Quality of Public Services in Astanajapura Village in the Perspective of Community Satisfaction

Authors

  • Askarno Askarno Politeknik Siber Cerdika Internasional, Indonesia
  • Dayuni Dayuni Politeknik Siber Cerdika Internasional, Indonesia
  • Siti Mardiah Politeknik Siber Cerdika Internasional, Indonesia
  • Faujan Faujan Politeknik Siber Cerdika Internasional, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.58344/jws.v5i9.1716

Keywords:

public service, community satisfaction, village government, service quality, village development

Abstract

Public services at the village level have a strategic role in increasing public satisfaction and trust in the government. This study aims to analyze the quality of public services in Astanajapura Village from the perspective of community satisfaction. The research uses a qualitative approach with an in-depth interview method with people who have accessed village services. The data was analyzed thematically to identify public perception of various aspects of public services. The results of the study show that the quality of public services in Astanajapura Village is generally perceived well by the community. The speed and reliability of administrative services are considered adequate, supported by the friendly, polite, and empathetic attitude of village officials. Clarity of information and ease of access to services also contribute to the comfort of the community in accessing services. In addition, transparency and fairness in the distribution of social assistance strengthen public trust in the village government. Public perception of village development shows a realistic and positive attitude, especially towards development programs that are concrete and directly touch household needs. This study concludes that community satisfaction with village public services is not only determined by administrative aspects, but also by the quality of social interaction, policy transparency, and the direction of village development that is responsive to community needs.

References

Altieri, M. A., & Nicholls, C. I. (2017). The adaptation and mitigation potential of traditional agriculture. Climatic Change, 140(1), 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0909-y

Andersen, S. C., & Hjortskov, M. (2016). Cognitive bias in performance evaluations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26(4), 647–662. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muv036

Andrews, M., & Shah, A. (2003). Citizen-centered governance: A new approach to public sector reform. Public Administration and Development, 23(2), 99–109. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.261

Andrews, R., & Entwistle, T. (2010). Does cross-sectoral partnership deliver? Public Administration, 88(3), 679–701. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2010.01869.x

Andrews, R., Boyne, G. A., & Walker, R. M. (2011). The impact of management on administrative and survey measures of organizational performance. Public Management Review, 13(2), 227–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2010.532968

Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & Grimes, J. M. (2010). Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency. Government Information Quarterly, 27(3), 264–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2010.03.001

Bevir, M. (2011). Governance as theory, practice, and dilemma. The Oxford Handbook of Governance. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199560530.003.0001

Bovaird, T., & Löffler, E. (2009). Public management and governance. Public Management Review, 11(2), 215–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030902798286

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Choi, S., & Kim, B. (2013). The impact of public service quality on citizen satisfaction and trust. Public Performance & Management Review, 36(4), 595–615. https://doi.org/10.2753/PMR1530-9576360406

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506330204

Denhardt, J. V., & Denhardt, R. B. (2015). The new public service: Serving, not steering. Public Administration Review, 75(5), 664–672. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12355

Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903

Hsieh, J. K., & Hsieh, Y. C. (2014). Does customer orientation matter? Effects of interaction quality on customer satisfaction. Service Business, 8(2), 187–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11628-013-0208-2

Johnston, R. (1995). The determinants of service quality: Satisfiers and dissatisfiers. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 6(5), 53–71. https://doi.org/10.1108/09564239510101536

Kim, S., & Lee, J. (2012). E?participation, transparency, and trust in local government. Public Administration Review, 72(6), 819–828. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02593.x

Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849208963

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412985041

Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(6), 952–964. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.952

Linders, D. (2012). From e-government to we-government. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 446–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.06.003

Mansuri, G., & Rao, V. (2013). Localizing development: Does participation work? World Bank Research Observer, 28(2), 277–293. https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/lkt002

Meijer, A. (2013). Understanding the complex dynamics of transparency. Public Administration Review, 73(3), 429–439. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12032

Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Jossey-Bass. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119174029

Morgeson, F. V., & Petrescu, C. (2011). Do they all perform alike? An examination of perceived performance, citizen satisfaction, and trust with US federal agencies. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 77(3), 451–479. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852311405768

Nielsen, P. A. (2014). Learning from performance feedback: Performance information, aspiration levels, and managerial priorities. Public Administration, 92(1), 142–160. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12050

Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 460–469. https://doi.org/10.2307/1250318

Osborne, S. P., Radnor, Z., & Nasi, G. (2013). A new theory for public service management? Toward a (public) service?dominant approach. American Review of Public Administration, 43(2), 135–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074012466935

Palinkas, L. A., et al. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 42(5), 533–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12–40. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251430

Pretty, J. (2003). Social capital and the collective management of resources. Science, 302(5652), 1912–1914. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1090847

Rhee, S. K., & Rha, J. Y. (2009). Public service quality and customer satisfaction. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 26(5), 458–472. https://doi.org/10.1108/02656710910951625

Riccucci, N. M., Van Ryzin, G. G., & Lavena, C. F. (2014). Representative bureaucracy and perceived performance. Public Administration Review, 74(1), 37–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12128

Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Wilkie, C. (2017). Revamping local and regional development. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 10(1), 121–142. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsw048

Tyler, T. R. (2006). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 375–400. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190038

Van de Walle, S., & Bouckaert, G. (2003). Public service performance and trust in government: The problem of causality. International Journal of Public Administration, 26(8–9), 891–913. https://doi.org/10.1081/PAD-120019352

Van der Voet, J., Kuipers, B. S., & Groeneveld, S. (2016). Implementing change in public organizations. Public Administration, 94(3), 842–857. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12218

Van Ryzin, G. G. (2004). Expectations, performance, and citizen satisfaction with urban services. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 23(3), 433–448. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20020

Van Ryzin, G. G., & Immerwahr, S. (2007). Importance–performance analysis of citizen satisfaction. Public Administration, 85(1), 215–226. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2007.00641.x

Walker, R. M., Brewer, G. A., Boyne, G. A., & Avellaneda, C. N. (2011). Market orientation and public service performance. Public Administration Review, 71(5), 707–717. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02410.x

Welch, E. W., Hinnant, C. C., & Moon, M. J. (2005). Linking citizen satisfaction with e-government. Public Administration Review, 65(3), 371–382. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2005.00454.x

Wisniewski, M. (2001). Using SERVQUAL to assess customer satisfaction with public sector services. Managing Service Quality, 11(6), 380–388. https://doi.org/10.1108/09604520110410610

Downloads

Published

2026-10-21

How to Cite

Askarno, A., Dayuni, D., Mardiah, S. ., & Faujan, F. (2026). Quality of Public Services in Astanajapura Village in the Perspective of Community Satisfaction. Journal of World Science, 5(9), 925–944. https://doi.org/10.58344/jws.v5i9.1716

Issue

Vol. 5 No. 9 (2026): Journal of World Science

Section

Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Askarno Askarno, Dayuni Dayuni, Siti Mardiah, Faujan Faujan

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  • Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International. that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  • Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  • Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.