Cost Efficiency Analysis in Integrated Cadastre Mapping System Through an Operational Management Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a very well written article that studies Indonesia's integrated cadastral mapping system, evaluating three distinct programs. Here are a few suggestions to help improve it accordingly:

1) DEA was central to your study, yet there is no deep explanation on how it was conducted. The article must have a more detailed methodological basis so people who are not fully aware of the method may understand it.

2) Likewise, section 2.2 should be expanded in order to explain in more detail each one of the other steps. Please include more references and a brief explanation on how each step was performed. 

3) You ended up removing RDTR from your analysis. Hence, it shouldn't be a part of the objectives. Please rewrite it accordingly. You may mention it, but not as a primary objective, otherwise it defeats the purpose of your article.

4) Questionnaires and other tabular data should be added as annexes. 

5) The results question ends rather abruptly. Please add a paragraph or two explaining what the next steps are and opportunities for improvements and future studies.

6) The conclusion is also short. It should summarize the objectives, the methods and the main findings. So this also needs to be reviewed.

Since there are no major changes in terms of methodology or data, I'm suggesting it undergoes minor revision only. I'm looking forward to reading the revised version of your article soon.

Author Response

Subject: Re: Manuscript ID [Land-3509177] - Cost Efficiency Analysis in Integrated Cadastre Mapping   System through an Operational Management Approach - Response to Reviewer Comments.

Dear Editor,

Thank you for the opportunity to revise our manuscript and for the thorough review and feedback. We have carefully considered all comments and implemented the necessary revisions to strengthen the manuscript. Below, we address each comment point-by-point:

 

Reviewer 1 Comment 1: 

• DEA was central to your study, yet there is no deep explanation on how it was conducted. The article must have a more detailed methodological basis so people who are not fully aware of the method may understand it.
• Our Response: DEA was explained step by step in the research method section (lines 241-261).

After ensuring the data was valid and reliable, the study continued with efficiency analysis using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA), a non-parametric method to estimate the relative efficiency of decision-making units with inputs and outputs [47]. This stage begins with the collection of data from three relevant programs (PTSL, NPTR, ZNT) to determine the Decision-Making Units (DMUs).  In this context, DMUs are defined as annual cycles of a cadastral mapping program, encompassing seven distinct aspects (aerial mapping, office supplies, meeting consumptions, transportations, daily allowance, capital expenditures and socialization) to facilitate the analysis of expenditure and cost efficiency across successive cycles. DMU 1 represents the efficiency value before the implementation of the integrated cadastral mapping model, while DMU 2 represents the efficiency value after the implementation of the integrated cadastral mapping model, reflecting data integration performance. This is followed by the identification of input variables (input data from seven aspects in unit price per hectare) and output variables (total cost value from seven aspects in study area units). The DEA analysis results then provide efficiency scores for each DMU, which are then analyzed to identify best practices and areas requiring improvement in the data integration process. Finally, sensitivity analysis is conducted to test the robustness of the results against changes in input and output variables. This is done by comparing unit performance data on an annual scale. Thus, this is expected to provide strong recommendations for the development of a more efficient integrated cadastral mapping model through an operational management approach.

 

Reviewer 1 Comment 2: 

• Likewise, section 2.2 should be expanded in order to explain in more detail each one of the other steps. Please include more references and a brief explanation on how each step was performed.
• Our Response: section 2.2 has been expanded (lines 201-261). This section begins with the identification of shared aspects of three activities, explanation of the operational management system, The next step is model calibration and validation followed by the explanation of how DEA is conducted step by step.

 

 

Reviewer 1 Comment 3: 

• You ended up removing RDTR from your analysis. Hence, it should not be a part of the objectives. Please rewrite it accordingly. You may mention it, but not as a primary objective, otherwise it defeats the purpose of your article.
• Our Response: In introductory paragraph line 36 - 150 RDTR was introduced, then in the paragraph in line 153, the author gave the clear cut on how RDTR was not used in this research along with the justification why it is excluded l (lines 149-162).

This study aimed to determine the cost efficiency in the coordination of land administration systems and spatial planning in Indonesia. This includes Complete Systematic Land Registration (or PTSL), Land Value Zone (or ZNT), and Regional Land Stewardship Balance (or NPTR). This study excluded Detailed Spatial plan (or RDTR) because its implementation involves too many data sources and procedures from various government agency offices outside the Ministry of ATR/BPN. RDTR is much more complex than ZNT, PTSL, and NPTR because it requires further data entangled and merging, legal issues, and many different parties involved in the planning and execution. While ZNT, PTSL, and NPTR are implemented in its regional level offices, they function as backup databases that provide simple information on land use and the legal status of lands for RDTR activities. Therefore, it is not included in this study to the level of complexity in the RDTR activities, particularly as spatial data integration, multi-actor collaboration, and intricate legal analysis, which was considered incongruent with the directions of the investigations oriented towards programs in ATR/BPN regional level offices. 

 

Reviewer 1 Comment 4: 

• Questionnaires and other tabular data should be added as annexes.
• Our Response: we have added an annex for questionnaires.

 

Reviewer 1 Comment 5: 

• The results question ends rather abruptly. Please add a paragraph or two explaining what the next steps are and opportunities for improvements and future studies.
• Our Response: future research direction is outlined (lines 604-613).

Subsequent research should address several key areas; first, a qualitative analysis of the impact of budgetary efficiency on map quality resulting from the implementation of the integrated cadastral mapping model through an operational management approach is warranted. Furthermore, the development of alternative cost-efficiency analysis models beyond Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA), capable of projecting future efficiency values, should be explored. Additionally, the broader application of integrated mapping models across diverse nations would enable the incorporation of additional research parameters and aspects, thereby facilitating the development of a more comprehensive model. Ultimately, it is hoped that these efforts will contribute to the establishment of a globally applicable integrated mapping model.

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 1 Comment 6: 

• The conclusion is also short. It should summarize the objectives, the methods and the main findings. So, this also needs to be reviewed.
• Our Response: The objectives, methods and key findings have been added in the conclusion section (lines 580-613).

This study aimed to evaluate the cost efficiency of integrating Indonesia's cadastral mapping programs (PTSL, ZNT, and NPTR) through operational management, specifically focusing on seven key aspects: aerial mapping, office supplies, meeting consumption, transportation, daily allowance, capital expenditure, and socialization. Utilizing Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA), the research demonstrated a significant increase in capital resource efficiency within the integrated mapping system at the Way Sulan District, South Lampung study site. Notably, an average efficiency gain of IDR 5,066 per hectare was achieved, with agricultural areas exhibiting higher efficiency compared to organizational areas. These findings confirm that implementing financial operational management within integrated cadastral mapping leads to substantial cost savings, reinforcing the efficacy of this approach for enhancing performance efficiency, especially in areas with complex land use with larger land area geometry.

 

 

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your valuable feedback and insightful comments on our manuscript. We have tried to address the points raised during the review and revised the text accordingly.

 

We appreciate your guidance throughout this process and hope that the improvements we have implemented meet your expectations. Thank you for your time and consideration.

 

Sincerely,

[Dr. Andri Hernandi]

Spatial System and Cadastre Research Group, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Jalan Ganesa 10, Bandung 40132, West Java, Indonesia

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, 

first of all, I would like to congatulate you for your work. Please find below some comments (in my humble opinion) to further improve your study:

1. I believe that the introduction provides a solid background, but it could be more concise. Try considering to summarize the importance of cadastral mapping in fewer words while maintaining key references.

2. Despite the fact the methodology section is well-detailed I believe that it could benefit from clearer subheadings and better transitions between paragraphs.

3. The discussion effectively compares pre- and post-integration results, but it would be stronger with a clearer summary of the key findings.

4. The use of Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) is well justified, but a brief comparison with alternative efficiency analysis methods would strengthen your argument.

5. The conclusion should emphasize practical implications of your findings, such as how policymakers or land administrators can implement these efficiency improvements.

6. It would be useful to define what a good reliability score is and why this method is appropriate in this context.

   7. I believe that a short comparison with alternative efficiency analysis techniques (such as Stochastic Frontier Analysis, Cost-Benefit Analysis) would make this section more robust.

   8. Could you please clarify what the DMUs are in this study? Are they individual cadastral offices, land management units, or regional divisions? It is not clear to the reader.

   9. I would also briefly mention how the model was calibrated. Did you compare it with existing cadastral mapping cost data?

   10. Are there any limitations of DEA that should be acknowledged? (e.g., DEA assumes no random errors, which may not always be the case in cost-efficiency analysis).

   11. Model calibration and validation section should be added to improve the scientific soundness of the paper.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is not my mother tongue but I believe that some sentences are overly complex. Please try simplifying sentence structures that could improve readability.

There are occasional grammatical errors and awkward phrasing. For example:

1. “This study aimed to determine the cost efficiency in the coordination of land administration systems and spatial planning including Complete Systematic Land Registration (or PTSL), Land Value Zone (or ZNT), Regional Land Stewardship Balance (or NPTR), and Detailed Spatial plan (or RDTR).” - This sentence is long and could be broken down for clarity.

2. The tables are informative but could be formatted more consistently. Ensure uniform font sizes and spacing.

3. Figures 3, 4, and 5 are useful, but captions could be more descriptive.

4. The paper is generally well-structured but could benefit from more concise wording in certain sections. Some sentences are lengthy and complex, making them difficult to follow. Breaking them into smaller sentences would improve readability.

 

Author Response

Subject: Re: Manuscript ID [Land-3509177] - Cost Efficiency Analysis in Integrated Cadastre Mapping   System through an Operational Management Approach - Response to Reviewer Comments.

Dear Editor,

Thank you for the opportunity to revise our manuscript and for the thorough review and feedback. We have carefully considered all comments and implemented the necessary revisions to strengthen the manuscript. Below, we address each comment point-by-point:

 

Reviewer 2 Comment 1: 

• I believe that the introduction provides a solid background, but it could be more concise. Try considering summarizing the importance of cadastral mapping in fewer words while maintaining key references.
• Our Response: "The importance of cadastral mapping" has been shortened in this paragraph (lines 38-49), eliminating repetition of ideas, already.

            The importance of cadastral mapping" has been shortened in this paragraph, eliminating repetition of ideas, already. “This system is closely linked with cadastre, which is the premise of systematic registration of ownership of land, the boundaries of the land, and its use [3]. Cadastre mapping is also helpful in land administration as it ensures that the current and complete details of the parcel, its use, and its owner are provided. Those cadastral data constitute essential information in land management and decision-making plan [4]. Furthermore, accurate information on the land use is vital in assessing taxes. If wrong or old information is used, the local governments might suffer numerous tax losses [5]. The combination of cadastral data sets with other spatial data sets like land use and soil maps appreciably improves the information quality, land management practices and spatial planning [6], [7].”

 

Reviewer 2 Comment 2: 

• Despite the fact the methodology section is well-detailed I believe that it could benefit from clearer subheadings and better transitions between paragraphs.
• Our Response: The methodology is well detailed in six subheadings (lines 202-261), with much better transition in each paragraph so that it looks more cohesive.

 

Reviewer 2 Comment 3: 

• The discussion effectively compares pre- and post-integration results, but it would be stronger with a clearer summary of the key findings.
• Our Response: the summary of key finding is added in the beginning of the paragraph (lines 450-452). "The result of the study generally shows that integrated cadastral mapping through an operational management approach performed relatively significant cost efficiency."

 

Reviewer 2 Comment 4: 

• The use of Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) is well justified, but a brief comparison with alternative efficiency analysis methods would strengthen your argument.
• Our Response: Stochastic Frontier Analysis and Cost Benefit Analysis have been added in this section to justify why DEA is selected (lines 122-139).

“In fact, many other analytical methods can be used to measure the efficiency level of an activity's performance, such as Stochastic Frontier Analysis and Cost-Benefit Analysis. The data used in this study is non-parametric data with standardized values from the Ministry of Agrarian Affairs and Spatial Planning/National Land Agency (ATR/BPN) and specific assumptions in conducting the analysis, making the Stochastic Frontier Analysis method less appropriate. Meanwhile, the cost-benefit analysis is also assumed to be inappropriate because the technique is more oriented towards the socio-economic and benefit value of an activity. It’s also assumed to be less appropriate because this study uses annual program data from the Ministry of ATR/BPN, so the feasibility of a job is considered sufficiently viable to be carried out. Therefore, DEA is designated as the most appropriate method to be used in this study because the values to be measured in this study use simple ratio data that are not significantly influenced by assumptions from other factors outside the program and are annual programs of the Ministry of ATR/BPN that are considered feasible to be carried out in terms of socio-economic benefits.”

 

Reviewer 2 Comment 5: 

• The conclusion should emphasize practical implications of your findings, such as how policymakers or land administrators can implement these efficiency improvements.
• Our Response: practical implication is described in two layers: 1) on how it can be the model for ATR/BPN office. 2) It can be an alternative solution in the current Indonesian streamline budget (lines 588-603).

The estimated budgetary savings underscore the viability of this model as a policy implementation alternative within the Ministry of Agrarian Affairs and Spatial Planning/National Land Agency (ATR/BPN), particularly at the district/city level in Indonesia. Consequently, these efficiencies enable the ATR/BPN to execute three concurrent activities while covering a wider area, thereby expediting the achievement of the integrated mapping target for a comprehensive Indonesian map. Moreover, the integrated cadastral mapping budget efficiency demonstrated in this study aligns with the Indonesian government's ongoing efforts to streamline budgets across various governmental sectors, including the ATR/BPN. Hence, even with the revised budget allocation, the ATR/BPN can still execute three integrated mapping programs relatively effectively.

 

Reviewer 2 Comment 6: 

• It would be useful to define what a good reliability score is and why this method is appropriate in this context.
• Our Response: the explanation of reliability score is outlined in 2.2 by mentioning (lines 219-225) that the acceptable standard internal consistency coefficient is at least 0.70, while a value of more than 0.80 is considered good and a value greater than 0.90 is considered excellent.

In addition, the Cronbach's Alpha method was also used to check the reliability of the developed questionnaire. This is because creating a valid and reliable questionnaire is very important in decision-making, especially for assessing the reliability and internal consistency of scales and tests, assessing the level of items, and considering them as representing, referring to, or measuring the same factor [54]. The acceptable standard internal consistency coefficient is at least 0.70, while a value of more than 0.80 is considered good and a value greater than 0.90 is considered excellent [55].

 

Reviewer 2 Comment 7: 

• I believe that a short comparison with alternative efficiency analysis techniques (such as Stochastic Frontier Analysis, Cost Benefit Analysis) would make this section more robust.
• Our Response: Stochastic Frontier Analysis and Cost Benefit Analysis have been added in this section (lines 125-139) to justify why DEA is selected.

“In fact, many other analytical methods can be used to measure the efficiency level of an activity's performance, such as Stochastic Frontier Analysis and Cost-Benefit Analysis. The data used in this study is non-parametric data with standardized values from the Ministry of Agrarian Affairs and Spatial Planning/National Land Agency (ATR/BPN) and a specific assumption in conducting the analysis, making the Stochastic Frontier Analysis method less appropriate. Meanwhile, the cost-benefit analysis is also assumed to be inappropriate because the technique is more oriented towards the socio-economic and benefit value of an activity. It is also assumed to be less appropriate because this study uses annual program data from the Ministry of ATR/BPN, so the feasibility of a job is considered sufficiently viable to be carried out. Therefore, DEA is designated as the most appropriate method to be used in this study because the values to be measured in this study use simple rasio data that are not significantly influenced by assumptions from other factors outside the program and are annual programs of the Ministry of ATR/BPN that are considered feasible to be carried out in terms of socio-economic benefits.”

 

Reviewer 2 Comment 8: 

• Could you please clarify what the DMUs are in this study? Are they individual cadastral offices, land management units, or regional divisions? It is not clear to the reader.
• Our Response: DMU in this study refers to annual cycles of a cadastral mapping program, encompassing seven distinct aspects (aerial mapping, office supplies, meeting consumptions, transportations, daily allowance, capital expenditures and socialization), not as institutions but activities (lines 238-261).

“DMU in this study refers to annual cycles of a cadastral mapping program, encompassing seven distinct aspects (aerial mapping, office supplies, meeting consumptions, transportations, daily allowance, capital expenditures and socialization), not as institutions but as activities.”

 

Reviewer 2 Comment 9: 

• I would also briefly mention how the model was calibrated. Did you compare it with existing cadastral mapping cost data?
• Our Response: the model was validated and calibrated. The research method section was rearranged so that it is more organized and easier to understand (lines 202-225).

“The research began with grouping and integrating mapping aspects across three program activities (Complete Systematic Land Registration (PTSL), Land Value Zones (ZNT), and Regional Land Stewardship Balance (NPTR)) that shared similar aspects, later called parameters. Subsequently, through the operational management approach that focuses on the financial or money aspect, cost elimination was carried out to address indications of operational cost duplication across these aspects. These parameters were then measured and interpreted into quantitative values to build a model called integrated cadastral mapping model.”

“The next step of the research was model validation and calibration. The model was validated through questionnaires which were first validated using Cronbach’s alpha. Validity is the extent to which a test accurately measures the assumed aspect under consideration [52], [53]. The questionnaires were given to staff of the Ministry of Agrarian Affairs and Spatial Planning/National Land Agency through purposive sampling. The staff are selected based on their competencies in planning, finance, and cadastral mapping. There are 27 items of question in the questionnaire. The questionnaire was created based on 7 overlapped parameters, namely: aerial mapping, office supplies, meeting consumption, transportation, daily allowance, capital expenditure and socialization.”

“In addition, the Cronbach's Alpha method was also used to check the reliability of the developed questionnaire. This is because creating a valid and reliable questionnaire is very important in decision-making, especially for assessing the reliability and internal consistency of scales and tests, assessing the level of items, and considering them as representing, referring to, or measuring the same factor [54]. The acceptable standard internal consistency coefficient is at least 0.70, while a value of more than 0.80 is considered good and a value greater than 0.90 is considered excellent [55].”

 

Reviewer 2 Comment 10: 

• Are there any limitations of DEA that should be acknowledged? (e.g., DEA assumes no random errors, which may not always be the case in cost-efficiency analysis).
• Our Response: Limitation of DEA is outlined in the discussion section (lines 550-558).

            In implementing DEA in this study of integrated cadastral mapping, it is found that DEA has its limitations. In terms of quantity, it can indeed save the budget, but we did not further examine the quality of the mapping. In general, if the budget is reduced, the quality also tends to decrease, including the accuracy of the map. DEA is carried out in a certain period and only compares efficiency before and after budget changes. However, the long-term impact of efficiency, such as improving mapping quality or reducing operational costs in the next few years, cannot be directly measured with DEA.

 

Reviewer 2 Comment 11: 

• Model calibration and validation sections should be added to improve the scientific soundness of the paper.
• Our Response: Model calibration and validation section has been added in section 3.2 since the first beginning. The revised version shows the improvement in the step-by-step explanation of obtaining validity and reliability results (lines 405-426).

 

3.2       Validity and Reliability Results

There are 27 items of question in the questionnaire. The questionnaire was created based on 7 shared parameters, namely: aerial mapping, office supplies, meeting consumption, transportation, daily allowance, capital expenditure and socialization. In this analysis, Pearson's correlation method was employed, with an r-table value of 0.43 serving as the threshold for validity determination. If the value of each question item (Rxy) exceeded the r-table value, the item was deemed valid. Conversely, if the value was below this threshold, the item was considered invalid and required revision or removal to avoid compromising measurement accuracy [58]. Based on the results of the validity test conducted on 27 question items, 26 items were declared valid, with only one item deemed invalid due to its Rxy value falling below 0.433. Table 6 below provides a summary of the validity test results.

Table 6. Summary of validity test results.

Rxy Score Range	Number of Question Item	Status
>0.800	7	Valid
0.700-0.800	6	Valid
0,500-0,699	13	Valid
<0,433	1	Not Valid

Furthermore, the Cronbach's Alpha value obtained through calculation is 0.968. This indicates that the questionnaire possesses exceptionally high reliability. Essentially, each question within the questionnaire demonstrates strong consistency with the others, suggesting that respondents are likely to provide stable and consistent answers. Given this high reliability, it can be concluded that the instrument employed is highly effective in measuring the variables under investigation, and there is no immediate need for improvement in terms of internal consistency.

 

Reviewer 2 Comment 12: 

• “This study aimed to determine the cost efficiency in the coordination of land administration systems and spatial planning including Complete Systematic Land Registration (or PTSL), Land Value Zone (or ZNT), Regional Land Stewardship Balance (or NPTR), and Detailed Spatial plan (or RDTR).” - This sentence is long and could be broken down for clarity.
• Our Response: The sentence has been broken down into two (lines 149-152).

This study aimed to determine the cost efficiency in the coordination of land administration systems and spatial planning in Indonesia. This includes Complete Systematic Land Registration (or PTSL), Land Value Zone (or ZNT), and Regional Land Stewardship Balance (or NPTR).

 

Reviewer 2 Comment 13: 

• The tables are informative but could be formatted more consistently. Ensure uniform font sizes and spacing.
• Our Response: Size and spacing in the tables have already been formatted more consistently (lines 297-298; 337-338; 418-419; 440-441; 458-459; and 461-462).

 

Reviewer 2 Comment 14:  

• Figures 3, 4, and 5 are useful, but captions could be more descriptive
• Our Response: Figures 3, 4, and 5 have been explained in long paragraphs (lines 474-542).

The reduced integrated cadastral mapping costs are presented using the distribution maps in Figure 3 and Figure 4 for 2023 and 2024, respectively, after implementing operational management. The use of operational management to enhance factors of integrated cadastral mapping is intended to optimize expenditure activities, as tested for effectiveness through DEA analysis.

The maps in Figures 3a and 4a illustrate that dark shades are areas with high costs per hectare, suggesting that the various cost centers poorly planned their budgets. Such areas are usually situated in remote areas that may have restricted land space or hard access, hence making expensive mapping activities. Figures 3b and 4b demonstrate a notable shift in the post-integration cost distribution: a relative increase in light hues, a decrease in the cost per hectare, and an increase in production efficiency. Test results with DEA show positive efficiency increases, chiefly in strategic forms of the utilization of agricultural land and geographical objects of interest whereby costs were most reduced. At the same time, the level of increase in the overall efficiency was even higher for densely populated residential areas with small territories, albeit not at the level of improvement in the efficiency of areas used for agriculture. From this analysis, it can be argued that Operational Management enhanced the quota in a better manner by using the overall budget in Way Sulan Sub-district, which has a solid ground preparation for more efficient improvement of the resource allocation plan.

Figure 5 (a) and 5 (b) indicates the efficiency values of integrated mapping in two years during operational management implementation. The figures depict cost efficiency for each parcel and hectare in Way Sulan sub-district for 2023 (a) and 2024 (b), primarily considering the integrated cadastral mapping cost efficiency value. A darker color represents the higher cost per hectare of input showing the best efficiency level. The darker maps are almost in the agricultural fields, and areas with geographical objects such as rivers and roads are more efficient than the white-marked maps, which represent the areas of residence. When applied to integrated cadastral mapping, the operational management was less effective within densely populated areas. This is because the land occupied by housing is much smaller than the region for agricultural production. Agriculture areas offer a bigger size of land hence they have higher efficiency in running the three mapping programs in one by applying the operational management. On the other hand, populated residential areas tend to have smaller land size; therefore, they have lower efficiency than agricultural areas when running this program. Furthermore, agricultural areas take advantage of geographical features with less restricted access and other objects to mapping, and this has an impact on the   efficiency of the entire process. Thus, it can be interpreted that the application of operational management in cadastral mapping is more effective in large areas of agricultural land. On the other hand, in a densely populated area, the efficiency is low since it costs more parcels for each hectare of land.

 

Reviewer 2 Comment 15: 

• The paper is generally well-structured but could benefit from more concise wording in certain sections. Some sentences are lengthy and complex, making them difficult to follow. Breaking them into smaller sentences would improve readability.
• Our Response: The long sentences in the paper have already been broken down so that it could reduce the complexity and improve readability (lines 320-332).

 

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your valuable feedback and insightful comments on our manuscript. We have tried to address the points raised during the review and revised the text accordingly.

 

We appreciate your guidance throughout this process and hope that the improvements we have implemented meet your expectations. Thank you for your time and consideration.

 

Sincerely,

[Dr. Andri Hernandi]

Spatial System and Cadastre Research Group, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Jalan Ganesa 10, Bandung 40132, West Java, Indonesia