## 5 Data Analysis and Discussion
### The Impact of \"Sea Toll\" on Seaport Competitiveness  
The questionnaire data for the impact of the \"sea toll\" on port competitiveness was analyzed in the same way as for the data on port's resilience (see Table 8).  
In this stage, similar to the previous stage in the aspect of resilience, the results of the calculation in the initial data tabulation are processed to determine the priority vector value of each variable. Later through the priority vector value, it can be seen, which variable is dominant compared to other variables. The results of the normalization test are shown in Table 9. The highest priority vector value was for seaport performance (4.93).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Seaport Competitiveness** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Seaport** \\ **Performance** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Seaport** \\ **Capacity** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Seaport** \\ **Priorality** \\ **Proximity** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Service** \\ **for Seaports** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Seaport** \\ **Value** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline Seaport performance & 1 & 3 & 3 & 3 & 3 \\ Seaport capacity & 0.33 & 1 & 0.50 & 3 & 3 \\ Seaport hierarchal proximity & 0.33 & 2 & 1 & 3 & 2 \\ Service variations for seaports & 0.33 & 0.33 & 0.33 & 1 & 3 \\ Seaport trade volume & 0.33 & 0.33 & 0.50 & 0.33 & 1 \\ Total & 2.33 & 6.67 & 5.33 & 10.33 & 12.00 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Source: Authors.  
\end{table}
Table 8: Tabulation of data on the assessment of seaport competitiveness criteria by all respondents.  
Figure 6: Strategic alliance framework.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Seaport Competitiveness** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Seaport** \\ **Performance** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Seaport** \\ **Capacity** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Seaport** \\ **Hinterland** \\ **Proximity** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Service** \\ **variations** \\ **for Seaports** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Seaport** \\ **Value** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Property** \\ **Vector** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline Seaport performance & 0.43 & 0.45 & 0.56 & 0.29 & 0.25 & 1.98 & 4.93 \\ Seaport capacity & 0.14 & 0.15 & 0.09 & 0.29 & 0.25 & 0.93 & 2.30 \\ Seaport hinterland proximity & 0.14 & 0.30 & 0.19 & 0.29 & 0.17 & 1.09 & 2.70 \\ Service variations for seaports & 0.14 & 0.05 & 0.06 & 0.10 & 0.25 & 0.60 & 1.50 \\ Seaport trade volume & 0.14 & 0.05 & 0.09 & 0.03 & 0.08 & 0.40 & 1.00 \\ Total & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 5 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Source: Authors.  
\end{table}
Table 9: Normalization test of port competitiveness criteria data.  
A consistency test found that the highest matrix consistency value was obtained for the seaport performance variable (27.44) and the value of CR was 0.097 < 0.1 (see Table 10). It was concluded that the seaport performance had the largest impact on the implementation of the \"sea toll\" program.  
According to [PERSON] et al. [10], there are several inland components related to the performance of the seaport, such as ship calling frequency, reliability, efficiency, cost, and productivity. However, our study focused on the main components of seaport competitiveness. The inland component was a supporting variable in comprehensively defining the performance of the seaport as shown in Figure 7.  
So, from the results of our investigation of the impact of the \"sea toll\" program, the seaport performance factor can be broadly defined regarding port operations of passenger ports, container ports, or even the dry port that is part of the \"sea toll\" program.