International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 47 (2015) 72e78

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ergon

Ethnic differences in Indonesian anthropometry data: Evidence from

three different largest ethnics
Ari Widyanti a, *, Lusi Susanti b, Iftikar Zahedi Sutalaksana a, Khoirul Muslim a
a
Department of Industrial Engineering, Bandung Institute of Technology, Indonesia
b
Department of Industrial Engineering, Andalas University, Indonesia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Different ethnics may show different dimension on anthropometry. This study measures 1135 students
Received 21 May 2014 from three different ethnics in Indonesia, all participated based on voluntarily basis, to see whether
Received in revised form ethnicity is a signicant factor in Indonesian anthropometric data. There were 632 Minangkabau stu-
21 January 2015
dents mostly located in Sumatera Island, 344 Javanese students mostly located in East and Central Java
Accepted 26 February 2015
Available online
Island, and 157 Sundanese students mostly located in West Java. Results showed that most of mean
dimensions and all of the bodily proportions have signicant differences, both for male and female
subjects. The implications for Indonesian anthropometric databases and design purposes are discussed.
Keywords:
Indonesian
Relevance to industry: To enhance safety and comfort, design of equipments and facilities in Indonesia
Anthropometry should take into account anthropometric differences in Indonesians ethnics. Failure to do so will imply in
Minangkabau the less safe and comfort.
Javanese 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Sundanese

1. Introduction common culture (Hobsbawm, 1993). Ethnic differences in anthro-

Anthropometry, which is dened as the science of measurement
and the art of application of physical properties of the human
(Kroemer and Grandjean, 2005), is one of the most important fac-
tors to consider during the design process of equipment or facilities.
As underlined by Kroemer and Grandjean, anthropometry is a core
for tting the tasks to the human. Application of anthropometry in
product and workplace design can be seen such as in the context of
daily product (Al-Ansari and Mokdad, 2009; Castellucci et al., 2010;
Jung, 2005; Oyewole et al., 2010; Thariq et al., 2010) and in in-
dustrial and service context (Castro et al., 2010; Laios and
Giannatsis, 2010; Mehta et al., 2008; Victor et al., 2002). The
properly designed machines and equipment that take into account
anthropometric consideration may increase the work performance
and productivity, as well as decrease the frequency of work-related
injuries (Klamklay et al., 2008).
Various factors have been shown to inuence anthropometric
data such as ethnicity, genders, and occupation (SAE International,
1998). Ethnicity is dened as a group of people whose members are
identied through a common heritage, a common language and a
* Corresponding author. Department of Industrial Engineering, Bandung Institute
of Technology, Ganesa 10, Bandung 40135, Indonesia. Tel./fax: 62 22 2508124.
E-mail address: widyanti@mail.ti.itb.ac.id (A. Widyanti).
pometric data have been observed for years. For instance, at the
country level, Yap et al. (2001) found that upper body segment
lengths differ signicantly among adult Chinese, Malays and In-
dians, in descending order. Ball et al. (2010) found signicant var-
iations between head shapes of Chinese and Caucasian with
Chinese heads being rounder, and atter back and forehead
compared to Caucasians. Moreover, Khadem and Islam (2014)
conducted comprehensive anthropometric study of the Banglade-
shi male population and found signicant differences between the
body dimensions of the Bangladeshi male population and male
samples of Portuguese, Netherlands, Indians, Sri Lankan and Sin-
gaporean. Furthermore, anthropometric differences are not only
found among different countries, but also among different ethnics
within countries. Zhenbiao (1985), for example, recorded notable
differences in stature from north to south China. Yokota (2005) also
found differences in head and facial anthropometry between
American black and white males. In another study, Jahanshahi et al.
(2008) found difference in facial anthropometry among different
ethnicity in Iran. Lin et al. (2004) also found that Chinese, Japanese,
Korean, and Taiwanese, which belong to the Mongolian race and
are highly associated historically, differs signicantly in body pro-
portion. As such, for tting the equipment and facilities to specic
ethnic or population, the selection and utilization of anthropo-
metric database is crucial (Wickens et al., 2004).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2015.02.008
0169-8141/ 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 A. Widyanti et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 47 (2015) 72e78
Various studies have been conducted to establish anthropo-
metric databases for different population and ethnic such as Nor-
wegian (Bolstad et al., 2001), Algerian (Mokdad, 2002), Portuguesse
(Barroso et al., 2005), Polish (Jarosz, 1999) Mexican American
(Pennathura and Dowling, 2003), Indian (Victor et al., 2002), Fili-
pinos (Del Prado-Lu, 2007), Swedish (Hanson et al., 2009), Ban-
gladeshi (Khadem and Islam, 2014), and Iranian (Ghaderi et al.,
2014; Sadeghi et al., 2015).
In Indonesia, an anthropometric database is acknowledged as an
important factor as well. Many products and equipment needs to be
designed based on anthropometric data. For example, moderniza-
tion in Indonesian agriculture has been increasing rapidly and de-
mand for agricultural hand tools and machinery is also increased.
The proper matching of machine requirements with anthropo-
metric data is basically necessary for optimum performance of
manemachine system and avoid injuries of the workers. However,
due to many restrictions (e.g., cost restriction and resource re-
striction), Indonesia has been struggling with providing and
updating the anthropometric databases. The most updated Indo-
nesian anthropometric database was published by the country's
Ministry of Labor at 1955. Considering that there are differences in
anthropometric data in different decade, updating the database is
crucial. However, to update anthropometric databases, especially
for huge populations, may be constrained by other factors related to
the representation of the sample with population (Chuan et al.,
2010). Indonesia is an archipelago with 17,508 islands with big
ve islands namely Sumatera, Kalimantan (Borneo), Sulawesi, Java,
and Irian Jaya. The people lives in the islands are also composed of
many different ethnic groups, raising a question of whether there
are ethnic differences in anthropometric data.
The example of the importance of considering ethnicity in
anthropometric data can be seen in the design of Indonesian cloth
and furniture. Centre of industries for Indonesian cloth is located in
West Java. For practical reason, anthropometric data used in cloth
design has been based on local data that is West Java (Sundanese)
anthropometric data. Considering that anthropometric data used in
cloth design (i.e. waist height and abdominal depth) are signi-
cantly different between Sundanese and Minangkabau, it is quite
clear that general size of cloth is not suitable for Minangkabau
ethnic. Similar picture can be found in the design of furniture, in
particular those made of Jatiwood (a kind of teakwood). Since
furniture from Jatiwood has been produced in Central Java, there is
no doubt that anthropometric data used in design of furniture such
as popliteal height has been based on local data as well. In this case,
since popliteal height is signicantly different between Javanese
and Minangkabau, in which Minangkabau has longer popliteal
height that Javanese, suitability of the furniture for Minangkabau
ethnic should be considered.
Considering that Indonesia consists of hundreds of ethnic
groups, the representation of Indonesian anthropometric database
based on ethnic is therefore important. However, only limited
anthropometric studies have been performed regarding possible
ethnic differences in Indonesia (e.g., Chuan et al., 2010). Therefore,
it is of interest to gure out whether there are signicant differ-
ences in anthropometric data from different ethnicity in Indonesia.
Knowledge about the similarities or differences in anthropometric
data among ethnicity in Indonesia will substantially inuence the
development of Indonesian anthropometric database, as it has
consequences on the choice of data sample to be measured.
The aim of this study was to compare the differences in
anthropometric dimensions among three major ethnicities in
Indonesia. Among 300 ethnic groups in Indonesia, the largest
ethnic group in Indonesia is the Javanese who make up 41% of the
total population scattered throughout Indonesia, mainly in Eastern
and Central Java. The second largest ethnic is Sundanese with 15%
73
of total population which live mostly in West Java. Although both
Javanese and Sundanese have already make up more than 56% of
Indonesian population, it will be interesting to see whether these
two samples are not differing from other ethnic groups. Therefore,
anthropometric data from third large ethnic group, Minangkabau,
was included. The Minangkabau mostly live in West Sumatra. Due
to technical reason, other ethnics are not included in this study.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
This study involved 344 (40 female) Javanese university stu-
dents with mean (SD) age of 18.2 (0.87) years old, 157 (80 female)
Sundanese university students aged 18.2 (0.75), and 632 (321 fe-
male) Minangkabau university students age 18.1 (0.71). The Java-
nese and Sundanese participants were students of Industrial
Engineering (IE) Department, Bandung Institute of Technology
(ITB). The Minangkabau participants were IE student of Andalas
University.
2.2. Procedure
All anthropometric data were measured in the laboratory for
work system design and ergonomics in ITB and Andalas University.
The measurement was done using traditional anthropometric tools
and equipment rather than a more sophisticated and high-tech
equipment. They are quite simple, portable, inexpensive, and as
reliable and accurate as those obtained by high-tech anthropometric
tools such three-dimensional scanner (Al-Ansari and Mokdad, 2009;
Ghoddousi et al., 2007). A portable weighing scale (0e125 kg) was
used to measure body weight. Martin type anthropometer consisting
of a sliding caliper, a spreading caliper, a foot measurer and a plastic
tape was used for standing and sitting postures, The Martin-type
anthropometer for the standing posture is a widely used anthropo-
metric device for measuring heights, breadths and depths between
points on the body and standard reference surfaces in a standing
posture (Kroemer and Grandjean, 2005). All tools were calibrated
prior to the measurement. At the beginning of the data collection,
participants were informed of the purpose of the measurement, the
equipment and the procedure. During the measurement, subjects
were required to wear only light clothes and barefooted.
The measurements were conducted by research assistants who
received prior training to become familiar with the equipment,
body landmarks, and measurement techniques. The training has
been performed to minimize inter-observer and intra-observer
error (Kouchi et al., 1996). In addition, Mislihah (2005) has also
proved that providing training to research assistant to perform such
measurements could eliminate inter and intra observer errors.
A total of 38 major anthropometric dimensions were identied,
which consisted of 13 body dimensions (including body weight)
measured in standing posture (Fig. 1) and 17 body dimensions
measured in sitting posture (Fig. 2). Eight hand dimensions were
measured as well (Fig. 3). The 38 anthropometric dimensions were
identied because these dimensions are the most used in the
design of workplaces and equipments in Indonesia, such as for
designs of workstation in industries, children's chair etc. In addi-
tion, these 38 dimensions were considered enough to provide an
initial and basic anthropometric database used for general purpose
of design in Indonesia.
2.3. Data analyses
Descriptive statistics were obtained to summarize minimum,
maximum, mean and standard deviation (SD) of the 38 major
74 A. Widyanti et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 47 (2015) 72e78

Fig. 1. Body dimensions measured in standing position.

Fig. 2. Body dimensions measured in sitting position.

anthropometric dimensions. One-way ANOVA with post-hoc LSD's

test was performed for all dimensions of the different ethnic groups
with separate gender analysis.

3. Results

Summary statistics regarding anthropometric data of the 38

body dimensions (all dimensions in cm, body weight in kg) are
presented in Tables 1e3 for standing position, sitting position and
hand dimensions, respectively.
Results showed that most of mean dimensions and all of the
bodily proportions have signicant differences, both for male and
female subjects. In standing position, Javanese male subjects are
slightly bigger than Sundanese and Minangkabau for 8 of 13 body
dimensions: stature, eye height, shoulder height, hip height, knee
height, elbowengertip length, span and body weight (all p > 0.05).
Minangkabau male subjects are biggest, tallest, and longest among
the three ethnics for these dimensions: chest bust depth
Fig. 3. Hand dimensions. (p < 0.001), abdominal depth (p < 0.001), waist height (p < 0.001).
Table 1
Indonesian anthropometric data as a function of gender and ethnic in standing position.

No Dimensions Javanese Sundanese Minangkabau

Male Female Male Female Male Female

Mean SD P5 P95 Mean SD P5 P95 Mean SD P5 P95 Mean SD P5 P95 Mean SD P5 P95 Mean SD P5 P95

1 Stature 167.43 5.99 158.00 178.00 154.88 4.81 146.00 162.00 167.01 5.31 159.00 175.00 155.10 4.99 146.00 163.00 166.49 5.21 158.00 175.00 157.81 5.59 150.00 166.00
2 Eye height 155.51 6.23 145.00 166.00 143.59 4.74 135.00 151.00 154.91 5.84 146.00 165.00 143.59 4.99 134.00 151.00 151.34 17.46 146.00 162.00 146.30 5.78 137.00 155.00
3 Shoulder height 138.27 5.69 130.00 148.00 127.31 5.35 120.00 134.00 138.14 5.06 129.00 146.00 127.79 5.12 120.00 138.00 137.65 5.52 130.00 148.00 130.34 5.11 123.00 138.00
4 Elbow height 103.03 6.46 95.00 112.00 96.31 4.47 90.00 103.00 102.67 4.66 96.00 111.00 95.28 4.98 87.00 101.00 103.74 6.92 95.00 110.00 98.13 4.79 92.00 105.00
5 Hip height 98.82 4.81 91.00 107.00 94.35 4.64 88.00 101.00 98.05 4.58 91.00 105.00 92.38 9.23 78.00 101.00 98.73 6.23 90.00 108.00 97.62 4.03 91.00 106.00

A. Widyanti et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 47 (2015) 72e78

6 Weight 59.29 9.05 47.00 78.00 49.88 8.03 40.00 62.00 57.65 8.89 46.00 75.00 52.33 8.98 43.00 74.00 56.10 8.06 42.00 72.00 50.16 8.22 39.00 69.00
7 Knee height 47.36 4.13 42.00 53.00 42.66 2.59 39.00 47.00 47.18 3.13 42.00 52.00 42.77 2.98 38.00 49.00 47.12 3.35 42.00 52.00 44.87 2.93 40.00 50.00
8 Elbowengertip length 28.19 5.92 23.00 45.00 24.27 3.83 21.00 36.00 27.24 4.49 22.00 41.00 24.54 4.70 21.00 39.00 25.28 2.78 21.00 29.00 24.77 2.30 20.00 28.00
9 Chest bust depth 17.81 5.05 15.00 21.00 15.81 2.08 13.00 19.00 17.37 2.07 14.00 21.00 16.13 1.58 14.00 19.00 19.83 2.45 17.00 24.00 18.60 3.15 13.00 22.00
10 Abdominal depth 16.73 2.41 14.00 21.00 15.52 1.88 13.00 19.00 16.40 2.40 13.00 22.00 15.41 2.09 13.00 19.00 18.48 4.37 15.00 25.00 17.24 3.26 13.00 24.00
11 Vertical reach 213.55 13.19 197.00 229.00 194.51 9.24 183.00 204.00 212.26 8.79 199.00 226.00 197.67 18.07 177.00 215.00 214.74 7.27 204.00 230.00 201.12 7.94 190.00 219.00
12 Forward reach 80.79 5.67 71.00 88.00 75.10 4.19 70.00 81.00 80.01 5.16 72.00 90.00 75.08 4.52 65.00 83.00 81.08 4.62 73.00 90.00 76.28 4.61 70.00 84.00
13 Span 172.09 7.92 160.00 183.00 156.10 6.24 146.00 165.00 169.70 9.08 160.00 182.00 156.18 6.45 145.00 168.00 169.94 12.18 161.00 183.00 161.06 7.22 150.00 172.00

Table 2
Indonesian anthropometry data as a function of gender and ethnic in sitting position.

No Dimensions Javanese Sundanese Minangkabau

Male Female Male Female Male Female

Mean SD P5 P95 Mean SD P5 P95 Mean SD P5 P95 Mean SD P5 P95 Mean SD P5 P95 Mean SD P5 P95

1 Sitting height 86.82 3.55 81.00 92.00 81.46 3.30 76.00 86.00 87.24 3.41 81.00 92.00 82.61 3.82 77.00 88.00 85.53 4.38 79.00 93.00 83.57 3.66 78.00 90.00
2 Normal sitting height 84.59 3.54 79.00 90.00 79.70 3.23 74.00 85.00 85.04 3.34 80.00 90.00 80.59 3.43 76.00 87.00 81.59 4.08 75.00 88.00 80.20 3.60 74.00 87.00
3 Sittingeshoulder height 57.92 4.66 51.00 65.00 54.46 5.22 49.00 59.00 58.29 4.02 53.00 65.00 54.26 3.20 50.00 61.00 56.39 4.23 51.00 64.00 55.55 3.11 51.00 60.00
4 Sittingeeye height 74.47 4.18 68.00 80.00 69.55 3.55 63.00 75.00 74.55 6.62 69.00 80.00 69.23 4.55 64.00 75.00 73.27 8.44 64.00 80.00 70.67 3.45 65.00 75.00
5 Sittingeelbow height 22.61 3.46 18.00 28.00 22.72 3.20 18.00 28.00 23.22 4.49 18.00 29.00 21.77 2.89 16.00 27.00 22.04 3.20 17.00 28.00 22.53 2.99 18.00 27.00
6 Backrest height 45.21 5.82 38.00 53.00 43.53 4.79 37.00 50.00 45.77 5.67 37.00 55.00 45.18 9.04 36.00 52.00 46.23 7.14 33.00 59.00 45.98 3.80 41.00 52.00
7 Waist height 20.80 3.49 16.00 27.00 22.12 3.75 16.00 27.00 18.97 3.54 14.00 26.00 21.90 3.25 15.00 27.00 21.58 2.67 18.00 26.00 23.29 2.79 18.00 28.00
8 Sittingeabdominal depth 17.94 3.08 14.00 24.00 16.24 2.41 13.00 20.00 17.63 3.01 14.00 25.00 16.03 1.97 13.00 20.00 18.89 3.06 15.00 26.00 18.38 3.07 15.00 23.00
9 Thigh thickness 12.86 2.25 9.00 16.00 12.28 2.15 9.00 16.00 12.72 2.18 10.00 17.00 12.00 2.40 9.00 17.00 13.59 1.75 11.00 16.00 13.56 2.17 11.00 17.00
10 Popliteal height 43.40 3.09 39.00 48.00 41.02 3.81 37.00 46.00 43.80 3.18 39.00 50.00 41.10 2.98 38.00 46.00 44.43 2.76 40.00 48.00 44.23 2.35 40.00 48.00
11 Buttockepopliteal length 45.80 4.17 39.00 53.00 44.46 3.39 40.00 50.00 44.27 4.11 38.00 50.00 44.31 3.36 40.00 50.00 45.41 2.87 40.00 50.00 45.71 2.83 41.00 50.00
12 Buttockeknee height 55.53 4.70 48.00 63.00 53.13 3.55 48.00 58.00 53.97 4.87 45.00 63.00 52.82 3.61 44.00 59.00 56.62 4.06 51.00 62.00 54.20 3.43 48.00 60.00
13 Shoulder breadth bideltoid 42.33 3.76 34.00 47.00 37.64 3.65 33.00 43.00 42.18 3.66 35.00 48.00 38.67 3.83 30.00 45.00 42.57 4.11 35.00 49.00 41.07 3.93 35.00 47.00
14 Shoulder breadth biacromial 21.66 5.03 15.00 31.00 18.80 4.52 14.00 29.00 21.93 5.04 16.00 31.00 19.31 3.36 15.00 28.00 29.35 7.28 15.00 39.00 26.09 5.86 16.00 34.00
15 Hip breadth 34.01 4.86 26.00 43.00 34.34 3.76 28.00 40.00 34.42 4.58 27.00 42.00 35.03 4.00 27.00 43.00 33.14 1.58 31.00 36.00 33.07 1.62 32.00 35.00
16 Waist breadth 27.27 3.93 21.00 34.00 25.58 3.94 20.00 31.00 27.54 3.79 20.00 33.00 26.15 4.39 20.00 33.00 29.21 3.59 23.00 34.00 26.12 4.26 22.00 35.00
17 Elboweelbow 40.13 4.87 32.00 47.00 37.54 5.25 29.00 43.00 40.53 4.29 33.00 48.00 39.64 5.30 32.00 50.00 41.74 4.76 33.00 49.00 37.89 4.47 31.00 45.00

75
76 A. Widyanti et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 47 (2015) 72e78

Sundanese male subjects seem to be inferior for measurement of

7.00
9.00
10.00
9.00
7.00
19.00
8.00
11.00
body dimensions in standing posture among the three groups.

P95
For female subjects in standing measurement, among the three
ethnics, Minangkabau subjects are the biggest for these di-

5.00
6.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
8.00
6.00
7.00
P5
mensions: stature (p < 0.001), eye height (p < 0.001), shoulder
height (p < 0.001), elbow height (p < 0.001), hip height (p < 0.001),

0.63
1.06
1.21
1.09
0.79
3.14
0.91
0.98
SD
Female knee height (p < 0.001), chest bust depth (p < 0.001), abdominal
Mean depth (p < 0.001), vertical reach (p < 0.001), span (p < 0.001).
5.57
7.54
8.60
7.63
5.93
10.54
6.72
8.84
Sundanese female subjects are slightly longer in elboweelbow and
heavier than other two ethnics (p > 0.05).
8.00
10.00
11.00
11.00
8.00
19.00
9.00
12.00
Measured in sitting position, Minangkabau female are superior
P95

in sittingeabdominal depth (p 0.001), thigh thickness (p < 0.001),

buttockeknee height (p < 0.001), shoulder breadth biacromial
5.00
7.00
7.00
7.00
5.00
8.00
6.00
8.00
P5

(p < 0.001), waist breadth (p < 0.001), elboweelbow (p < 0.005).

Minangkabau

Sundanese male subjects are slightly longer than other two ethnics
1.00
1.12
1.45
1.11
0.99
3.23
1.07
1.21
SD

in the following body dimensions: sitting height, normal sitting

height, sittingeshoulder height, sittingeeye height, sittingeelbow
Mean

6.40
8.57
8.82
8.76
6.76
10.99
7.05
10.02
Male

height and hip breadth (p > 0.05). There is only one body dimension
that is buttockepopliteal length (p > 0.05) that the Javanese are
6.00
9.00
12.00
9.00
7.00
10.00
7.00
9.00

longer and taller than the two ethnics.

P95

In sitting position for female subjects, Minangkabau female are

4.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
4.00
6.00
5.00
7.00

the longest among the three ethnics in sittingeshoulder height

P5

(p < 0.05), sittingeeye height (p < 0.05), waist height (p < 0.005),
sittingeabdominal depth (p < 0.001), thigh thickness (p < 0.001),
0.72
1.11
8.05
1.08
0.99
1.33
0.66
0.56
SD

popliteal height (p < 0.001), buttockepopliteal length (p 0.001),

Female

buttockeknee height (p < 0.05), shoulder breadth bideltoid

Mean

5.56
7.62
9.67
7.67
6.15
8.36
6.31
8.00

(p < 0.001), shoulder breadth biacromial (p < 0.001). Sundanese

female subjects are slightly higher and longer in normal sitting
7.00
10.00
12.00
11.00
8.00
11.00
8.00
10.00

height, hip breadth, and waist breadth (p > 0.05). There is only one
P95

body dimension that is sittingeelbow height in which the Javanese

are longer than the two ethnics (p > 0.05).
5.00
6.00
7.00
7.00
5.00
7.00
6.00
8.00
P5

Minangkabau male subjects have signicantly bigger hand di-

0.64
1.27
1.47
1.30
1.03
2.08
0.86
1.02

mensions for the following measurement: thumb length

SD
Sundanese

(p < 0.001), wristemiddle nger base (p < 0.001), hand breadth

(p < 0.001), whereas slightly bigger in point nger length and ring
Mean
Male

6.08
8.45
9.48
8.67
6.81
9.26
6.97
9.05

nger length. Sundanese male subjects have slightly longer middle-

nger length and little nger length than other two ethnics
6.00
9.00
10.00
9.00
7.00
11.00
7.00
9.00

(p > 0.05). Only for breadth at four nger base measurement that
P95

Javanese male subjects is above the other two ethnics (p > 0.05).
4.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
4.00
6.00
5.00
7.00
Indonesian anthropometry data as a function of gender and ethnic for hand dimensions.

Comparing hand dimensions for female subjects, Minangkabau

P5

subjects have the longest dimensions among the three ethnics for
middle nger length (p < 0.05), wristemiddle nger base (p < 0.01),
0.73
1.23
1.39
1.28
1.09
1.92
0.70
0.60
SD

breadth at four nger base (p < 0.01) and hand breadth (p < 0.01).
Female

Sundanese subjects are slightly biggest for point nger length,

Mean

5.42
7.35
8.13
7.45
5.94
8.66
6.17
7.95

middle nger length, ring nger length, and little nger length
(p > 0.05).
7.00
10.00
11.00
11.00
8.00
11.00
8.00
10.00
P95

4. Discussion
5.00
6.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
7.00
6.00
8.00
P5

Anthropometric data from three large ethnic groups in

0.65
1.42
1.55
1.48
1.24
2.00
5.09
0.79

Indonesia namely Javanese, Sundanese, Minangkabau has been

SD

collected and summarized. Based on statistical analysis and

Javanese

Mean

depending on the sub-group sample, most of the dimensions were

Male

6.02
8.17
9.18
8.42
6.66
9.59
7.33
9.12

signicantly different. Even though for measurement of body di-

mensions in standing position, Javanese male subjects look slightly
Breadth at four ngers base
Wristemiddle nger base

superior than Minangkabau male subjects, however, in general,

Minangkabau subjects are the biggest among the three ethnics. For
Middle nger length
Point nger length

Little nger length

female subjects, Minangkabau subjects also superior as well. Most

Ring nger length

anthropometric data for Javanese and Sundanese do not signi-

Thumb length

Hand breadth
Dimensions

cantly differ for male and female.

The signicant differences of Minangkabau anthropometric data
compared with Javanese and Sundanese can be explained from
nutrition intake. Although the three ethnics consume rice as their
Table 3

staple food, Minangkabau food is famed as to contain mostly beef

No

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

and coconut milk that is high in fat and calories. Javanese cuisine is
 A. Widyanti et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 47 (2015) 72e78
similar to Sundanese cuisine, which mostly contains vegetables for
accompanying rice as staple food, except that most Javanese cuisine
is sweeter than Sundanese.
Differences in anthropometric data among the three ethnics
might be inuenced by geographical condition as well. Min-
angkabau subjects live in Sumatera Island, in particular West
Sumatera province, whereas Sundanese and Javanese live in Java
Island, located in the south east of Sumatera Island (i.e., West Java
province and East and Central Java province for Sundanese and
Javanese, respectively). This results support other studies such
result of a study conducted by Sirajuddin et al. (1994) who found
that geographic factors affect genetic differentiation of ethnic
groups in the southern part of India. Other study conducted by Iseri
and Arslan (2009) found the inuence of geographical region on
stature and weight of the Turkish population. Iseri and Arslan
explained that geographical condition charaterized by unique
ethnicity with different habit, nutrition intake, and socioeconomic
status, all of the factors may inuence anthropometric data. Higher
socioeconomic status implies higher income and is associated with
better education, resulting in better nutrition, better child care, and
better medical and social services, which impact the anthropo-
metric differences.
Data from Indonesian Statistical Bureau (Biro Pusat Statisistik
BPS, 2013) shown that West Sumatera in which Minangkabau
ethnics live, have higher Human Development Index than West
Java, Central and East Java (75.01, 73.58, 74.05, and 73. 54 for West
Sumatera, West Java, Central and East Java, respectively). Since
Human Development Index (HDI) is dened as a composite statistic
of life expectancy, education, and income indices used to rank
countries into four tiers of human development: very high, high,
medium, low (United Nation Development Program, 2012), it
means that West Sumatera with higher HDI than East and West Java
may have better education, income, and health resulting in better
nutrition and better medical and social services.
Another possible explanation of why Minangkabau anthropo-
metric data are different from Javanese and Sundanese anthropo-
metric data may due to their history and culture. There is a tight
relation between Minangkabau and Middle East country in which
Islam come into Minangkabau in the 8th century through Middle
Eastern traders (Azra, 2004). Minangkabau intensive relation with
Middle East has been continued because the relative close position
of West Sumatera to the Middle East. Middle East inuence on
Minangkabau can be seen on the inuence of Arabic language to
Minangkabau language as well as the uses of Islamic rules in
Minangkabau. Interaction through trade also allows marriage be-
tween Arab immigrants with native Minangkabau, in which even-
tually affect anthropometric data of Minangkabau in general.
Regarding the gender differences, the present study support
other studies result showing that male anthropometric data are
mostly bigger and taller than female anthropometric data (see
Chuan et al., 2010 for example). The differences between male and
female data exist for the three different ethnics.
This study has several limitations. First, only three large
different ethnics in Indonesia has been covered in this study due to
technical and resources limitation, therefore further research and
the collection for more data from other ethnics are necessary.
Second, in the context of Indonesian anthropometric databases,
sample from different groups other than students should be
measured as well to get representative data in the term of age.
Third, the number of sample is different for the three ethnics. In this
study, the ratio of subjects in the three groups against their cor-
responding percentages of population is not perfect. Among Indo-
nesian population, Javanese is the major ethnic with an
approximate number of 86.1 million or 41% of the population, while
Sundanese population is 31,8 million or 15.4% of the population,
77
and Minangkabau population is 5.6 million or 2.7% of the popula-
tion. Meanwhile, the ratio of subjects in the three groups involved
in this study was determined by students' availability in both IE-
Andalas University and IE-ITB. The number of enrolled student in
IE-Andalas University is quite large but the variations in term of
area of origin are very small. More than 90% of enrolled students
comes from West Sumatra Province; the place for Minangkabau
people. Therefore, the number of Minangkabau participants was
easily recruited for the study. On the other hand, students of IE-ITB
come from more varied ethnicity in Indonesia, with Javanese and
Sundanese students as the rst and second largest population in IE-
ITB. As a matter of fact, the total number of Javanese and Sundanese
students does not exceed the population of IE-Andalas University
students in this study. Though the ratio of subject in the three
groups did not perfectly represent their corresponding population,
there is no reason to consider that it would have inuenced the
results of the analysis since the sample sizes representing the three
ethnics are large.
5. Conclusion
In conclusion, there are differences in anthropometric data
among three large ethnics that are Minangkabau (live in West
Sumatera, Sumatera island) and Javanese (live in east and central
Java) and Sundanese (live in West Java), indicating ethnic differ-
ences in anthropometric data in Indonesia. Geographical origin,
nutrition, social status, and ethnic composition of populations are
some potential factors inuencing the distribution of anthropo-
metric characteristics. These therefore, as a variable, ethnicity
should be considered in system design when there is a need to deal
with human anthropometric variability in Indonesia.
References
Al-Ansari, M., Mokdad, M., 2009. Anthropometrics for the design of Bahraini school
furniture. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 39, 728e735.
Azra, A., 2004. The Origins of Islamic Reformism in Southeast Asia: Networks of
MalayeIndonesian and Middle Eastern Ulama  in the Seventeenth and Eigh-
teenth Centuries. University of Hawaii Press.
Ball, R., Shu, C., Xi, P., Rioux, M., Molenbroek, J., 2010. A comparison between Chi-
nese and Caucasian head shapes. Appl. Ergon. 41, 832e839.
Barroso, M.P., Arezes, P.M., da Costa, L.G., Miguel, A.S., 2005. Anthropometric study
of Portuguese workers. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 35, 401e410.
Bolstad, G., Benum, B., Rokne, A., 2001. Anthropometry of Norwegian light industry
and ofce workers. Appl. Ergon. 32, 239e246.
Castellucci, H.I., Arezes, P.M., Viviani, C.A., 2010. Mismatch between classroom furniture
and anthropometric measures in Chilean schools. Appl. Ergon. 41, 563e568.
Castro, A.P., Rebelatto, J.R., Aurichio, T.R., 2010. The relationship between foot pain,
anthropometric variables and footwear among older people. Appl. Ergon. 41,
93e97.
Chuan, T.K., Hartono, M., Kumar, N., 2010. Anthropometry of the Singaporean and
Indonesian populations. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 40, 757e766.
Del Prado-Lu, J.L., 2007. Anthropometric measurement of Filipino manufacturing
workers. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 37, 497e503.
Ghaderi, E., Maleki, A., Dianat, I., 2014. Design of combine harvester seat based on
anthropometric data of Iranian operators. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 44, 810e816.
Ghoddousi, H., Edler, R., Haers, P., Wertheim, D., Greenhill, D., 2007. Comparison of
three methods of facial measurement. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 36, 250e258.
Hanson, L., Sperling, L., Gard, G., Ipsen, S., Vergara, C.O., 2009. Swedish anthropo-
metrics for product and workplace design. Appl. Ergon. 40, 797e806.
Hobsbawm, E.J., 1993. Nations and Nationalism Since 1780. Programme, Myth,
Reality, second ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Indonesian Statistical Bureau (BPS), 2013. Retrieved from: www.bps.go.id (accessed
December 2013).
Iseri, A., Arslan, N., 2009. Estimated anthropometric measurements of Turkish adults
and effects of age and geographical regions. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 39, 860e865.
Jahanshahi, M., Golalipour, M.J., Heidari, K., 2008. The effect of ethnicity on facial
anthropometry in Northern Iran. Singapore Med. J. 49, 940e943.
Jarosz, E., 1999. Anthropometry of elderly women in Poland: dimensions for design.
Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 25, 203e213.
Jung, H.S., 2005. A prototype of an adjustable table and an adjustable chair for
schools. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 35, 955e969.
Khadem, M.M., Islam, M.A., 2014. Development of anthropometric data for Ban-
gladeshi male population. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 44, 407e412.
78 A. Widyanti et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 47 (2015) 72e78
Klamklay, J., Sungkhapong, A., Yodpijit, N., Patterson, P.E., 2008. Anthropometry of
the southern Thai population. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 38, 111e118.
Kouchi, M., Mochimaru, M., Tsuzuki, K., Yokoi, T., 1996. Random errors in anthro-
pometry. J. Hum. Ergol. 25, 155e166.
Kroemer, K.H.E., Grandjean, E., 2005. Fitting the Task to the Human: a Textbook of
Occupational Ergonomics, fth ed. CRC Press, Taylor and Francis, London.
Laios, L., Giannatsis, J., 2010. Ergonomic evaluation and redesign of children bicycles
based on anthropometric data. Appl. Ergon. 41, 428e435.
Lin, Y., Wang, M.J., Wang, E.M., 2004. The comparisons of anthropometric charac-
teristics among four peoples in East Asia. Appl. Ergon. 35, 173e178.
Mehta, C.R., Gite, L.P., Pharade, S.C., Majumder, J., Pandey, M.M., 2008. Review of
anthropometric considerations for tractor seat design. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 38,
546e554.
Mislihah, 2005. Development of Anthropometric Measurement Method based on
Image Processing (Undergraduate thesis). Institut Teknologi Bandung.
Mokdad, M., 2002. Anthropometric study of Algerian farmers. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 29,
331e341.
Oyewole, S.A., Haight, J.M., Freivalds, A., 2010. The ergonomic design of classroom
furniture/computer work station for rst graders in the elementary school. Int.
J. Ind. Ergon. 40, 437e447.
Pennathura, A., Dowling, W., 2003. Effect of age on functional anthropometry of older
Mexican American adults: a cross-sectional study. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 32, 39e49.
SAE International, 1998. Executive Summary: Civilian American and European
Surface Anthropometric Resource CAESAR. Society of Automotive Engineers
Inc., Warrendale, PA.
Sadeghi, F., Mazloumi, A., Kazemi, Z., 2015. An anthropometric data bank for the
Iranian working population with ethnic diversity. Appl. Ergon. 48, 95e103.
Sirajuddin, S.M., Duggirala, R., Crawford, M.H., 1994. Population structure of the
Chenchu and other south Indian tribal groups: relationships between genetic,
anthropometric, dermatoglyphic, geographic, and linguistic distances. Hum.
Biol.: Int. Rec. Res. 66, 865e884.
Thariq, M.G.M., Munasinghe, H.P., Abeysekara, J.D., 2010. Designing chairs with
mounted desktop for university students: ergonomics and comfort. Int. J. Ind.
Ergon. 40, 8e18.
United Nation Development Program, 2012. The Human Development Concept.
Retrieved from: www.undp.com (accessed August 2013).
Victor, V.M., Nath, S., Verma, A., 2002. Anthropometric survey of Indian farm
workers to approach ergonomics in agricultural machinery design. Appl. Ergon.
33, 579e581.
Wickens, C.D., Lee, J.D., Liu, Y., Gordon-Becker, S., 2004. Introduction to Human
factors Engineering. Pearson Education, Inc., New Jersey.
Yap, W.S., Chan, C.C., Chan, S.P., Wang, Y.T., 2001. Ethnic differences in anthro-
pometry among adult Singaporean Chinese, Malays and Indians, and their ef-
fects on lung volumes. Respir. Med. 297e304.
Yokota, M., 2005. Head and facial anthropometry of mixed-race US army male
soldiers for military design and sizing: a pilot study. Appl. Ergon. 36, 379e383.
Zhenbiao, Z., 1985. Zangzu de tizhi tezheng. The physical characteristics of the Ti-
betan Nationality. Renleixue xuebao 4, 250e257.