Satisfaction of Recipients of Livable House Assistance with the Implementation of the Self-Help Housing Stimulant Assistance Program
Wahana Riyan Atmaja, Sihtasari Devi, Ferry Hermawan, Sriyana
Departement of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Diponegoro University, Indonesia
e-mail: [email protected]
|
Keywords |
|
ABSTRACT |
||
|
building quality, program beneficiary satisfaction, housing quality. |
|
The house is one of the primary needs that must be met by Indonesian people who do not meet livable standards. One of the efforts to be carried out in the infrastructure section, aims so that people get a decent place to live. To realize having a livable house must be planned and prepared properly. This research is reviewed from the problem of many houses that do not yet have decent housing standards. The Government's Self-Help Housing Stimulant Assistance (BSPS) is intended to encourage and increase the self-sufficiency of low-income people in improving the quality of their homes, as seen from the quality of roofs, floors and walls of the house along with infrastructure, public facilities and facilities that meet health, safety, comfort requirements. and bathroom facilities. In the BSPS program as an alternative to poverty alleviation policies by providing direct material assistance for the housing construction process. Based on the intent of the BSPS program objectives according to the BSPS program implementation team in Indonesia, especially in Rembang Regency, the aim of the BSPS program is to improve the quality of life of low-income people to obtain livable housing. that most people respond well to the BSPS program in Japrejo Village and Sumberejo Village Recipients of the Self-Help Housing Stimulant Assistance Program (BSPS), however, it is not uncommon for people to refuse due to limited funds which are considered insufficient. Satisfaction of building recipients after receiving assistance from Self-Help Housing Stimulant Assistance (BSPS) in obtaining assistance. Construction/improvement of houses for low-income people to ensure their quality meets the livable requirements of the BSPS program where assessment is carried out in the Structural and Non-Structural sections according to the house criteria livable.
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|||
INTRODUCTION
Home is one of the primary needs that must be fulfilled by many people and there are still many Indonesian people who do not meet livable standards. One of the efforts to be carried out in the infrastructure section aims to get people a decent place to sleep (Elsawy, 2019). Realizing a good house or having a livable house is not easy, because it will require high costs so it must be planned and prepared properly (Hikmawati & Gutomo, 2016). In Indonesia, the need for housing is still high. According to data from BPS data analysis, it is estimated that in 2003-2021 there will be around 6 million (11%) and the growth in demand is 800,000 units/year (Mailasari., 2016). Referring to the conditions above, there are many uninhabitable houses (RTLH) in Indonesia, houses that do not meet the requirements for building safety, the adequacy of the minimum building area, and the health of the occupants (Hikmawati, 2016).
In the above definition, uninhabitable housing (RTLH) is regulated under ("Regulation of the Minister of Public Works and People's Housing of the Republic of Indonesia Number 07/PRT/M/2018 Concerning Self-Help Housing Stimulant Assistance," 2018) can be defined as a residential house whose physical aspects and mentally does not meet the requirements as namely the safety and security of building construction, namely the structure under the foundation, the middle structure / columns and beams and the upper structure / roof capable of providing protection from hot and rainy weather, the minimum adequacy of building area, namely the adequacy of a minimum area of 7.2 m2 / people, social justice and occupant health including lighting, windows and ventilation, ventilation and sanitation / toilets so that residents of livable houses avoid disease and the residents feel comfortable living in their homes and the availability of sufficient clean water (BPS., DATA BPS. 2(1)., 2022).
Based on data collection from the Ministry of PUPR (2020), the number of uninhabitable houses in Indonesia has reached approximately 29.45 million. This amount is spread across all provinces in Indonesia. Provinces with the lowest level of livable houses are Papua Province with a presentation of 28.92%, Bangka Belitung Province with a percentage of 27.60%, For the Province of habitable houses in East Java with a presentation of 66.93% and Central Java Province with a presentation of 66.47%. (Tampi., Mambo &, 2015). In Central Java, uninhabitable houses in RTLH 33.5 were found, which were larger than
East Java province as a neighboring province with a percentage of 33.07% (BPS, 2021). In Central Java Province, it is a developed province, if the level of uninhabitable houses decreases, the percentage decreases by at least 10%. While the problems in the housing and settlement sector in Central Java Province are around 1.4 million uninhabitable houses (RTLH) or around 5% of the national number, this number is spread across 35 Regencies/Cities in Central Java (Central Bureau of Statistics Central Java Province, 2021).
In Rembang Regency, which is included in the Central Java region, the poor population below the poverty line in March 2021 totaled 101.40 thousand people or 15.80 percent of the total population, an increase of around 1.32 thousand people when compared to the poor population in March 2020 which amounted to 100.08 thousand people (15.60 percent). At the provincial level, the percentage of poor people in Central Java increased from 11.41 percent to 11.79 percent, while at the national level it increased from 9.78 percent to 10.14 percent. In the former Pati Residency area, the percentage of poor people in Rembang Regency is the highest, while the lowest is Jepara Regency (7.44 percent) (Central Java Provincial Statistics Agency, 2021).
So the poverty factor is also a benchmark for the level of welfare according to (Samputra & Munandar, 2019) to overcome this problem, namely by providing the Self-Housing Stimulant Assistance Program (BSPS) for low-income people (MBR) who are included in the category of Uninhabitable Houses (RTLH).
From one of the previous studies (Swadaya., 2018) it shows that the Self-Help Housing Stimulant Assistance program has been implemented well in research in the Pekanbaru City area, but from this study the implementation of the program has problems in implementing it, namely because there is still a lack of building materials from supplying agents. Therefore every year the Order policy ("Regulation of the Minister of Public Works and People's Housing of the Republic of Indonesia Number 07/PRT/M/2018 Concerning Self-Help Housing Stimulant Assistance," 2018) is about the aspects to be traversed, starting from the availability of a financing budget in the form of funds/ money from orders (APBN) which is directly given to beneficiaries. By channeling it through financial institutions / bank channeling institutions. Then the implementation or construction of houses meets building quality standards according to livable housing requirements, namely building structure, adequacy of space, health of occupants. For this program, a house that was originally an uninhabitable house becomes a livable house by increasing its quality. Quality improvement in cities through a livable and sustainable environment has become a necessity of modern planning and is increasingly becoming a public concern (Elsawy et al., 2019).
The quality standards for livable buildings above are a measure of the successful implementation of the BSPS program which will also increase the level of satisfaction for beneficiaries. This program can also directly be felt by the beneficiary community because it is considered capable of helping meet the needs of poor people's homes to become decent and healthy (Pitoi, 2021). However, to maintain the implementation of the PUPR Ministry's BSPS program can run well and in accordance with the quality standards set by the PUPR Ministry, thus in this case it is necessary to evaluate issues related to budget availability, labor and building quality. Therefore, if it is necessary to conduct research to analyze the satisfaction of beneficiaries of the Self-Help Housing Stimulant Assistance (BSPS) program in Rembang Regency
METHODS
The research used is observational with a qualitative-quantitative approach and a case study design. This is because research intensively describes or narrates by observing and conducting interviews and noting how the satisfaction of beneficiaries of the 2020 Self-Help Housing Stimulant Assistance (BSPS) program in Rembang Regency is located in Sumberejo Village and Japerejo Village.
In this research, we will focus more on how the material studies are carried out by researchers as mentioned in the existing problems, namely (BPS., 2021):
1. Describe the Satisfaction of Beneficiaries of the Self-Help Housing Stimulant Assistance (BSPS) program in Japerejo Village and Sumberejo Village, Pamotan District, Rembang Regency.
2. Test the results of the Satisfaction description (Index of Satisfaction of Recipients of Livable Housing Assistance for the Self-Help Housing Stimulant Assistance Program (BSPS) in Japerejo Village and Sumberejo Village, Pamotan District, Rembang Regency (Hanifah, 2016).
an efficient data collection technique when the researcher knows exactly the variable being measured and knows what can be expected from the respondent. For this study, respondents were served in two villages, namely Japerejo Village and Sumberejo Village, it was planned that 30 people in Japerejo and 30 people in Sumberejo Village with a total of 60 respondents, each village received the Home Improvement Program for Self-Help Stimulant Assistance (BSPS) (Ibem, 2013).
This data collection technique was also obtained from interviews. Informants who provided information must have the following requirements: Head of the Rembang Settlement Housing Section, work for at least 3 years, be the Head of the Settlement Housing Section for at least 1 year. Be a Facilitator Coordinator for at least 1 year, Village head works during the program, Field Facilitators work for at least 1 year, Assistance Recipients who participate while receiving the program for 4 months.
a. The method used is:
The data collection technique in this study is to use the Google Form Questionnaire. Each question item is provided with 5 answers with each score as follows:
STS : Strongly Disagree score 1
TS : Disagree score 2
N : Neutral with a score 3
S : Agree score 4
SS : Strongly Agree score 5
The operational definition of variables is needed to explain the variables identified as understanding efforts in research. The definitions of the variables studied are Satisfaction with the form of the building and Satisfaction with the quality of the building as follows: Table 3.2 of the questionnaire variables (Ismi, 2021):
b. Validity test
To perform regression analysis, validity and reliability tests were carried out. The validity test shows the extent to which the accuracy and speed of a measuring instrument performs the accuracy of its measuring instrument function (Bodgan&Tailor., 2013). The test uses 2 sides at a significant level of 0.05 if r count > r table then the instrument or statement items have a significant correlation with the total score (declared valid), and vice versa if r count <r table is declared invalid.
c. Reliability Test
The reliability test is used to determine the consistency of the measuring instrument, whether the measuring device used is reliable and remains consistent if the measurement is repeated (Bagus). The method used to test the reliability of the questionnaire in this study was to use the Cronbach alpha coefficient formula (Cao, 2021.). To find out if the questionnaire is reliable, we will test the reliability of the questionnaire with the help of the SPSS computer program.
Alpha Reliability Level
0.00 to 0.20 Less Reliable
Alpha Reliability Level
0.20 to 0.40 Somewhat Reliable
0.40 to 0.60 Fairly Reliable
0.60 to 0.80 Reliable
0.80 to 1.00 Very Reliable
Source: Nur Ahmadi's Research Methodology Book
Based on the table above, the research criteria for reliability testing are: if the results of the Alpha coefficient are greater than the significance level of 60% or 0.6, the questionnaire is reliable.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
satisfaction from indicator 6 Building quality indicators, Building Form, Budget Related Funds for the BSPS Program, Criteria Process for Obtaining the BSPS Program, Time for Program Implementation, Role of Field Facilitators in the BSPS Program. The following is a description of the research satisfaction indicators, namely (Silvia, 2021):
Figure 1 The level of quality of buildings in the Self-Help Housing Stimulant Assistance (BSPS) program
The building quality indicator in the Self-Help Housing Stimulant Assistance (BSPS) program from the statement Quality of solid foundations, Dominant Material Quality shows a figure of 86.7% with Strongly Agree Criteria, Sloof Concrete Quality Hard and dense not perforated dominant shows a figure of 91.7% Strong Criteria Agree, Quality of concrete column mortar (especially at corner joints) Hard & dense (no holes) dominantly shows a score of 91.7% Criteria Strongly Agree, Quality of ringbalk concrete mortar (especially at corner joints) Hard & dense dominates shows a number of 61.7% Criteria Strongly Agree, the walls built of bricks are attempted to be plastered on the outside, or the bricks are neatly installed without dominant plaster showing a score of 51.7% Criteria Strongly Agree, Truss roof trusses and roof coverings using dominant tiles show a score of 61.7% Criteria Strongly Agree, Minimum Area per minimum area of 7.2 m² – 12 m² / dominant person shows a figure of 60 % Criteria Strongly Agree (Prayogo, 2021).
Respondents from the Building Shape Indicators in the Self-Help Housing Stimulant Assistance (BSPS) program are presented in Figure 2 (Sulasman, 2012).
Figure 2 Respondent Satisfaction Level Forms of Fasting buildings with the Livable House program Self-Help Housing Stimulant Assistance (BSPS)
Figure 3 Respondent Satisfaction Level Building Results that meet expectations
Based on the indicators of the shape of the building in the Self-Help Housing Stimulant Assistance (BSPS) program, from the statement Figure 2. Level of Satisfaction of Respondents. Form of the building. Satisfied with the Livable House program. Housing Stimulant Assistance. Dominant shows a figure of 66.7% Criteria Strongly Agree, Figure 3. Respondents' Satisfaction Level of Building Results that are appropriate dominant expectation shows a number of 33% Criteria Strongly Agree.
Description of answers Statements from respondents from Indicators of Budget Funds Related to the Self-Help Housing Stimulant Assistance (BSPS) program are presented in Figure 4 Satisfaction Levels of Respondents with Budget Funds of 17.5 Million Related to Assistance programs, Figure 5 Levels of Satisfaction Conditions of the building materials provided are as follows
Figure 4 Satisfaction Level of Respondents Budget 17.5 Million Funds Related to Assistance Programs
Figure 5 Satisfaction Level State of the building materials provided
Based on the Indicators of the Fund Budget Related to the Self-Help Housing Stimulant Assistance (BSPS) program, from Figure 5, the Satisfaction Level of Respondents of the 17.5 Million Fund Budget Related to the Dominant Assistance program shows a figure of 46.7% Criteria Agree, Figure 4.6 Level of Satisfaction The condition of the building materials provided dominantly shows a number of 53.3% Criteria Agree (Samputra, 2019).
The description of the answer indicators for the Criteria Process for Obtaining the Self-Help Housing Stimulant Assistance Program (BSPS) is presented in Figure 4. as follows (Tampi., 2015):
Figure 6 Respondent Satisfaction Level from the Criteria Process for Obtaining the Self-Help Housing Stimulant Assistance (BSPS) program
Figure 7 Respondent Satisfaction Level Benefits provided by the Self-Help Housing Stimulant Assistance (BSPS) program
Based on the Process Indicators Criteria for Obtaining the Self-Help Housing Stimulant Assistance Program (BSPS) from Figure 6 Respondents' Satisfaction Levels from the Criteria Process for Obtaining the Self-Help Housing Stimulant Assistance (BSPS) program dominantly shows a figure of 60% Criteria Agree, Figure 7 Respondents' Satisfaction Level The benefits provided by the Assistance program The Dominant Self-Help Housing Stimulant (BSPS) shows a number of 50% Criteria Agree (Winarno, 2018).
Description of answers to Respondents' statements from the implementation time of the Self-Help Housing Stimulant Assistance (BSPS) program are presented in table 8 as follows:
Figure 8 Respondent Satisfaction Level Time of Implementation of the Self-Help Housing Stimulant Assistance (BSPS) program
Based on Table 8. Respondents' Satisfaction Levels When implementing the Self-Help Housing Stimulant Assistance (BSPS) program from the statement Satisfaction with the implementation of the Self-Help Housing Stimulant Assistance (BSPS) program, the dominance shows a figure of 58.3% Saetuju Criterion.
Description of answers to Respondents' statements The Role of Field Facilitators for the Self-Help Housing Stimulant Assistance (BSPS) program is presented in Figure 9 as follows:
Figure 9 Respondent Satisfaction Level The Role of Field Facilitators
Based on Figure 9 Respondent Satisfaction Levels Role of Field Facilitators for the Dominant Self-Help Housing Stimulant Assistance (BSPS) program shows a figure of 50% Criteria Agree (Astuti, W., & Prasetyo, D. A. 2014.)
The results of the description of the analysis of research data at the level of satisfaction variables from indicator 6 Building quality indicators, Building Shape, Budget Related to the BSPS Program, Process Criteria for Obtaining the BSPS Program, Program Implementation Time, Role of Field Facilitators in the BSPS Program. The following are the results of processing in table 1. Satisfaction level and Table 2. Rating Score and Satisfaction Level Graphic Image.
Table 1 Satisfaction levels n
|
Index variable |
Satisfaction Rate (%) |
Average Satisfaction |
|
|
Build Quality |
32.5 |
92.86 |
84.71 (Very Satisfying)
|
|
Building Form |
8.67 |
86.70 |
|
|
Fund Budget |
8.28 |
82.80 |
|
|
Process Criteria |
7.95 |
79.50 |
|
|
Execution time |
4.12 |
82.40 |
|
|
The Role of the Facilitator |
4.2 |
84.00 |
Table 2 Scoring Score
|
Category |
Interval |
|
Strongly Disagree (STS) |
0 - 20 % |
|
Disagree (TS) |
21 - 40 % |
|
Neutral (N) |
41 - 60 % |
|
Agree (S) |
61 - 80 % |
|
Strongly Agree (SS) |
81 - 100 % |
*Theory of Customer Satisfaction with products/services
Figure 10 Satisfaction Level Graph
In Table 1, the level based on data on the satisfaction level of recipients of decent housing assistance with the implementation of the self-supporting housing stimulant program in Japerejo Village and Sumberjo Village, Rembang Regency shows a value of 84.71 VERY SATISFACTORY . In Figure 2 Graph of Satisfaction Levels for the level of satisfaction, Satisfaction with the Quality of the Building with a satisfaction level of 92.86%, Satisfaction Budget Funds satisfaction level of 82.8%, Satisfaction with implementation time 82.4%, Satisfaction with the shape of the building satisfaction level 86.7%, Satisfaction Process Criteria satisfaction level 79.5, and Satisfaction Role of Facilitator satisfaction level of 84%. The highest level of satisfaction on the satisfaction indicator is the Building Quality Indicator with a satisfaction level of 92.86% (Anita, J. (2021). ).
After obtaining livable housing assistance, beneficiaries of the Self-Help Housing Stimulant Assistance Program (BSPS) assistance, the quality of buildings that are livable, whether they comply with building safety requirements, minimum adequacy of building area, and occupants' health (Akbari, P., Arsitektur, S., & Sains, U. (2021). ). (Source: Regulation of the Minister of Public Works and Public Housing of the Republic of Indonesia No. 07/PRT/M/2018 concerning Self-Help Housing Stimulant Assistance). The degree of feasibility of a residential house can be measured from 2 aspects, namely (1) the physical quality of the house and (2) the quality of the housing facilities. The physical quality of a residential house is measured by 3 variables, namely: the widest type of roof, the widest type of walls and the widest type of floor; while the quality of housing facilities is measured by three variables, namely (Tengah., 2021): area floor per capita, lighting source and availability of defecation facilities.
|
|
|
|
|
Process 0% |
Process 30% |
Process 100% |
Picture 11 Japerejo Village House Construction Process
|
|
|
|
|
Process 0% |
Process 30% |
Process 100% |
|
|
|
|
Picture 12 The Construction Process of Sumberjo Village House
CONCLUSION
From the results of the description of the Satisfaction of Recipients of the Self-Help Housing Stimulant Assistance Program (BSPS) in Japerejo Village and Sumberejo Village, Pamotan District, Rembang Regency, it is in accordance with the RLH Criteria for Assistance Recipient Communities with the BSPS Program Criteria that japerejo village for the BSPS Program criteria is in accordance with the criteria According to (Ministerial Regulation) Public Works and Public Housing of the Republic of Indonesia Number 07/Prt/M/2018 2018 Concerning Self-Help Housing Stimulant Assistance) with evidence of direct interviews with beneficiary communities shows that from the results of interviews and photos of houses, satisfaction of building recipients after receiving assistance from self-help housing stimulus assistance ( BSPS).
From the Test Results of the Satisfaction description (Index of Satisfaction of Recipients of Livable Housing Assistance for the Self-Help Housing Stimulant Assistance Program (BSPS) in Japerejo Village and Sumberejo Village, Pamotan District, Rembang Regency. There are two variables that indicate satisfaction, which can be concluded as follows:
a. The quality of the building has proven to be very satisfied with the Self-Help Housing Stimulant Assistance (BSPS) program for Japerejo Village and Sumberejo Village, Pamotan District, Rembang Regency.
b. The form of the building proved to be Very Satisfied with the Self-Help Housing Stimulant Assistance (BSPS) program for Japerejo Village and Sumberejo Village, Pamotan District, Rembang Regency.
c. The Budget has proven to be Very Satisfied with the Self-Help Housing Stimulant Assistance (BSPS) program for Japerejo Village and Sumberejo Village, Pamotan District, Rembang Regency.
d. Process Criteria for obtaining the BSPS program is proven to be very satisfied with the Self-Help Housing Stimulant Assistance (BSPS) program for Japerejo Village and Sumberejo Village, Pamotan District, Rembang Regency.
e. The timing of the implementation of the BSPS program proved to be very satisfied with the Self-Help Housing Stimulant Assistance (BSPS) program for Japerejo Village and Sumberejo Village, Pamotan District, Rembang Regency.
f. The role of the Facilitator is proven to be very satisfied with the Self-Help Housing Stimulant Assistance (BSPS) program for Japerejo Village and Sumberejo Village, Pamotan District, Rembang Regency.
So Satisfaction of Recipients of Livable House Assistance for the Self-Help Housing Stimulant Assistance (BSPS) program in Japerejo Village and Sumberejo Village, Pamotan District, Rembang Regency is proven by the shape of the building and the quality of the building, which means it is proven.
REFERENCES
Akbari, P., Arsitektur, S., & Sains, U. (2021). Jurnal Teknik Bangunan Perumahan dan kesehatan mental selama wabah COVID-19. 43(2001).
Anita, J. (2021). Perkembangan Kebijakan Publik dan Program Bidang Perumahan di Indonesia. Jurnal Arsitektur Terracotta | No.1 |, 3(1), 12–24.
Astuti, W., & Prasetyo, D. A. (2014). Model of Community-based Housing Development (CBHD) of Bedah Kampung Program in Surakarta Indonesia. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 20, 593–601.
Badan Pusat Statistik Provinsi Jawa Tengah. (2021).
Bagus, I., Kemenuh, A. M., & Wenagama, W. (n.d.). Efektivitas Dan Dampak Program Nasional Pemberdayaan Masyarakat Mandiri Perdesaan (Pnpm) Terhadap Pendapatan Keluarga Kk Miskin.
Bodgan&Tailor. (2013). Fenomena tersebut dilihat sebagai bagian dari suatu keseluruhan proses.
BPS. (2021). Data Indikator Perumahan 1993-2021. 2(1).
BPS. (2022). DATA BPS. 2(1).
Cao, Y., Li, F., Xi, X., van Bilsen, D. J. C., & Xu, L. (2021). Urban livability: Agent-based simulation, assessment, and interpretation for the case of Futian District, Shenzhen. Journal of Cleaner Production, 320(88).
Elsawy, A. A., Ayad, H. M., & Saadallah, D. (2019). Assessing livability of residential streets – Case study: El-Attarin, Alexandria, Egypt. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 58(2), 745–755.
Hanifah, W., & Widyastuti, D. (2016). Penilaian Lingkungan Fisik Permukiman Kumuh.
Hikmawati, E., & Gutomo, T. (2016). Bedah rumah sebagai bentuk pengentasan kemiskinan. Jurnal PKS, 15(2), 131–144.
Ibem, E. O., & Amole, D. (2013). Subjective life satisfaction in public housing in urban areas of Ogun State, Nigeria. Cities, 35, 51–61.
Ismi, A. (2021). Implementasi Kebijakan Program Bantuan Rumah Tidak Layak Huni Untuk Masyarakat Miskin di Kecamatan Long Kali. Ilmu Pemerintahan, 9(September 2019), 103–112.
Mailasari. (2016). Implementasi Program Bantuan Stimulan Permuahan Swadaya Tahun 2016 (Studi Kasus Kota Pekanbaru). 1–10.
Mambo & Tampi. (2015). Efektivitas Program Bedah Rumah (Study Kasus di Desa Ranoketang Atas Kecamatan Touluaan Kabupaten Minahasa Tenggara). Syria Studies, 7(1), 37–72.
Mardhanie, A. B. (2018). Penelitian Rumah Tidak Layak Huni (RTLH) Kabupaten Bulungan Tahun 2017 (Jumlah dan Prioritas Penanganan). Jurnal Kreatif, 5(2), 13–20.
Peraturan Menteri Pekerjaan Umum Dan Perumahan Rakyat Republik Indonesia Nomor 07/PRT/M/2018 Tentang Bantuan Stimulan Perumahan Swadaya. (2018). Tentang Bantuan Stimulan Perumahan Swadaya, 3(2).
Pitoi, C. D., Tampi, J. R. E., & Punuindoong, A. Y. (2021). Pengaruh Kualitas Pelayanan Terhadap Kepuasan Konsumen Hotel Best Western The Lagoon Manado. Productivity, 2(1), 1–5.
Prayogo, D., & Sukim, S. (2021). Determinan Daya Beli Masyarakat Indonesia Selama Pandemi Covid-19 Tahun 2020. Seminar Nasional Official Statistics, 2021(1), 631–640.
Samputra, P. L., & Munandar, A. I. (2019). Korupsi, Indikator Makro Ekonomi, dan IPM terhadap Tingkat Kemiskinan di Indonesia. Jurnal Ekonomi Kuantitatif Terapan, 12(1), 35–46.
Silvia, D., Balafif, M., & Rahmasari, A. (2021). Faktor-Faktor yang Mempengaruhi Tingkat Daya Beli Masyarakat di Kabupaten Sidoarjo. Bharanomics, 2(1), 81–92.
Sulasman, S. (2012). Kajian Kemampuan Membeli Rumah Bagi Masyarakat Berpenghasilan Rendah. Pilar.
Winarno, B. (2018). Evaluasi Program Penyediaan Rumah Layak Huni Bagi Masyarakat Miskin Di Kabupaten Belitung. Jurnal Pengembangan Kota, 6(1), 66.