Risk Mitigation in Environmental Conservation for Potato Production in Cisangkuy Sub-Watershed, Bandung Regency, West Java, Indonesia

Abstract

Potatoes are a crop that thrives in highland areas, and Bandung Regency is one of the major potato production centers in West Java. This production center is located in an environmentally focused village development area within the Cisangkuy Sub-Watershed of Bandung Regency. The purpose of this study is to identify risks arising from various risk sources and to formulate risk control strategies for potato production in this region. The method used is the house of risk (HOR) method. In farming activities, farmers must comply with environmental regulations. However, many farmers are still unaware of the importance of environmental sustainability, particularly in their use of chemicals. To actively engage in environmental management efforts, it is crucial to understand the characteristics of potato farmers in Bandung Regency, especially those located in the development area of environmentally focused villages within the Cisangkuy Sub-Watershed. The results of this study identified 33 risk events. The risk event with the highest impact is waterlogged plants (E10), with an impact value of 8.9. Based on the Pareto diagram, 16 priority risk sources need to be addressed. The most significant risk source identified is the use of uncertified seeds (A29). To mitigate risks in potato production, 21 preventive actions (PAs) have been proposed. One of the most effective strategies is for farmers to purchase seed potatoes directly from Balitsa (PA1), with an effectiveness ratio (ETD) of 4372. Another recommended strategy is to purchase certified seeds from other breeders (PA2). These strategies are prioritized to reduce the risks faced by potato farmers.

1. Introduction

Indonesia is known as an agrarian country, which means a country that relies on the agricultural sector both as a source of livelihood and as a support for development. Agriculture is one of the most dominant sectors in people’s income in Indonesia, as the majority of the population works as farmers. Effective risk management and mitigation are crucial for the success of any enterprise, including agricultural operations undertaken by farmers. They help to identify, assess, and address various potential threats, such as climate change, crop diseases, and market price fluctuations, that can hinder operations. With good risk management strategies, farmers can enhance the sustainability of their operations, reduce losses, and ensure resilience in the face of dynamic and uncertain challenges.

The Cisangkuy Sub-Watershed is one of the sub-watersheds that are connected to the Citarum Watershed. According to the Ministry of National Development Planning/National Development Planning Agency (Bappenas) stated in 2012, the Cisangkuy Sub-Watershed is part of the upstream Citarum Watershed located in Bandung Regency. This sub watershed covers an area of 34,159 hectares and has a raw water discharge of 1600 L per second, making it a key buffer for supplying raw water to Bandung City and Bandung Regency. Additionally, this sub-watershed is a source of electricity for Bandung and its surrounding areas through the Cikalong, Lamajan, and Pangalengan hydropower plants. The Citarum Watershed is the longest in the region, extending from the headwaters at Situ Cisanti to the Muara Gembong ‘Happy Beach.’ This watershed forms the Citarum River system, originating from the springs at Mount Wayang in Kertasari Subdistrict, Bandung Regency, and flowing into the Java Sea in Karawang Regency. It spans approximately 315 km and includes 105 tributaries that flow into the river.

Based on Decree Number 30 of 2018 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forestry, the Citarum Watershed covers an area of approximately 682,227 hectares. The flow of the Citarum River is utilized by the Saguling, Cirata, and Ir. H. Juanda (Jatiluhur) Reservoirs for various development activities, including as a source of drinking water, irrigation, power generation, and industrial water. Additionally, it serves as a waste reservoir for various domestic and non-domestic activities within the watershed [1,2].

The Citarum River is polluted by industrial, livestock, agricultural, and household waste. Additionally, land conversion, degraded land, poor community behavior, degradation and depletion of water sources, and challenges in law enforcement remain significant unresolved issues. This research aims to provide a valuable theoretical foundation for studies related to ecovillage sustainability in the Upper Citarum Watershed by first examining the sustainability of ecovillage development in this region, located in West Java Province, Indonesia [3]. The phenomenon of increasing agricultural production in watersheds is dualistic: while agricultural production rises, environmental pollution also escalates, both as a result of land conversion and the agricultural activities themselves.

Land conversion in watersheds results in changes in the hydrological conditions of the watershed, such as a decreased infiltration of water into the soil, increased peak discharge, fluctuations in discharge between seasons, increased surface run-off, flooding, and drought. Watersheds can be viewed as natural resources in the form of stocks with various ownership (private, public, state-owned). Watersheds produce goods and services for individuals, community groups, and the public and cause interdependence between parties, individuals, and community groups [4]. Thus, a watershed can be viewed as a system. A watershed consists of various interrelated components, thus requiring holistic and integrated watershed management. The Citarum River is the longest river in West Java Province, stretching 297 km from its headwaters, namely Situ Cisanti, on the slopes of Mount Wayang, Cibeureum Village, Kertasari Subdistrict, Bandung Regency, to the Java Sea, where it empties into Pantai Bahagia Village, Muara Gembong Subdistrict, Bekasi Regency [3].

People’s healthy lifestyle has increased vegetable consumption. In addition, the export value of Indonesian vegetables continues to increase. One of the vegetables that has the potential to be exported is potatoes. Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) is one of the five leading commodities of seasonal vegetables. The five leading commodities of seasonal vegetables consist of cabbage, potatoes, shallots, tomatoes, and large chilies [5]. Potato plants produce tubers as a vegetable commodity that is prioritized for development and has the potential to be marketed domestically and exported. Potato consumption in Indonesia fluctuates annually. Potato consumption in a year in Indonesia in 2016 increased from the 2015 consumption of 2.284 kg/capita/year to 2.503 kg/capita/year. However, in 2017, it decreased to 2.220 kg/capita/year. The following year, it increased to 2.282 kg/capita/year.

The Central Bureau of Statistics (BPS) in 2023 recorded that household potato consumption in Indonesia reached 87,250 tons in 2022. This amount increased by 13.32% compared to the previous year, which was 771,460 tons. West Java is one of the potato production centers in Indonesia. West Java is a land divided into a steep mountainous area in the south with an altitude of more than 1500 m above sea level, a gentle hillside area in the middle with an altitude of 100–1500 m above sea level, a large plain area in the north with an altitude of 0–10 m above sea level, and a river basin area. The average temperature in West Java is 25.70 [6]. Based on the geographical location, it is not surprising that West Java is the center of horticultural crop production. In 2016, West Java became the largest vegetable production center in Indonesia, with a total production of 25,784,137 tons [5].

According to the Central Bureau of Statistics stated in 2022, Bandung Regency, as one of the potato production centers in West Java, has shown fluctuating production levels from year to year. In 2020, production was 652,152 quintals, in 2021, it was 706,782 quintals, and in 2022, it was 688,652 quintals. There are 31 sub-districts in Bandung Regency. Pangalengan District is the largest potato production center in Bandung Regency due to its higher production compared to other districts. However, potato production fluctuates each year, increasing in 2021 but decreasing again in 2022. This fluctuation is caused by several factors, including agricultural techniques, pest and plant disease, pest attack, erratic weather, and harvests that do not meet consumer demand. Therefore, farmers need to manage the risks that they face and implement mitigation strategies to address these issues, especially during the production phase. Although farmers face problems beyond the production phase, this phase is crucial as it impacts the earlier stages.

The agricultural sector faces capital flight due to the inability to compete with industry and the service sector and has higher risk activities compared to other sectors [7]. In general, the agricultural sector has a higher level of risk compared to other sectors [8]. In fact, weather conditions and other natural phenomena make the agricultural sector highly risky [9]. In addition, there are other influencing factors, such as changes in the prices of agricultural products, fertilizers, and other inputs, as well as financial and political uncertainties in this area [10,11,12,13,14,15]. Agricultural risk management has become a major concern of many organizations active in this field, especially in developing countries [16,17]. Many policymakers are still looking for ways to establish an effective and efficient risk management support system in agriculture [18,19]. Many researchers and experts are paying attention to the subject of risk management in agricultural supply chains. Supply chains in the food industry are more complicated than other supply chains due to the perishable nature of food compared to other commodities [20,21].

The author has conducted a literature review and research on risk management since 2018. The literature review was conducted using the PRISMA diagram (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis). According to Geerardyn et al. (2021), this diagram is used to assist in identifying articles to be reviewed. The PRISMA diagram is a visual representation that outlines the flow of information through the various phases of a systematic review. McKenzie et al. (2020) stated that the PRISMA diagram consists of several stages, namely identification, screening, and inclusion. In the identification stage, articles to be used are sourced from databases. During the screening stage, articles identified from the databases are filtered using specific criteria, determining how many articles meet the set requirements. In the inclusion stage, the accessible articles are selected for review.

The search was conducted using English-language articles in the Scopus database. Scopus is the largest peer-reviewed literature database. Data were accessed on 22 August 2023. Keywords were used for data search in the Scopus database. The keywords used were risk, mitigation, risks, risk mitigation, and risk management. Several criteria were applied, including English language, journal articles as document sources, article type, and publication between 2019 and 2023. The resulting search string was as follows:

Title (risk and management) and Pubyear > 2018 and pubyear < 2024 and (limit- (subjarea, “envi”) or limit-to (subjarea, “soci”) or limit-to (subjarea, “agri”) or limit-to (subjarea, “eart”)) and (limit-to (exactkeyword, “Risk Management”) or limit-to (exactkerword, “Risks Management”) or limit-to (exactkeyword, “Environmental and (limit-to (doctype, “ar”)) and (limit-to (language, “English”)).

Based on these keywords, 1349 articles were found, and, after checking for duplicates, 897 articles remained. Further filtering narrowed the list to 219 articles. These articles were then sorted more specifically, leaving 190 articles.

The next stage was bibliometric analysis, conducted to complement the systematic literature review with the ability to summarize large amounts of data. According to Ng et al. (2023), bibliometrics is a quantitative method for analyzing trends and patterns in a particular field of study using bibliographic input materials. This analysis was conducted using VOSviewer version 1.6.20.

The results of the bibliometric analysis revealed differences between this research and previous studies. This study presents a novelty in the context of risk, its novelty is as follows: New approach: using the house of risk method for risk management to mitigate potato production risks. Previous studies have often discussed risks in the fields of health, safety, and disaster management, as well as risks related to climate change. Agriculture, as a plant cultivation activity, is also an important topic of discussion because human activities are inherently uncertain, and agriculture, which relies on natural factors such as soil, water, air, and sunlight, is highly dependent on these natural elements. New Context: studying risks within an environmentally friendly community composed of potato farmers has not been widely researched. Previous studies typically focused on risks in farmer groups from production centers, not environmentally friendly communities. This study, therefore, offers insights into risks within a specific geographical location, namely the Cisangkuy Sub-Watershed in Bandung Regency.

Multi-Disciplinary Approach, Integrating Social and Natural Sciences: for example, combining environmental risk analysis with a study of farmer behavior in responding to environmental conservation as part of an environmentally friendly community. This can provide new insights into how potato farmers in such communities face production risks. Specific Case Study Not Widely Researched, Unique Local Context: this research can highlight the unique aspects of the Cisangkuy Sub-Watershed, such as soil characteristics, weather patterns, or local farming practices, which have not been widely studied. This offers novelty in terms of local-specific risks. Specific Vulnerability to Environmental Conservation Behavior: identifying specific risks that arise from production activities, not only considering the benefits gained but also the environmental conservation efforts undertaken.

The purpose of this study is to identify risks arising from various sources and to formulate risk mitigation strategies in environmental conservation for potato production in the Cisangkuy Sub-Watershed, Bandung Regency, West Java, Indonesia.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Case Study Contextualization

The research was conducted in Pangalengan District, Bandung Regency in the Cisangkuy Sub-Watershed (Figure 1). This research used purposive sampling method. The research location was purposively determined based on the following considerations: Pangalengan Subdistrict is a potato production center in Bandung Regency and is included in the West Java Upper Citarum Watershed area; Pangalengan Subdistrict is one of the potato production centers in Bandung Regency. Pangalengan Subdistrict is divided into 13 villages, namely Lamajang, Margaluyu, Margamekar, Margamukti, Margamulya, Pangalengan, Pulosari, Sukaluru, Sukamanah, Tribaktimulya, Wanasuka, and Warnasari.

Preliminary research has been conducted since October 2023, while surveys and primary data collection were conducted from January 2024 to March 2024. The data used are primary data and secondary data. Primary data were obtained from potato farmers in Bandung Regency while secondary data were obtained from the relevant literature, agencies, and institutions. Sampling in this study was determined by random sampling. Random sampling is the withdrawal of samples by randomizing the names of farmers in the existing data. This is carried out to make it easier for researchers to find samples. Respondents are potato farmers in Pangalengan District, Bandung Regency. Ten farmers were sampled from each village, resulting in a total of 130 respondents interviewed.

The research design is a plan for how to collect and analyze data in a way that is economical and in harmony with the research objectives [22]. The research design carried out is a quantitative research design. Quantitative research is closely related to social survey techniques, including structured interviews and structured questionnaires, experiments, structured observations, content analysis, formal statistical analysis, and many more [23]. This research was carried out based on planned procedures. Researchers selected respondents who are carrying out potato production activities. In the research of [24], the AHP (analytic hierarchy process) and TOPSIS (technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution) methods were used in a fuzzy environment to obtain the scores and rankings of each risk. Unlike the traditional FMEA (failure modes and effect of analysis), the proposed method divides the severity of risk into three sub-factors: severity of risk to cost, severity of risk to time, and severity of risk to project quality. The results of this model are then used to identify critical risks in each agricultural project, as well as the most significant risks across all projects.

The results can assist decision-makers in controlling the risks of each project in the two stages of construction and operation. Sensitivity analysis was also used to understand the risks affecting each project objective and dimension, including time, cost, and quality. The model is based on the development of risk assessment indicators in the FMEA method and the combination of TOPSIS and AHP under a fuzzy environment to rank risks. Many articles have been published on food supply chain risk assessment and the application of FMEA in this field. In addition, this method has been applied in controlling food production risks [25,26,27]. According to [28], the development of the agricultural sector always involves the problem of uncertainty of results and considerable risk. The development of agro-tourism in Cirebon Regency will directly develop the mango agribusiness. Increased tourism interest creates opportunities for the development of agricultural tourism (agritourism). The very high demand for mangoes makes both opportunities and challenges for mango farmers in Cirebon Regency.

The risk mitigation process uses house of risk (HOR) analysis. HOR is a modification of failure modes and effect of analysis (FMEA) and house of quality (HOQ) to prioritize which risk source is first selected to take the most effective action in order to reduce the potential risk of the risk source. One risk source can affect more than one risk event. For example, the problem of a production system distributor can lead to material shortages [29]. Previous researchers used the failure modes and effect of analysis (FMEA) method to identify, analyze, and determine risk mitigation strategies for mango farmers in the development of agritourism in Cirebon Regency. The risk analysis and management techniques have been described in detail by many authors [30,31,32,33,34]. A typical risk management process includes the following key steps [35]: risk identification; risk assessment; risk mitigation; risk monitoring (Figure 2).

Risk management is a key element in the success of most projects [37,38,39,40,41,42]. It can be said that the risk management of a project is considered a key task in project management, so some researchers define project management as the same as project risk management [43]. Many researchers have focused on risk identification, analysis, assessment, and management [44,45]. Many methods have been provided to evaluate the risk of a particular project or group of similar projects.

According to [28], implementation of the failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) method in the risk mitigation of mango farming in agritourism development in Cirebon Regency is carried out to realize agritourism development in Cirebon Regency, and it is hoped that knowing the risks in agribusiness will help in realizing agritourism development while increasing local economic growth in Cirebon Regency. The stages of analysis in this study are data collection through semi-structured interviews and analyzing the data collected using the failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) method as a technique to identify and assess/measure the risk mitigation of mango farming in the development of agritourism areas in Cirebon Regency.

Figure 3 shows the stages carried out by previous researchers, based on previous research conducted by [46,47,48,49], regarding the stages of supply chain risk mitigation. Likewise, research by [50] used the FMEA method to look at quantitative risk assessment for passive building projects carried out by calculating the risk priority number (RPN) as a source of information used to make decisions in the risk management process. Research by [51] also used FMEA by using the proposed FMEA scale table for the frequency of occurrence, severity of effect, and detectability of risk factors in the passive building process. They took advantage of the FMEA scales developed by Ford Motor Company (1988) and FMEA scales specific to civil engineering projects. Research by [52] was conducted on the reliability and risk assessment of solar photovoltaic panels using failure mode effect analysis (FMEA).

According to [53,54], RPN is a numerical value used in FMEA to prioritize potential failure modes based on severity, occurrence, and detectability. Severity, occurrence, and detection ratings are assigned to each failure mode. The RPN of each potential failure mode is calculated by multiplying the severity, likelihood of occurrence, and detection scores [31,32]. In the field of supply chain risk, ref. [55] introduced a fuzzy AHP model to examine safety risks in the food supply chain. However, ref. [56] proposed a Bayesian network (BN) modeling framework in a case study of a project in agricultural development to calculate costs and benefits according to multiple causal factors that include the effects of individual risk factors, budget deficits, and discounted time values. According to [57], a game-theoretic model was introduced to study optimal risk management policies in the food supply chain.

In [58], a combined model was developed that includes hierarchical holographic modeling and fuzzy logic to assess risks in the food supply chain. To design a knowledge-based tool for analyzing and assessing the risk of rice production in Sarawak, the researchers used an improved FMEA (fuzzy failure mode and effect analysis) with a genetic algorithm design in fuzzy membership function and monotone fuzzy rules relabeling [59]. These combinations are mostly aimed at fulfilling the shortcomings of the traditional FMEA approach. One of the many solutions available to compensate for such shortcomings is to combine this approach with fuzzy logic. After fuzzy FMEA was introduced, several researchers started to develop this approach in their research [60]; thus, many studies with fuzzy-rule-based and if-then rules were conducted in this domain [41,61,62,63].

2.2. Data Collection and Analysis

This research uses the house of risk (HOR) method. HOR is a combination of 2 methods, namely failure mode effect analysis (FMEA), which is used to quantitatively measure risk, and house of quality (HOQ), which is used to prioritize risks from agents or causes of risk in order to select the most effective mitigation actions. According to [64], the FMEA method is intended for the process of analyzing the level of risk obtained through the calculation of the risk potential number (RPN) and is determined by three factors in the form of risk severity, risk occurrence rate (occurrence), and risk detection probability (detection).

The HOQ method is used in eliminating risk sources that have been identified as a form of strategy design for a product. Meanwhile, the HOR method is used in determining the probability of risk causes and the severity of risk events. This is because there is a possibility that one risk cause can cause more than one risk event, so the aggregate risk potential quantity of the risk agent is needed. The HOR method is used in analyzing risk management in this study, which is focused on preventive measures to determine which risk causes are prioritized, which will then be given mitigation or risk management measures.

This HOR model contains risk event and risk agent variables that are included in the valid category after the validation test at the previous stage. There are two stages in HOR, namely the risk identification stage and the stage of preparing risk responses or risk mitigation. The HOR model focuses on prevention by reducing the likelihood of risk agents occurring. By reducing the risk agent, it can prevent the occurrence of a risk. In the FMEA method, risk assessment uses RPN (risk priority number), which consists of 3 factors, namely probability, severity of impact, and detection. In the HOR method, risk assessment utilizes ARP (aggregate risk potential), which is derived from the probability of risk agents, the severity of risk events, and the correlation value between risk agents and risk events, as there is a possibility that a single risk agent can trigger one or more risk events.

The HOR method is divided into two parts, namely HOR 1 and HOR 2. In HOR 1, the risk event (E) and the severity of its impact (S) and the risk agent (A) and the possibility of occurrence (O) at each stage of seed potato production carried out by farmers in Kertasari District, Bandung Regency are identified. Then, the risk agent that has the highest aggregate risk potential (ARP) value is selected, meaning that the risk agent has a high probability of occurrence and impact on production activities. In HOR 2, the prioritized risk agent (A) is determined using a Pareto diagram. Next, the preventive actions (PAs) are identified for each risk agent (A) and the correlation between these preventive actions and the risk agents is assessed. This process continues until the calculation of effectiveness to difficulty (ETD) is completed, allowing for the determination of the most feasible and effective risk mitigation actions. Stages of risk mitigation using house of risk (HOR) can be seen in Figure 4.

2.2.1. House of Risk (HOR) Phase 1

HOR Phase 1 is used to identify, measure, and map risks so as to obtain priority risks to be controlled first. The prioritization of risk sources is performed due to limited resources and time, making it impossible for all risks to be controlled simultaneously. When identifying risks, there is one risk source (A) that is the cause of a number of adverse risk events (E). Therefore, it is necessary to calculate the aggregate risk potentials (ARP_s) of the risk source. HOR analysis stage 1 has several stages, namely the identification of risk events, determining the correlation matrix between risk events and risk sources, and determining the value of aggregate risk potentials (ARP_s) to determine priority risks [65].

Several steps need to be taken in HOR Phase 1 before prioritizing the risk agents that must be addressed. The stages contained in HOR 1 are as follows:

• Identifying risks in each production activity carried out. Activity mapping can be performed with various methods until a risk event is obtained.
• Assessing the severity of each risk event. The assessment is carried out by giving a value of 1–10 according to the severity that occurs, which can be seen in

  Table 1. Severity Scale (S).

  Severity	Value	Criteria
  No	1	No effect
  Very Slight	2	Farmer not disturbed, very little effect on product or system
  Slight	3	Farmer slightly disturbed, little effect on product or system
  Minor	4	Farmer has minor annoyance, little effect on the product or system
  Moderate	5	Farmer experiences some dissatisfaction, moderate effect on product or system
  Significant	6	Farmer is inconvenienced, product condition is damaged but still operates safely, partial failure but still operates
  Major	7	Farmer is dissatisfied, product condition is severely affected but still functions and is safe, system is compromised
  Extreme	8	Farmer is very dissatisfied
  Serious	9	Potential harmful effects
  Hazardous	10	Harmful effect

  Source: Stamatis, 2003 [66].

  .

3.

Identifying the risk agent and rating the likelihood of occurrence. Similar to the risk event assessment, the risk agent assessment is also carried out by giving a score of 1–10, as can be seen in

Table 2. Occurrence scale (O).

Occurrence	Level	Criteria
Almost never	1	There has never been a failure in the history of production
Remote	2	Rare possibility of failure
Vert slight	3	Possibility of very few failures
Slight	4	Possible few failures
Low	5	Possible occasional failures
Medium	6	Medium probability of failure
Moderately high	7	Moderately high probability of failure
High	8	High probability of failure
Very high	9	Very high probability of failure
Almost certain	10	Failure is certain and has happened before

Source: Stamatis, 2003, [66].

.

4.

Risk events (i) and risk sources (j) are grouped and rated, and then a correlation test between the risk event and risk agent is conducted. The correlation matrix (Rij) is measured with values of 0, 1, 3, and 9. The correlation scale of risk agents/sources and risk events can be seen in

Table 3. Correlation values.

Correlation Values	Description
0	There is no relationship between the risk event and the risk agent
1	Small relationship between the risk event and the risk agent
3	Moderate relationship between the risk event and the risk agent
9	High association between risk events and risk agents

Source: Pujawan and Geraldine, 2009 [64].

.

5.

Once the measurement of the relationship matrix (R_ij) is complete, the aggregate risk potentials (ARP_js) are determined to prioritize the risk events. The higher the ARP value, the greater the likelihood that the risk event will be prioritized.

ARP_j = O_j ∑ S_j R_ij

(1)

Description:

ARP_j: aggregate risk potential of risk source j;

O_j: the occurrence frequency value of risk source j;

S_i: risk impact value (severity) of risk event i that occurs;

R_ij: correlation value between risk source j and risk event i.

6.

The risk agents are then sorted from highest to lowest ARP_j value. The HOR 1 model can be seen in

Table 4. HOR model (house of risk) 1.

Business Processes	Risk Event	Risk Agent					Severity of Risk Event i (Si)
		A1	A2	A3	A4	A5	A6	A7
Plan	E1	R11	R12	R13					S1
	E2	R21	R22						S2
Source	E3	R31							S3
	E4	R41							S4
Make	E5								S5
	E6								S6
Deliver	E7								S7
	E8								S8
Return	E9								S9
Occurrence of agent j		O1	O2	O3	O4	O5	O6	O7
Aggregate risk potential j		ARP1	ARP2	ARP3	ARP4	ARP5	ARP6	ARP7
Priority rank of agent j

.

2.2.2. House of Risk (HOR) Phase 2

Once the ARP_j value for each risk agent has been obtained, the next step is to proceed with Stage 2 of the HOR process. The stages contained in HOR 2 are as follows:

• Determining the priority risk agent using a Pareto diagram. Pareto diagrams are used to determine priority risk agents that need to be treated. “The application of the pareto law to risk is that 80 percent of losses are caused by only 20 percent of crucial risks. If 20 percent of the crucial risks can be handled, then the company can avoid 80 percent of losses” [67].
• Identifying relevant preventive actions to address the risk agent. Each risk agent can have more than one preventive action and one preventive action can be used for multiple risk agents.
• Developing a correlation matrix between risk agents and preventive actions. Each column in the correlation matrix is assigned a value of 0, 1, 3, and 9. Ratings are given based on the level of correlation, which can be seen in Table 5.
• Calculating total effectiveness (TE_k), which is an indicator of the correlation of mitigation actions to the degree of difficulty of implementing mitigation actions. The greater the result obtained from the TE_k calculation, the more suitable the mitigation action is to be carried out. The formula for total effectiveness (TE_k) is

TE_k = Σ ARP_j E_jk

(2)

Description:

TE_k: total effectiveness of the mitigation measure k;

ARP_j: aggregate risk potential value of risk source j;

E_jk: correlation value between risk source j and mitigation action k.

5.

A degree of difficulty (D_k) assessment is carried out after the TEk value is known. The D_k value is described by the number {3, 4, 5} according to the difficulty of implementing the proposal. The higher the D_k value, the more difficult the proposed preventive action to be realized, and vice versa, as can be seen in Table 5.

Table 5. Degree of difficulty.

Scale	Description	Notes
5	Very difficult	Factors that affect the level of difficulty include funds, human resources, and others.
4	Difficult
3	Moderately difficult

Source: Pujawan and Geraldine, 2009, [64].

Table 5. Degree of difficulty.

Scale	Description	Notes
5	Very difficult	Factors that affect the level of difficulty include funds, human resources, and others.
4	Difficult
3	Moderately difficult

Source: Pujawan and Geraldine, 2009, [64].

6.

Calculating the effectiveness to difficulty (ETD_k) for each preventive action handling using the following formula:

ETD_k = TE_k/D_k

(3)

Description:

ETD_k: ratio of effectiveness to difficulty of implementation of mitigation measures k;

D_k: value of the level of difficulty in implementing mitigation measures k;

TE_k: total effectiveness of mitigation measure k.

The greater the result obtained from the ETD_k calculation, the easier the mitigation action is to carry out. The results of the ETD_k calculation are then sorted from largest to smallest to show the priority of mitigation actions that can be taken. The HOR 2 model is contained in a table for easier reading, which can be seen in

Table 6. HOR model (house of risk) 2.

To-Be-Treated Risk Agent (Aj)	Preventive Action (PAk)					Aggregate Risk Potential (ARPj)
	PA1	PA2	PA3	PA4	PA5
A1	E11					ARP1
A2						ARP2
A3						ARP3
A4						ARP4
Total effectiveness of action k	TE1	TE2	TE3	TE4	TE5
Degree of difficulty performing action k	D1	D2	D3	D4	D5
Effectiveness to difficulty ratio	ETD1	ETD2	ETD3	ETD4	ETD5
Rank of priority	R1	R2	R3	R4	R5

.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. House of Risk Analysis (HOR) I

The potato planting process carried out by potato farmers identified 33 risk events that may occur. The risk events were identified through discussions and interviews with farmers who produce potatoes. All potato production risk events can be seen in

Table 7. List of potato production risk events.

Production Stage	Risk Events That Occur	Code	Impact Severity (S)
Planting Preparation	Seed quality and standards are not guaranteed	E1	7.8
	Production costs increase	E2	3.6
	Drainage channels are irregular	E3	7.0
	Plants do not grow	E4	7.4
Planting	Slow plant growth	E5	7.2
	Inappropriate planting distance	E6	6.7
	Pest and disease contamination from other farms	E7	5.9
Sharpening	Broken plants	E8	6.5
Irrigation	Plants are not watered	E9	8.6
	Waterlogged plants	E10	8.9
Pilled	Plants do not grow well	E11	7.9
	The buds are not covered by soil	E12	8.0
Control Plant Pests and Diseases.	Plants attacked by late blight	E13	8.6
	Plants attacked by viruses	E14	7.9
	Plants attacked by fusarium wilt	E15	8.5
	Plants attacked by leafminer fly	E16	7.2
	Plants attacked by tuber borers	E17	8.0
	Plants attacked by bacterial wilt	E18	8.4
	Pest attack increases	E19	7.9
	Pesticide shortage	E20	7.3
	Excess pesticide	E21	7.0
Harvest	Rotten tubers	E22	7.9
	Hollow tubers	E23	6.5
	Tubers split	E24	4.6
	Tuber infested with scabs	E25	7.1
	Green-colored tubers (poison)	E26	5.8
	Harvest is stolen	E27	4.2
	Crops are not harvested on time	E28	8.0
	Tuber skin peeled off	E29	4.3
Post-harvest	Tubers suffer physical damage	E30	6.6
	Packaged potatoes rot	E31	8.6
Transportation	Road access is difficult	E32	1.6
	Road access is distant	E33	2.0

.

Risk events that may occur have different impacts on the potato planting process of potato farmers. The severity of the impact caused by each risk event can be known by conducting an assessment or weighting. The assessment or weighting of the severity (S) caused by each risk event is given based on the results of discussions and interviews with potato farmers directly. Based on

Table 8. List of potato production risk sources.

Risk Source Category	Risk Source	Code	Likelihood of Occurrence (O)
Climate and weather	Floods	A1	2.4
	Seasonal changes are unpredictable	A2	7.0
	Average hilly area	A3	4.4
Pests and diseases	Thrips pests	A4	7.4
	Leafminer pests	A5	7.6
	Phytophthora infestans fungus	A6	8.4
	Ralstonia solanacearum bacteria	A7	8.2
	Tuber borer pests	A8	7.4
Labor	Rotation of crops on the land is not carried out	A9	8.0
	Plant arrangement is not neat	A10	3.0
	No liming is performed	A11	7.8
	Not applying furadan	A12	7.4
	The position of the buds at the time of planting is not facing up	A13	2.6
	Watering is performed late	A14	7.6
	Improper disease analysis	A15	4.2
	Pesticides are applied late or not applied	A16	7.8
	Over-application of pesticides	A17	2.2
	Lack of supervision before harvest	A18	4.1
	Crops are harvested prematurely	A19	2.5
	Harvesting is performed when it rains	A20	8.1
	Harvest sorting is not thorough	A21	3.6
	Storage is carried out when the tubers are moist	A22	7.9
	During storage, the tubers are stacked too high	A23	3.2
	Lack of supervision of workers	A24	3.5
	Work is performed with less care	A25	3.8
	No scouting is performed	A26	5.1
Capital and Price	Market prices are not favorable	A27	3.5
	Storage warehouse temperature is too hot or cold	A28	6.3
	Source seed is uncertified seed	A29	8.5
	Land is adjacent to other farms	A30	6.0
	Warehouse facilities are not up to standard	A31	3.6
	Limited capital	A32	7.5

, waterlogged plants (E10) is the highest risk event that occurs to potato farmers, with a severity value of 8.9. Potato is a water-intensive crop but is highly susceptible to waterlogging. Therefore, drainage must be made properly so that there is no stagnant water in the potato planting area because, if the potato tubers are constantly waterlogged, it will cause the tubers to rot easily and their growth will be disrupted [68].

Unwatered crops (E9) is the other highest risk event occurring in potato farmers, with a severity level of 8.6. A plant’s morphological and physiological activities will be disrupted due to a lack of water, so the growth and development of the plant will stop. Watering a plant will be able to encourage the development and maintain the health of a plant [69]. So, the amount of water needed in potato plants is very influential, especially potato plants that usually grow in the highlands with different land slopes. Making drainage channels is very influential on the need for water in potato plants. Another risk event with a fairly high severity level is rotten packaged potatoes (E31), with a severity level of 8.6. One of the causes of packaged potatoes rotting is due to the storage of potatoes that have been stacked for too long, as well as a decrease in the dry weight of potatoes due to the respiration process that occurs in the tubers. To minimize the possibility of rot in potatoes, harvesting during rainy conditions should be avoided to ensure that the tubers are dry. The harvesting process should be conducted carefully to prevent damage from tools like hoes, which helps to maintain tuber quality. Additionally, it is advisable to sort and grade the potatoes immediately after harvesting, rather than storing them for too long, to prevent significant yield loss [70].

There are other risk events that are quite high in the pest control process, with an average severity level above 8, namely plants attacked by late blight (E13), plants attacked by fusarium wilt (E15), and plants attacked by bacterial wilt (E18). These risk events are the pest and plant diseases that potato farmers fear the most in potato production. Many potato farmers complain when pest and disease control is delayed. According to [71], late blight is caused by the attack of the pathogenic fungus Phytophthora infestans. The fungus attacks leaves, stems, petioles, and tubers in all phases of potato plant growth. The disease usually occurs 5–6 weeks after planting. Early symptoms of attack are wet spots on the edges of the leaves, bright green in color, which then turn brown, eventually covering the entire leaf. Spores fall to the ground and become a source of infection in the tubers.

Fusarium wilt is caused by the fungus Fusarium oxysporum. The pathogen is transmitted through air and water. Symptoms of attack are characterized by wilting of the plant, starting from the lower leaves, yellowing of the leaflets, and brown stem and root tissues. Other host plants that can be attacked by the fungus include beans, chilies, long beans, pumpkin, cucumber, bitter melon, celery, watermelon, tomato, and eggplant [72]. The attack of this fungus will easily develop in potato seeds in a split or peeled state. The Fusarium oxysporum fungus can survive longer in soil. So, the rouging process is very important for preventing disease transmission as early as possible. Rouging is an activity that removes plants that are attacked by systemic diseases, especially viruses. In potato production, the rouging process is carried out when the plants are 15–20 cm in size, which is performed every week during the growing season [73].

Bacterial wilt disease in potato plants is caused by the bacterium Ralstonia solanacearum. This bacterium is a soil-borne pathogen found in subtropical and tropical regions that infects roots. This pathogen causes bacterial wilt disease in potatoes and attacks other host plants, such as tomatoes, eggplants, chilies, peppers, beans, and ginger [74]. Bacterial wilt disease has symptoms caused by this disease similar to the symptoms of plants lacking water. The disease can be transmitted through the soil, so, when bacterial wilt strikes, the plants and surrounding soil must be burned and disposed of. Actually, the disease can be controlled by rotating crops in the seedling area for a minimum of three harvest seasons [75]. The risk events that have been identified do not just appear but there are sources of risk. Each risk event has a different cause. Therefore, identification of risk sources needs to be performed. Interviews and discussions have been conducted with potato farmers to help find out the sources of risk that occur in the production of potato crops. All sources of risk that occur can be seen in Table 8.

The risk sources contained in

Table 9. List of proposed risk management strategies or preventive action (PA).

Code	Risk Agent Description	Code	PA Description
A29	Source seed is uncertified seed	PA1	Purchasing seed potatoes directly from Balitsa
		PA2	Purchasing certified seed from other breeders
A2	Seasonal changes are unpredictable	PA3	Creating a reservoir and utilizing a water pump machine
		PA4	Consultation with extension and research regarding proper cultivation techniques
A16	Pesticides are applied late or not applied	PA5	Making a regular schedule for pesticide application
A32	Capital owned is limited	PA6	Using bank loans
		PA7	Establishing partnership relationships
A9	Crop rotation on land is not carried out	PA8	Making a regular planting schedule so that crop rotation can be carried out
A25	Work is performed with less care	PA9	Giving clear directions to workers
A22	Storage is carried out when the tubers are moist	PA10	Drying seed potatoes before storage
A8	Tuber borer pests	PA11	Hilling so that the tubers are covered with soil
		PA12	Using synthetic pheromones as an alternative control
A30	Land adjacent to other farms	PA13	Planting barrier plants
A6	Phytophthora infestans fungus	PA14	Improving the drainage system
A20	Harvesting is performed when it rains	PA15	Harvesting during sunny weather
A7	Ralstonia solanacearum bacteria	PA16	Sanitizing the infested area
A5	Leaf-boring pests	PA17	Using yellow ligature traps
		PA18	Utilizing natural enemies
A11	No liming performed	PA19	Liming regularly every growing season
A12	Did not apply furadan	PA20	Applying furadan regularly every growing season
A14	Watering is performed late	PA21	Making a routine schedule for watering

are risk sources that are considered as likely to occur. These risk sources will, however, not entirely cause risk events in the potato production process carried out by potato farmers. The occurrence (O) assessment on the risk source is based on the possibility of the risk source occurring. The assessment is obtained from the results of discussions and interviews with potato farmers. The most common source of risk in potato production is uncertified seeds (A29). The risk source has a probability of occurrence value of 8.5, which means that the occurrence rate for the risk source is very high or very frequent. Certified seeds are a safety guarantee for farmers who produce potatoes. It is certain that farmers must use them to ensure the sustainability of their production.

The importance of using certified seeds in addition to producing superior seeds also has an impact on the process of pest and plant disease disorders. Usually, farmers who grow potatoes with uncertified seeds are susceptible to pests and plant diseases. The availability of quality seeds is one of the keys to the success of a farm [76]. But, there are still many potato farmers who use seeds from previous production. The average potato farmer utilizes some of their farm produce to serve as seed potatoes in the next planting process. There are some farmers who sell their seeds to other farmers without labeling. They even sell their seeds outside of Bandung Regency. Indirectly, potato farmers spread unlabeled seeds of unknown quality to other farmers. The result will be felt when the seed potatoes are planted directly. In fact, the use of quality seeds can minimize the risk of production failure because quality seeds can grow in unfavorable land conditions and are free from pests and diseases, and can even increase productivity [77].

Other sources of risk are dominated by pests and plant diseases. Risk sources classified as pests and plant diseases are the Phytophthora infestans Fungus (A6) and the bacterium Ralstonia solanacearum (A7). It can be seen that, during the dry season, pest attacks will be higher while, during the rainy season, disease attacks are higher. The increase in pests and plant diseases has a negative impact in terms of not only a decrease in production but also an increase in production costs. During the rainy season, the intensity of pesticide application is more frequent because, during the rainy season, the pesticides applied are more easily carried away by rainwater. Pesticide application during the rainy season in one week can reach three times spraying while, normally, during the dry season, it is only performed once a week.

Another source of risk with a high probability of occurrence is harvesting during rain (A21), with a probability value of 8.1. The impact caused by harvesting during rain is the possibility that the potatoes for the next seed are susceptible to disease. This usually happens because the harvested potatoes are wet and cannot be immediately dried and sorted. The identified risk events and risk sources need to be correlated. The S and O assessments obtained in the risk identification process will be included in the table. The final result of the HOR 1 model table is the value of the ARP. The resulting ARP rating is the priority level of handling the risk source. The ARP assessment of the risk source with the highest value must be handled first compared to the ARP value below.

The ARP calculation results show that the source seed being an uncertified seed (A31) has the highest ARP value. Therefore, it can be stated that uncertified seeds have the highest probability of occurrence. It is also likely that uncertified seeds are the source of most risks from the occurrence of risk events with severe impacts. The use of uncertified seeds by buying and selling seeds among farmers causes the possibility of various risk events. Efforts to minimize the occurrence of risk events include using certified seeds. By using high-quality seeds, the quality is more assured, and, with proper maintenance, it can lead to better production outcomes. Thus, the risk source of uncertified seeds is the top priority in risk management when compared to other risk sources.

3.2. House of Risk Analysis (HOR) II

The results of HOR Phase 1 obtained the ARP value for each risk source and the priority order of risk sources based on the ARP value. The order of ARP values is the order of priority in handling risk sources. Not all existing risk sources receive the same focus of handling. The priority of risk sources that will receive handling is determined by the use of the Pareto principle. The Pareto principle is a simple technique that makes it easy for decision-makers to identify the most important problems to be considered and resolved immediately [78]. The Pareto principle, which has the 80:20 rule, illustrates that 80% of losses come from 20% of crucial risks so that, through handling 20% of crucial risks, 80% of losses can be avoided.

The Pareto principle will be used in prioritizing the risk sources that need to be addressed first in the production of seed potatoes. Through the Pareto table, sixteen sources of risk will be obtained that will be the focus of handling. These sources of risk are uncertified seed (A29), unpredictable seasonal changes (A2), late or non-application of pesticides (A16), limited capital (A32), crop rotation on land is not carried out (A9), work is performed with less care (A25), storage is carried out when the tubers are moist (A22), tuber borer pests (A8), land is adjacent to other farms (A30), Phytophthora infestans fungus (A6), harvesting is performed when it rains (A20), Ralstonia solanacearum bacteria (A7), leafminer pests (A5), no liming is performed (A11), furadan is not applied (A12), and watering is late (A14). These risk sources have a cumulative ARP percentage below 80% as shown in Figure 5. Based on the Pareto principle, it is expected that handling these risk sources can avoid losses that may occur.

Preventive action (PA) or risk management strategies were formulated for each priority risk source. The risk management strategies were obtained from discussions and interviews with farmers. The yellow bar on the Pareto diagram indicates that A14 is the risk source with the lowest risk level. The prioritization of risk sources is determined by the ARP (Analytical Risk Priority) values. These ARP values represent the order of priority for addressing risk sources. However, not all risk sources receive the same level of focus; only those with higher ARP values are given more attention. More details can be seen in Table 9.

There are 21 proposed coping strategies to address the prioritized risk sources. It is necessary to know which handling strategy needs to be carried out first, so an assessment of each PA is needed by considering conveniences such as the resources required and the costs that must be incurred. The ranking is conducted by testing correlation and calculating effectiveness to difficulty (ETD) for each preventive action (PA).

Table 10. Order of proposed preventive action implementation in potato.

Sequence	Preventive Action	PA Description
1	PA1	Purchasing seed potatoes directly from Balitsa
2	PA2	Purchasing certified seeds from other breeders
3	PA16	Sanitizing the infested area
4	PA8	Making a regular planting schedule so that crop rotation can be carried out
5	PA15	Harvesting when the weather is sunny
6	PA9	Giving clear directions to workers
7	PA5	Making a routine schedule for pesticide application
8	PA17	Using yellow ligature traps
9	PA10	Drying seed potatoes before storage
10	PA12	Using synthetic pheromones as an alternative control
11	PA7	Establishing a partnership relationship
12	PA19	Regularly liming every growing season
13	PA6	Using bank loans
14	PA20	Applying furadan regularly every planting season
15	PA13	Planting barrier plants
16	PA18	Utilizing natural enemies
17	PA21	Making a routine schedule for watering
18	PA3	Creating a reservoir and utilizing a water pump machine
19	PA11	Hilling so that the bulbs are covered with soil
20	PA4	Consultation with extension and research related to proper cultivation techniques
21	PA14	Improving the drainage system

indicates that the risk management strategy that potato farmers should adopt in potato production is to purchase certified seeds directly from Balitsa (PA1), with an ETD value of 4372. Generally, the challenge with using certified seeds is that they are relatively more expensive than local or uncertified seeds, which are often purchased directly from other farmers. Another consideration is that locally produced seeds and certified seeds tend to have a similar market price. Therefore, most farmers prefer to use local seeds over certified ones. Consequently, there is a need for direct guidance from extension agencies (Balitsa) on the importance of using certified seeds to minimize risks in the field.

Another risk management strategy that potato farmers can implement is to purchase certified seeds from other seed producers (PA2). Buying certified seeds from other seed producers can be an alternative to purchasing from Balitsa, provided that the seeds are certified and not local. This approach not only minimizes risks in the field but also supports other farmers in developing certified seeds. Seed policy, in general, is directed toward empowering seed industry players to be competitive in both domestic and international markets [79].

The results of this study are in accordance with the opinion of [80], namely that, in general, individuals tend to have a conformist attitude or an attitude in line with the attitudes of people that they consider important. In addition, it is also in accordance with the opinion of [81] that humans tend to behave the same as the attitudes of people we consider important to us. The more farmers receive advice, suggestions, and support from influential individuals, the more positive their attitudes become toward certified superior rice seeds. This is demonstrated by their interest and commitment to using certified superior rice seed breeders.

Risks caused by pests and diseases can be prevented by sanitizing the affected parts (PA16). The sanitation of infested plant parts aims to reduce the source of infection and prevent further damage to the plant. The sanitation or cleaning technique is an old method that is still used but is quite effective in reducing the population of pests and diseases. In addition to the affected plants, sanitation is also carried out on the rest of the living plants, the rest of the dead plants, other types of plants that can be substitute as hosts, and plant residues that fall or remain on the ground. The concept of integrated pest control (IPM) was first proposed by [82], and is a control system with a rational combination of the use of chemical pesticides and natural controls and other control methods to control pest populations. Four basic elements in IPM were proposed by [82], namely (1) the determination of control thresholds to determine when control measures are needed; (2) sampling to determine critical points of plants or pest growth stages; (3) understanding of existing natural control capabilities; and (4) the use of selective types of insecticides and how to apply them. The same concept in Indonesia is known as IPM [83], with the aim of reducing the use of chemical pesticides combined with other control components.

Law No. 12 of 1992 on Plant Cultivation Systems regulates various aspects related to plant cultivation in Indonesia. This law covers several important points, including principles of plant cultivation; seeds and seed breeding; use of technology and production inputs; protection of genetic resources; agricultural land management; guidance and supervision. This law aims to promote sustainable agriculture, improve the quality and quantity of plant production, and ensure that plant cultivation practices are conducted in a way that is environmentally responsible and beneficial to farmers’ well-being.

A well-known and long-used type of plant-based insecticide is pyrethrum, derived from Chrysanthemum flowers. Rotenone is extracted from the roots of the leguminous plant Derris elliptica, also known as tuba. Another promising botanical pesticide that has been extensively researched is Azadirachtin, an active ingredient obtained from neem plants (Azadirachta indica). Vegetable insecticides are insecticidal materials that are quite effective and safe for the environment [84]. According to [85], natural control is also referred to as the balance of nature, which is the maintenance of the population of an organism within a certain upper and lower limit range as a result of overall environmental management actions in both biotic and abiotic environments. To a certain extent, natural control certainly affects all types of organisms.

Making a regular planting schedule so that crop rotation can be carried out (PA8) is one of the control strategies used to minimize the growth of pests and plant diseases, usually using carrots for crop rotation. There is usually a buildup of pests and diseases if crop rotation is not carried out. The continuous production of potatoes will make them susceptible to attack. Therefore, regular crop rotation is necessary. Another possible control strategy is to harvest during sunny weather (PA15). Harvesting during sunny weather will produce dry potatoes. When it rains, harvesting is usually postponed because it will result in rotten tubers and, during the storage process, the tubers will be susceptible to mold and disease.

4. Conclusions

Risk identification for potato production in environmental conservation in the Cisangkuy Sub-Watershed, Bandung Regency, identified 33 risk events. The risk event with the highest impact was the risk event of submerged crops (E10), with a score of 8.9. From these risk events, 32 risk sources were identified, as well as 16 priority risk sources that must be addressed first. An uncertified seed (A29) is the highest risk source. There are 21 proposed handling strategies or preventive actions (PAs) that can be used to minimize the occurrence of risks in potato production. The handling strategy that may be effective for farmers is to buy seed potatoes directly from Balitsa (PA1), with an effectiveness ratio (ETD) of 4372. Another proposed treatment strategy is to buy certified seeds from other breeders (PA2). This strategy is used as a priority for reducing the impact of the risks faced by potato farmers.