistics texts [10, 11]. After testing the data, the above results were obtained.

From Tables 1 and 2, the data generated from the questions is in accordance with the previously established provisions, namely, calculated R > R table and significant value < 0.05. So that the validity test results state that all questions are "valid”.

Table 1. Results of the validity test of importance values

Table 2. Results of the validity test of satisfaction values

3.2 Reliability test

In the reliability test, the condition used to determine whether a question is reliable or not is that Cronbach's alpha value must be > 0.70. Reliability test results are as showed in Tables 3 and 4.

Table 3. Results of the reliability test of importance values

From Tables 3 and 4 of the reliability tests, Cronbach's alpha value generated for the importance value is 0.898, and for the performance value, it is 0.808. The question attribute is declared reliable if the resulting Cronbach's alpha value is > 0.70 [12]. So, the reliability test results of the importance and performance values are declared reliable.

Table 4. Results of performance value reliability tests

3.3 Customer satisfaction index

CSI is an index used to evaluate customer satisfaction with service products and is widely applied in service quality assessments [13]. The data collection process to measure customer satisfaction uses a questionnaire. With questions that have been tested previously and data obtained through distributing questionnaires to 100 respondents will be processed.

3.4 Look for the mean importance score and mean satisfaction score values

Mean importance score (MIS) is the average value of importance values, while mean satisfaction score (MSS) is the average value of performance values. The summary of the MIS and MSS calculations is presented in Table 5. They are calculated as follows:

$\begin{aligned} M I S & =\frac{\sum_{i=1}^n Y_i}{n}=\frac{6893}{100}=68.9 \\ M S S & =\frac{\sum_{i=1}^n X_i}{n}=\frac{6711}{100}=67.11\end{aligned}$

Table 5. Recapitulation of the calculation of the total importance score and performance score to obtain the MIS and MSS scores

3.5 Finding the weight factor

Weight factor (WF) is a percentage of value MIS of each attribute to the total value MIS all attributes, The summary of WF calculations is presented in Table 6, which are obtained by the formula:

$\begin{gathered}W F=\frac{M I S_i}{\sum M I S} \times 100 \\ W F=\frac{4.07}{68.9} \times 100 \\ W F=5.91\end{gathered}$

Table 6. Recapitulation of WF calculations

3.6 Looking for weight score

Weight score (WS) is the product of WF with MSS. The summary of WS calculations is presented in Table 7, obtained by the formula:

WS = MSS × WF

Table 7. Summary of WS calculation

3.7 Calculating CSI values

The final stage is calculating the CSI. The CSI calculation is obtained by dividing the value WS by the highest scale used in research:

$\begin{gathered}C S I=\frac{\sum W S}{H S} \\ C S I=\frac{371.18}{5} \\ C S I=74.23\end{gathered}$

3.8 GAP analysis calculation

The gap value or gap between expectations (importance value) and performance (performance) obtained from respondents is a hope for improvement by the crossing service provider. To find out the gap between the level of importance and satisfaction, the average importance score minus the average satisfaction score. The summary of GAP calculations is presented in Table 8.

Table 8. Summary of gap calculations

GAP interpretation and policy relevance. Table 8 shows the largest shortfalls are Safety (Attr. 11, GAP = 0.42), Community involvement/feedback (Attr. 14, 0.25), Information availability (Attr. 13, 0.19), Economic benefits/access (Attr. 16, 0.17), Security (Attr. 12, 0.16) and Service accuracy/comfort (Attr. 9, 0.16). These results indicate a safety-first deficit, followed by information and governance gaps, which is consistent with evidence that unsafe acts and decision-to-err factors [14], after analyzing the data using the CSI method well as navigation safety risks, are critical concerns in ferry operations [15]. Management implications are: (i) immediate mitigation of safety risks (e.g., provision of life jackets, stricter loading control, pier reinforcement, and installation of guard rails); (ii) low-cost information systems (posted routes/fares/schedules at piers and a basic WhatsApp/QR noticeboard for service updates); (iii) creation of a user feedback channel (complaints box or QR form with monthly review); (iv) improved lighting and passive surveillance at piers to enhance perceived security; and (v) a targeted review of fare and access policies to ensure that time savings translate into equitable economic benefits.

3.9 Calculating consumer conformity levels

This calculation is carried out by dividing the total score from the performance value by the total score from the importance value. The formula used is as follows:

$\begin{gathered}T k i=\frac{X_i}{Y_i} \times 100 \% \\ T k i=\frac{6711}{6893} \times 100 \% \\ T k i=97.4\end{gathered}$

Table 9. Summary of the calculation of levels of conformity, hold and action

From Table 9, the level of conformity between the interests and performance of the crossing service is obtained. An attribute that is smaller than the total Tki value means improvements must be made, marked with "Action”. Meanwhile, attributes that have a value greater than the total TKI mean that they have met the expectations of service users and are marked with "Hold”.

3.10 Determine the position of x and y values in the Cartesian diagram

Based on Table 10, the x and y coordinates in the Cartesian diagram are obtained, which determine the quadrant in which each attribute is located.

Table 10. x and y positions in the Cartesian diagram

3.11 Cartesian diagram

After getting the position of each attribute relative to x and y in Table 10, the data is processed using the SPSS application, and a Cartesian diagram is produced as shown in Figure 2.

2.png

Figure 2. Cartesian diagram of the importance and performance of the Jeneberang River crossing service

After carrying out calculations using a Cartesian diagram, the results obtained for the attribute positions in each quadrant in the diagram are as follows:

a. Quadrant I (Top Priority)

Quadrant I is indicated as the main priority, where the level of importance is high but not yet in line with the expectations of service users. Improvements need to be made that focus on increasing the quality of services in this quadrant. Those in this quadrant are priorities. The attributes classified in Quadrant I are presented in Table 11.

Table 11. Attributes in Quadrant I

Quadrant I (High-importance/Low-performance) contains the immediate priorities—most prominently Safety (11) and Availability/readiness (7), with Economic benefits/access (17) also flagged. These require budget-protected, time-bound actions: mandatory life-jackets and guard rails; simple loading procedures and signage; pier decking/foundation repairs at the busiest nodes; and a minimal downtime/maintenance timetable to keep vessels “ready on time.”

b. Quadrant II (Maintain Achievement)

Quadrant II is an achievement, a high level of importance with a high level of satisfaction, so you only need to maintain the achievements that have been achieved. Those in this quadrant support satisfaction and should be appreciated. The attributes classified in Quadrant I are presented in Table 12.

Table 12. Attributes in Quadrant II

Quadrant II (High-importance/High-performance) items such as Accessibility/time saving (1,2,15) and Affordability (8) should be maintained but insulated from policies that could unintentionally erode them (e.g., keep fares affordable while introducing safety upgrades).

c. Quadrant III (Low Priority)

Quadrant III is low priority, meaning this quadrant contains attributes that have a low level of importance and a low level of customer satisfaction. So the attributes contained in this quadrant are considered not very important. The attributes classified in Quadrant I are presented in Table 13.

Table 13. Attributes in Quadrant III

Quadrant III (Low-importance/Low-performance) (e.g., Info 13, Security 12) should not be ignored—several appear in the action list via conformity analysis—so adopt low-cost fixes (printed info panels; lighting/CCTV at piers) rather than major capex.

d. Quadrant IV (Excessive)

Quadrant IV is excessive, meaning that this quadrant contains attributes that have a low level of importance with an excessive level of satisfaction, so it can be interpreted that the service provider should improve services on other attributes. The attributes classified in Quadrant I are presented in Table 14.

Table 14. Attributes in Quadrant IV

Quadrant IV (Low-importance/High-performance) (e.g., Capacity 3, Frequency 4) suggests room to reallocate effort away from “over-serving” toward Quadrant I safety/information work.

3.12 Types of ferry transport services

The Jeneberang River crossing transportation service is a crossing service that is still operated independently by the community. This type of service, namely a short river crossing with a path length of ± 200 m which can be reached in ± 5 minutes. The crossing path is formed between one pier and a pair of piers on the other side of the river, so that ships take passengers back and forth to cross. Because this service is still run by the community without government intervention, the crossing process from payment, crossing to getting to the other side of the river does not yet involve any particular technological system. The following is an explanation of the crossing process:

a. Passengers arrive and wait for the ship to be ready to load passengers.

b. Passengers and their motorbikes board the ship.

c. The ships are arranged in two rows on board. After that, the ship's officers will go around to ask service users for crossing fees.

d. The payment process takes place while the ship crosses the river.

e. After the ship arrived across the river, the passengers and their motorbikes took turns getting off the ship.

3.13 Strategy for improving crossing transportation services, following applicable regulations and in line with the concept of sustainable transportation

Strengthening ferry regulations and certification should be harmonized with national standardization initiatives for conformity assessment bodies, as outlined by Admaja [16]. In formulating an appropriate development strategy, suitable research instruments are required. In this study, SWOT analysis is employed to derive strategies for improving crossing services, as it enables researchers to systematically identify the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats associated with the service, as summarized in Table 15.

a. Strength

Strength is the strength possessed by resources, skills and other points which constitute the advantages of an organization. Strength is a driver of development. The strengths of the Jeneberang River crossing service are as follows:

1. Location close to residential areas
2. There are many ships in active operation
3. Short crossing travel time
4. Easy and simple payment system
5. Affordable rates
6. Save travel time
7. Match between services and passenger needs
8. Large ship capacity

b. Weakness

Weakness is a weakness or limitation of resources and skills that can hinder the development of an organization. Identify the weaknesses of the Jeneberang River crossing service as follows:

1. Passengers are not given a platform to provide input or constructive criticism
2. Information regarding changes in crossing services is not available
3. The activity of transferring passengers from the ship to the road is unsafe due to the inadequate condition of the pier
4. Road access is narrow and inadequate
5. The crossing service can only be used by two-wheeled vehicle users

c. Opportunity

Opportunity is a favorable condition in the organizational environment that allows it to be exploited for the benefit of the organization. The opportunities offered by the Jeneberang River crossing service are as follows:

1. Ideal location
2. Provide investment opportunities
3. Opportunities for surrounding economic activity
4. Developments in technology and social media

d. Threat

A threat is a threat or condition that is unfavorable for the organization. Threats can be detrimental to an organization's position in carrying out the development and continuity of its activities. The threats that the Jeneberang River crossing service poses are as follows:

1. Risk of accident when crossing
2. Crossing services cannot be used during heavy rainfall
3. There is no supervision from the government

Table 15. Matrix SWOT

From diagnostics to strategies (SWOT/TOWS), the SWOT was populated from the IPA/GAP evidence and field observations: Strengths (short trip time, proximity to homes, affordability), Weaknesses (unsafe piers, limited information, narrow access, lack of feedback channel), Opportunities (simple digital tools; community partnerships; small grants), and Threats (accident risk; rainfall disruption; limited oversight). With the case located in Quadrant I (growth-oriented), SO strategies should leverage proximity and travel-time advantage to roll out basic safety & info systems; WO strategies should fix unsafe piers and information deficits using low-cost materials and community labour; ST strategies should codify wet-weather SOPs and loading controls to contain risk; and WT strategies should phase road/ pier reinforcement and formalise oversight to reduce structural vulnerabilities.

3.14 SWOT analysis

SWOT analysis is used to develop a product development strategy. In this analysis, there are two important factors, namely, internal and external factors. In the process of getting the right strategy, pay attention to Table 16 and Table 17, which present Internal Strategy Factor Analysis Summary (IFAS) calculations and External Strategy Factor Analysis Summary (EFAS).

Table 16. SWOT analysis of IFAS factors

Table 17. SWOT analysis of EFAS factors

Pay attention to Tables 16 and 17; these tables have produced x and y coordinates (2.03), (1.61), which are presented in Figure 3.

Figure 3 shows that the x and y coordinates are in Quadrant I. Which means a very favorable situation. Ferry services have opportunities and strengths, so they can take advantage of existing opportunities. The strategy that must be implemented in this condition is to support aggressive growth policies (Growth-oriented strategy).

Figure 3 shows that the coordinate point is in Quadrant I, which means the situation is very profitable by taking advantage of the strengths and opportunities it has. Don't forget that this solution is designed to be sustainable with solutions as below:

a. Digital payments (QR/Quick Response Code)

b. Worker/student season passes (weekly/monthly)

c. Fast shuttle service in dense residential corridors

d. Wayfinding and pier branding as “ideal access”

The involvement of local communities is also very important in the concept of sustainability, especially in the social sector, namely by involving local communities in the management and development of river crossings. Encourage active participation in maintaining the cleanliness of rivers and the surrounding environment.

Sustainable transport for river crossings plays an important role in supporting eco-friendly mobility and community connectivity. In this study, we adopt the definitions of sustainable transportation proposed by the Centre for Sustainable Transportation (CST) [17] and Mihyeon Jeon and Amekudzi [18] which emphasise accessibility, safety, environmental responsibility, and efficiency.

3.png

Figure 3. SWOT quadrant

The following are several strategies that can be implemented to develop sustainable transportation in the river crossing sector:

1. Use of Environmentally Friendly Vehicles:

1. Encourage the use of electric or alternative fuel-powered ships or boats that are more environmentally friendly.
2. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and negative impacts on the river environment.

2. Modern and Secure Infrastructure:

1. Improving port and dock infrastructure to ensure passenger safety and comfort [19].
2. Upgrade ships and boats with modern technology and advanced navigation systems.

3. Integration with Land Transportation:

1. Integrating river crossing systems with land transportation, such as buses or trains.
2. Providing easy access from the port to land transportation stations or terminals.

4. Efficient Traffic Management:

1. Optimizing ship or boat departure schedules to reduce passenger waiting time.
2. Using information technology to provide real-time information about crossing schedules and conditions.

5. Local Community Involvement:

1. Involving local communities in the management and development of river crossings.
2. Encourage active participation in maintaining the cleanliness of rivers and the surrounding environment.

6. Sustainable Financial Management:

1. Look for alternative sources of funding, such as collaboration with the private sector or non-tax state income (PNBP).
2. Optimize the use of funds for infrastructure maintenance and repairs.

By combining the above strategies, river crossings can become more efficient, environmentally friendly, and contribute to sustainable development.

3.15 Prioritized, feasibility-checked actions

This section synthesises the IPA & GAP diagnostics and SWOT/TOWS into a phased action plan for operators and local authorities

1. Quick wins (0–6 months): life jackets and guard rails; maximum passenger/motorcycle loading rules posted at piers; “vessel ready” maintenance rota; static info boards (routes/fares/schedules); pier lighting; QR/WhatsApp feedback channel.
2. Build-outs (6–12 months): pier decking/foundation strengthening at top-volume nodes; shore-side delineation for safe motorcycle/pedestrian flows; basic CCTV in dark locations; covered waiting areas.
3. Systems (12–24 months): simple incident-reporting SOP; wet-weather service policy; periodic safety drills; minimal digital notice system for service changes; light-touch local oversight (permit register, spot checks).