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

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Summary

Dear Reviewer

I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude for taking the time to review my article titled " Risk Mitigation for Potato Production in Environmental Con- servation in the Cisangkuy Subwatershed, Bandung Regency" Your valuable insights and constructive feedback have greatly contributed to improving the quality and clarity of the manuscript.

I truly appreciate your thorough evaluation of the content and your thoughtful suggestions for enhancement. Your expertise in the field has been instrumental in refining the article, and I believe that your input will significantly strengthen the overall contribution of this work.
I have conscientiously considered all your comments and made the necessary revisions in accordance with your recommendations. Your dedication to the peer-review process is highly commendable, and your commitment to elevating the quality of research is evident. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

Once again, thank you for your time, effort, and expertise. Your contributions are invaluable, and I am sincerely grateful for your support in making this article more robust and impactful. May your kindness be rewarded with double goodness. Thank you very much, wish you continued health and success.

Warm regards,
Nur Syamsiyah

Universitas Padjadjaran

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Thank you can be improved.

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Thank you can be improved.

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Thank you can be improved.

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Thank you for your evaluation

Are the results clearly presented?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Thank you for your evaluation, I tried to provide clear results by adding a few sentences to the discussion.

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Thank you can be improved.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments:

I appreciate the opportunity to review this contribution, which aims to identify risks arising from various sources and formulate risk control strategies for potato production in the Cisangkuy Watershed area of Bandung Regency.

The idea behind the article shows promise; however, it requires substantial revisions before being considered for publication. The article needs to be restructured as the text flow is not smooth, leading to thematic confusion in different sections.

1.     I recommend making the introduction more concise and clearly stating the study's aim and its contribution to the current national and international discussions. Pay particular attention to clarifying the article's aim: in the abstract it is specified that  the ‘purpose of the article is identify risks arising from risk sources and formulate risk control strategies for potato production in the Cisangkuy Watershed area of Bandung Regency’ while in the introduction it is stated that the aim is to provide a valuable theoretical foundation for studies related sustainability in the Upper Citarum Watershed by first examining the level of sustainability of ecovillage development in the Upper Citarum Watershed, West Java. This inconsistency requires better clarification in the introduction.

2.     Moreover, the introduction is too lengthy, and contextual elements about the study area should be placed in a separate section for case study contextualization. Avoid inserting tables and detailed quantitative data (e.g. potato consumption figures or territorial characterizations) (see paragraphers: People's healthy lifestyle……/ West Java is a land divided into a steep mountainous………). Consider restructuring the introduction by moving the paragraph about agricultural risk management (last paragraph)  to the beginning (i.e. Agricultural risk management has become a major concern………) as it is the main point and reason for the study proposal.

3.     In light of the above, I suggest dividing the Materials and Methods section into two subsections: 1) Case Study Contextualization (for all background territorial information) and 2) Data Collection and Analysis. Make this section clearer and more concise by removing redundant information and detailing the House Of Risk (HOR) phases in external files (supporting materials).

4.     Lastly, refocus the conclusions to emphasize the significance of the empirical evidence within national and international studies on risk management also considering the increasing uncertainty of certain productive contexts.

Responses:

Thank you very much for your thorough review and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate your acknowledgment of the potential in our study, and we take your comments seriously.

We understand that the current structure of the manuscript may have led to thematic confusion and a lack of smooth text flow. In response to your suggestions, we are in the process of extensively revising the manuscript to improve its clarity and coherence

1.     Thank you for your helpful comments and suggestions. We recognize the importance of consistency in stating the study’s objectives and its contribution to current national and international discussions. In response to your suggestions, we will make the following revisions: Concise Introduction: We will revise the introduction to be more concise, focusing on a clear and direct presentation of our study’s objectives. This will help eliminate any confusion and make the introduction more focused on the core of our research. Clarification of Study Aim: We will ensure that the aim of the article is stated consistently between the abstract and the introduction. In this revision, we will clarify that the primary objective of this article is to identify risks arising from various risk sources and formulate risk control strategies for potato production in the Cisangkuy Watershed area of Bandung Regency.

2.     In the introduction, some information has been removed to shorten it, and Table 1 has also been omitted. Several lengthy sentences have been revised according to the reviewer's suggestions. The author has moved the paragraph on agricultural risk management, which was previously in the final paragraph, to the beginning of the paragraph.

Page 1 lines  34-40

Effective risk management and mitigation are crucial for the success of any enterprise, including agricultural operations undertaken by farmers. They help 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.

3.     Thank you for suggestions, I have revised and paraphrased the sentences according to the reviewer's suggestions.

Page 3 lines 36 etc

Page 6 lines 9 etc

4.     Thank you for the advice and input; it's very meaningful for improving this manuscript.

Adding a last sentence in the Conclusion to further clarify the findings from the research conducted by the author.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

different typos are present in the text

Quality of English Language

(x) Minor editing of English language required. 
 

Response:

Thank you for your comments regarding the quality of the English in the manuscript I sent. The author has limitations, but the author tries to present articles that have good language quality with the help of various parties who really helped the author in perfecting this manuscript. One again I truly appreciate your comments. I have revised and paraphrased the sentences according to the reviewer's suggestions. Thank You.

5. Additional clarifications

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Summary

Dear Reviewer

I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude for taking the time to review my article titled " Risk Mitigation for Potato Production in Environmental Conservation in the Cisangkuy Subwatershed, Bandung Regency" Your valuable insights and constructive feedback have greatly contributed to improving the quality and clarity of the manuscript.

I truly appreciate your thorough evaluation of the content and your thoughtful suggestions for enhancement. Your expertise in the field has been instrumental in refining the article, and I believe that your input will significantly strengthen the overall contribution of this work.
I have conscientiously considered all your comments and made the necessary revisions in accordance with your recommendations. Your dedication to the peer-review process is highly commendable, and your commitment to elevating the quality of research is evident. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

Once again, thank you for your time, effort, and expertise. Your contributions are invaluable, and I am sincerely grateful for your support in making this article more robust and impactful. May your kindness be rewarded with double goodness. Thank you very much, wish you continued health and success.

Warm regards,
Nur Syamsiyah

Universitas Padjadjaran

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Thank you can be improved.

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Thank you can be improved.

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Thank you can be improved.

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Thank you for your evaluation

Are the results clearly presented?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Thank you for your evaluation, I tried to provide clear results by adding a few sentences to the discussion.

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Thank you can be improved.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments:

1.     Title : 

Risk Mitigation for Potato Production in Environmental Conservation in the Cisangkuy Subwatershed, Bandung Regency

The Title needs to be reworded. Some suggestions are 

·      “Environmental conservation and risk mitigation in potato production - Cisangkuy Subwatershed, Bandung Regency”

·      “Risk mitigation in environmental conservation for potato production in Cisangkuy Subwatershed, Bandung Regency”

Risk mitigation and environmental conservation is not clearly addressed in this manuscript hence the title needs to be changed. 

2.     Author affiliations: 

All the three authors have the same affiliation. Hence, do you need 1, 2, 3. This can go as superscript 1 or even without any superscript. Follow the journal requirements. 

Authors affiliation gives “Department of Social Economic Agricultural”. The word agricultural at the end seems not matching. Please check and revise, if necessary. 

3.     Abstract:

Lines 7-8: This is not supported by the findings of this paper.

Lines 14-15: Not clear. Needs English editing

4.     Introduction:

Paragraph 1. 

In this paragraph, all of a sudden, stated about a watershed.  There should be a link between above section or divide into two paragraph. If divided into two paragraphs, then first paragraph needs expansion (refer annotation in the manuscript).

Last sentence, Para 1.

Rewrite this part as a different sentence (refer annotation in the manuscript).

Paragraph 2, Line 1.

What is this. Not clear. Please state (refer annotation in the manuscript).

Area of the watershed is given with ± symbol. It is not clear. Better to remove. The units used is hectare, which should be denoted as “ha”.

Page 2, Paragraph 1.

Lines 2-3. This section could be a separate sentence. Needs English editing.

Page 2, Paragraph 1, Lines 4-7

Is this the aim of this research? If yes, it needs to be moved from this paragraph to a suitable place. 

Why a citation is given, if it is the aim of this research?

Page 2, Paragraph 1, last sentence

Not clear. Need English editing.

Page 2, Table 1.

Is this Table really needed? The authors may consider removing this Table. Specifying only the subdistrict which is discussed in this paper may be sufficient.

Page 2, Paragraph 3, Line 1

Increase in vegetable consumption depends on many factors. Is healthy lifestyle a factor? Not clear. 

Page 2, Paragraph 3 and 4

No flow or link between the both paragraphs.

Page 3, first Paragraph, line 2

“production products”- revise this and the sentence

Page 3, first Paragraph, line 5

“attacks”- revise this and the sentence

Page 3, first Paragraph, last sentence

Not clear. Revise the sentence. (refer annotation in the manuscript).

Page 3, Last Paragraph of the introduction

The authors have not specified the objectives or aims of this study. (refer annotation in the manuscript).

Materials and Methods

Page 3, last sentence

Repeated words. Revise. (refer annotation in the manuscript).

Page 4, Lines 3-4

English editing is needed.

Page 4, Paragraph 1, Line 7

refer annotation in the manuscript

Page 4, Paragraph 1

By the end of Introduction section, the citations given were numbered upto 21. Under methodology it starts with 73, then 74 and then 84. Something wrong. The authors need to look into this and rectify the citations order.

Page 4, Paragraph 1, Line 8

English editing is needed

Page 4, Paragraph 2, Line 3

Project objectives are not stated under the Introduction. What are the project objectives?

Page 4, Paragraph 2, Line 8

refer annotation in the manuscript

Page 4, Paragraph 2, Line 8 - 13

This study is mainly on potato production, however the authors are discussing on mango farmers. What is the relationship between potatoes and mangoes farming.

Page 4, Paragraph 2, Lines 9-10

The sentence needs English editing.

Page 4, Figure 1 (note on the source)

or "Modified from" (refer annotation in the manuscript)

Page 4, Paragraph 3, Line 7

refer annotation in the manuscript

Page 5, Paragraph 2, Line 2 and 8

refer annotation in the manuscript

Page 5, Figure 2

Discussed about risk mitigation of mango farmers. If the methodology of risk mitigation of mango farmers is being used here, the authors need to revise it and present how it was used in the potatoes study. 

Page 5, Paragraph 4, Line 5, 6

refer annotation in the manuscript

Page 5, Paragraph 4, Lines 9-10, 11, 

Need English editing

Page 6, Paragraph 1, Line 6 

Not a complete sentence.

Page 6, Paragraph 3, Last sentence

It is a complex sentence. Better to revise, may be dividing into smaller sentences.

Page 6, Paragraph 3, Lines 7 - 10 

It is a complex sentence. Better to revise, may be dividing into smaller sentences.

Page 8, Paragraph 1, Line 1

Is this 1 or 3? (refer annotation in the manuscript)

Page 8, Paragraph 2, Line 1

 Is this 2 or 4? (refer annotation in the manuscript)

Page 8, Paragraph 2, Line 4

refer annotation in the manuscript

Page 8, Paragraph 3, Line 1

Is this 3 or 5. (refer annotation in the manuscript)

Page 8, Paragraph 3, Line 2

English editing is needed (refer annotation in the manuscript)

Page 9, Paragraph 1, Line 1

Is this 4 or 6. (refer annotation in the manuscript)

Page 9, Paragraph 2, Line 1 - 2

English editing is needed

Page 10, Equation 3

why it is in bold font?

Results and Discussion

Page 11, Paragraph 1

Repeated. This paragraph may be removed. 

Page 11 - 12, Table 8

Some of the risk events are difficult to differentiate and may overlap with others. How the authors handled it in the analysis.

 i.e. 

Slow plant growth could be many different reasons already identified as risk events, 

pest and disease contamination from other farms - how to differentiate this with risk events that occur under "control plant pests and diseases"

Many more such cases are available

Page 12, Paragraph 2, Line 2-3

Need English editing.

Page 12, Paragraph 2, Last sentence

Complex sentence. Need to revise. May break into smaller sentences.

Page 12, Paragraph 3, Lines 4-5

English editing is needed.

Page 13, Paragraph 1, Lines 1

English editing is needed

Page 13, Paragraph 1

Is this paragraph needed? If not, the authors may remove. 

Page 13, Paragraph 2, Lines 1-8

Is this part needed?

Page 15, Paragraph 3, Lines 5-6

Not a complete sentence.

Page 18, Paragraph 1, Lines 5-6

Is this correct? The next sentence says farmers by locally produced seeds.

Page 19, Paragraph 1, Last sentence

Not a complete sentence.

Analysis

Statistical analysis of collected data to draw conclusions is not explained in the paper.  The conclusions are made based on scoring only.

Responses:

Thank you very much for your thorough review and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate your acknowledgment of the potential in our study, and we take your comments seriously.

1.     I strongly agree with the comments and feedback regarding the title. Indeed, the environmental conservation aspect is not discussed in detail; however, this research was conducted in an area of environmental conservation (Ecovillage) and the mitigation is part of the efforts to reduce environmental pollution caused by potato farming activities.

I agree to change the title as suggested and have added more detail about the research location. Thus, the title becomes 'Risk Mitigation in Environmental Conservation for Potato Production in the Cisangkuy Sub-Watershed, Bandung Regency, West Java, Indonesia”.

2.     Thank you for your input, The manuscript has been equipped with a track changer tool which will help reviewers find out what improvements the author has made.

Authors: Has been corrected according to the reviewer's instructions, the author numbering has been removed. Change from the Department of socio-economic agricultural to Department of Agricultural Socio-Economics

3.     Thank you for suggestions "The line numbering in the manuscript between the reviewer and the author differs by 8 lines, so the author adds 8 numbers to the lines according to the reviewer's directions. For example, in the first suggestion, the reviewer points out lines 7-8: 'This is not supported by the findings of this paper.' The author then corrects this in the manuscript on lines 15-16, and applies this adjustment to subsequent numbering."

Abstract:

Lines 7-8: This is not supported by the findings of this paper.

Lines 14-15: Not clear. Needs English editing

Lines 7-8 (15-16): “Many farmers are still not aware of the importance of environmental sustainability with the use of chemicals in their farms”

This statement is based on the results of research carried out by the author while in the field, the author found that farmers were still using pesticides and chemical fertilizers, marked by the discovery of used chemical fertilizer and pesticide packaging around farmers' gardens.

I also add references based on Sunarto, Toto (2024) stated that Based on the results of farmer observations and discussions, potato farmer groups and field extension officers (PPL) in the Pangalengan District, Bandung Regency, in general, not many people know how to control potato pests in an environmentally friendly manner.

Lines 14-15 (22-23): The source seed is uncertified seed (A29) is the highest source of risk. Proposed handling strategies or Preventive Action (PA) are 21 that can be used to minimize the occurrence of risks in potato production.

Revised: The uncertified seed source (A29) is identified as the highest source of risk. To minimize the occurrence of risks in potato production, 21 preventive actions (PA) have been proposed. An effective handling strategy for farmers is to buy seed potatoes directly from Balitsa (PA1), with an effectiveness ratio (ETD) of 4372. Another proposed strategy is to buy certified seeds from other breeders (PA2).

4.     Introduction: Thank you for your input, I have made corrections according to the suggestions provided. The revisions made are as follows:

Paragraph 1.  Page 1, Lines 33-39 and Page 2, lines 1-2

The Cisangkuy Sub-Das is one of the sub-das that is connected to the Citarum DAS. According to Bappenas (2012), the Cisangkuy River Sub-Watershed (Sub DAS) is part of the upstream Citarum River Watershed (DAS) located in Bandung Regency. This Sub DAS covers an area of 34,159 hectares and has a raw water discharge of 1,600 liters 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.

Paragraph 2, Page 2 Lines 7-12

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.

That statement is not the research objective; it merely describes the conditions in the study area, which is affected by pollution from various community activities in the surrounding area.

Page 2, Lines 35-45

The increase in vegetable consumption is one of the signs of a shift towards a healthier lifestyle among the public

Page 2, Lines 46-48

As a link to the previous paragraph, I added a reference from the Central Bureau of Statistics, which states that there has been an increase in potato consumption in Indonesia.

The Central Bureau of Statistics (BPS) (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

Page 2, Table 1 , Page 3, Lines 7-18

Table 1 was added with the expectation of providing a more detailed understanding of potato production in Bandung Regency as a potato production center. If deemed unnecessary, as per the suggestion, the author will remove Table 1 and replace it with a descriptive format. The number of sub-districts studied is presented in the Methodology chapter

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.

Page 3, Last Paragraph of the introduction  Lines 31-34

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.

Materials and Methods: Thank you for your input, I have made corrections according to the suggestions provided. The revisions made are as follows:

Page 3, Line 48

The repetition of the word 'sampling' has been removed

Page 4, Lines 1-2

Ten farmers were sampled from each village, resulting in a total of 130 respondents interviewed.

Page 4, line 9

Were to are

Page 4, lines 3-etc

Correct, the reference numbers are indeed edited at the end of the introduction, specifically reference number 21. However, references numbered 73-87 are additional and are consistent with the reference list in the bibliography. So, the sources in the text and the references are correct, but they have not yet been reordered following the additions. Should they be reordered?

If so, the author will reorder the numbers in the manuscript and the reference list. For example, reference 73 will become 21, and so on.

Page 4, lines 9-15

The sentence has been revised, and the research objective has been added to the last paragraph of the introduction

Page 4, Lines 23-28

The discussion on mangoes has been added to strengthen this study, as previous research has addressed the risks of uncertainty in mango agribusiness. The most significant risks are related to climate and natural factors. While this study focuses on potato production, there are, of course, differences between potato and mango production. However, the reference point is that every farming activity carries risks, regardless of the commodity being produced.

Page 4, Figure 1 (note on the source) Line 31

Has been repaired "Modification of become Modified from"

Page 5, Figure 2

The research on risk mitigation for mango farmers is used solely as a reference and highlights that the current study differs from previous research. Figure 2 shows the research stages using the FMEA method, whereas the current study on potato production employs the House of Risk (HOR) method, which naturally has different stages from those used in FMEA, although HOR is a development of the FMEA method. The stages of HOR are explained in Figure 3.

Page 5, last Paragraf lines 38-46 and Page 6 Lines 1-3

It has been revised according to the feedback provided.

Page 6, lines 9 and 31-34 and lines 41-46

It has been revised according to the feedback provided.

Page 8, Lines 3, 9, 16 etc

It has been revised according to the feedback provided (Numbering)

Page 9, lines 11-12

The ARPj value that has been obtained on the risk agent, then can carry out the stages in HOR stage 2 become Once the ARPj value for each risk agent has been obtained, the next step is to proceed with Stage 2 of the HOR process.

Page 10, Equation 3

Bold become not bold

Results and Discussion

Page 11, Paragraph 1

Repeated. This paragraph be removed. 

Page 11 - 12, Table 8

For risk events and risk agents in potato production, they were derived from field research. The identification of risk events and risk agents involved assessing how frequently these events occurred and their sources. As explained in each stage carried out through the House of Risk (HOR) method (Figure 3), data and information were obtained through interviews and questionnaires with farmers, after first obtaining their consent to participate.

This process began by gathering respondent information related to their characteristics, as well as their risk management and mitigation processes. The identified risk events and risk sources were then assessed based on the severity level, likelihood of occurrence, and the correlation value between the risk events and their sources. Risk events and risk sources may sometimes seem overlapping, but their differences become apparent.

• Risk Events: Refer to the outcome or consequence of a risk occurring, such as delays in fertilization due to bad weather.
• Risk Agents: Are the factors or causes that lead to the occurrence of a risk event, such as the bad weather itself.

In some cases, the definitions of events and sources can be very close or even nearly identical, especially if the event is directly caused by a primary source. For example, in the case of bad weather, bad weather can be considered both as a risk source (direct cause) and as a risk event (because of its tangible impact). There is often a causal relationship that makes them seem overlapping, but it is actually a cause-and-effect connection.

Therefore, the HOR method is used, which includes HOR 1 and HOR 2 stages. By assessing both risk events and risk sources, the method allows us to mitigate the most severe risks, enabling preventive measures to be taken to minimize their impact.

Page 12, lines 12-38 and Page 13 line 1

It has been revised according to the feedback provided.

Page 13, lines 12-24

The author adds to clarify that disease and pest attacks have an impact on the plants. Additionally, the author discusses solutions that can be implemented to reduce the impact when such events occur.

Page 15, lines 26-30

It has been revised according to the feedback provided.

Page 18, lines 1-16

It has been revised according to the feedback provided.

Page 19, lines 21-28

It has been revised according to the feedback provided.

Analysis

The data analysis was conducted using the House of Risk (HOR) method. Conclusions were drawn based on the research objectives, which include identifying risk events and risk agents. Following this, a risk assessment was carried out, prioritizing and selecting risk agents based on ARP values. Additionally, risk mitigation strategies were identified, highlighting which risks should be prioritized for management based on ETD values to effectively mitigate their impact. The first conclusion identifies the results of this analysis and suggests strategies that can be implemented to reduce the impact of the most significant risks, according to the research findings.

Adding a last sentence in the Conclusion to further clarify the findings from the research conducted by the author.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Response :

Thank you for your comments regarding the quality of the English in the manuscript I sent. The author has limitations, but the author tries to present articles that have good language quality with the help of various parties who really helped the author in perfecting this manuscript. One again I truly appreciate your comments. I have revised and paraphrased the sentences according to the reviewer's suggestions. Thank You.

5. Additional clarifications

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

1. Summary

Dear Reviewer

I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude for taking the time to review my article titled " Risk Mitigation for Potato Production in Environmental Con- servation in the Cisangkuy Subwatershed, Bandung Regency" Your valuable insights and constructive feedback have greatly contributed to improving the quality and clarity of the manuscript.

I truly appreciate your thorough evaluation of the content and your thoughtful suggestions for enhancement. Your expertise in the field has been instrumental in refining the article, and I believe that your input will significantly strengthen the overall contribution of this work.
I have conscientiously considered all your comments and made the necessary revisions in accordance with your recommendations. Your dedication to the peer-review process is highly commendable, and your commitment to elevating the quality of research is evident. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

Once again, thank you for your time, effort, and expertise. Your contributions are invaluable, and I am sincerely grateful for your support in making this article more robust and impactful. May your kindness be rewarded with double goodness. Thank you very much, wish you continued health and success.

Warm regards,
Nur Syamsiyah

Universitas Padjadjaran

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Thank you can be improved.

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Thank you can be improved.

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Thank you for your evaluation

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Thank you can be improved.

Are the results clearly presented?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Thank you for your evaluation, I tried to provide clear results by adding a few sentences to the discussion.

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Thank you can be improved.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments:

1.     The study appears to employ a rather cumbersome process, yet it essentially utilizes a straightforward Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and an index system to assess a rather simple and superficial issue. It is not clear how the House of Risk (HOR) method applied in this study addresses a problem that is not already evident through disaster statistics. The innovation and marginal contribution of this approach are not apparent from the current presentation.

2.     The suitability of the methods used, such as the Pareto diagram with its 20/80 ratio, seems overly simplistic and arbitrary. Rare disasters can have far more devastating impacts than common ones, and this nuance may not be adequately captured by the methods used in the study.

3.     The paper is overly lengthy and could benefit from a more concise presentation. The introduction should quickly establish the research topic and its significance, addressing the unresolved scientific questions and how this study contributes to filling the gaps. It is important to clarify what has been done by others, what remains undone, and how this study's methodology advances the field. The methods and materials section includes an extensive literature review that might be better placed in the introduction to situate the study within the current research landscape and highlight its innovative aspects.

4.     The manuscript frequently uses acronyms and abbreviations that may be difficult for readers to follow. It is recommended that the authors review the text from the reader's perspective and clarify these terms to enhance readability.

5.     The conclusions and policy recommendations are somewhat generic and do not seem to offer new insights that would not be apparent without the study. It would be beneficial to highlight any novel findings or unique contributions that this research provides to the field.

Responses:

Thank you very much for your thorough review and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate your recognition of the potential in our research, and we take your comments seriously.

We understand that the current structure of the manuscript may have led to thematic confusion and lack of smooth text flow. In response to your suggestions, we endeavored to revise the manuscript extensively to improve its clarity and coherence.

1.        This study employs the House of Risk (HOR) analysis, which consists of two stages: HOR 1 and HOR 2. (Page 6 lines 18 - Page 11 Lines 3)

The details of this analysis are clearly presented in the manuscript in the materials and methods section. The author has divided this section into two parts to better differentiate between case study contextualization and data collection and analysis. While research on risk has been widely conducted, studies specifically focusing on sub-watersheds are still very limited. This research is important as it addresses a gap in the existing literature by applying the HOR method to a sub-watershed context, providing valuable insights for managing risks in this specific and under-researched area.

2.        Thank you for the advice and input; it's very meaningful for improving this manuscript. For risk events and risk agents in potato production, they were derived from field research. The identification of risk events and risk agents involved assessing how frequently these events occurred and their sources. As explained in each stage carried out through the House of Risk (HOR) method (Figure 3), data and information were obtained through interviews and questionnaires with farmers, after first obtaining their consent to participate.

This process began by gathering respondent information related to their characteristics, as well as their risk management and mitigation processes. The identified risk events and risk sources were then assessed based on the severity level, likelihood of occurrence, and the correlation value between the risk events and their sources. Risk events and risk sources may sometimes seem overlapping, but their differences become apparent.

• Risk Events: Refer to the outcome or consequence of a risk occurring, such as delays in fertilization due to bad weather.
• Risk Agents: Are the factors or causes that lead to the occurrence of a risk event, such as the bad weather itself.

In some cases, the definitions of events and sources can be very close or even nearly identical, especially if the event is directly caused by a primary source. For example, in the case of bad weather, bad weather can be considered both as a risk source (direct cause) and as a risk event (because of its tangible impact). There is often a causal relationship that makes them seem overlapping, but it is actually a cause-and-effect connection.

Therefore, the HOR method is used, which includes HOR 1 and HOR 2 stages. By assessing both risk events and risk sources, the method allows us to mitigate the most severe risks, enabling preventive measures to be taken to minimize their impact.

3.     Thank you for your suggestions and input , In the introduction, some information has been removed to shorten it, and Table 1 has also been omitted. Several lengthy sentences have been revised according to the reviewer's suggestions. The author has moved the paragraph on agricultural risk management, which was previously in the final paragraph, to the beginning of the paragraph.

Page 1 lines  34-40

Effective risk management and mitigation are crucial for the success of any enterprise, including agricultural operations undertaken by farmers. They help 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.

4.     I appreciate the opportunity to review this contribution, Several terms or abbreviations have been added by the author, such as AHP, TOPSIS, FMEA, HOR, HOQ, ARP, PA, etc.

5.     Thank you very much for your thorough review and constructive feedback on our manuscript, Adding a last sentence in the Conclusion to further clarify the findings from the research conducted by the author.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point : different typos are present in the text

Quality of English Language

(x) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper. 

Response :

5. Additional clarifications

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Summary

Dear Reviewer

I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude for taking the time to review my article titled " Risk mitigation in environmental conservation for potato production in Cisangkuy Subwatershed, Bandung Regency, West Java, Indonesia" Your valuable insights and constructive feedback have greatly contributed to improving the quality and clarity of the manuscript.

I truly appreciate your thorough evaluation of the content and your thoughtful suggestions for enhancement. Your expertise in the field has been instrumental in refining the article, and I believe that your input will significantly strengthen the overall contribution of this work.
I have conscientiously considered all your comments and made the necessary revisions in accordance with your recommendations. Your dedication to the peer-review process is highly commendable, and your commitment to elevating the quality of research is evident. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

Once again, thank you for your time, effort, and expertise. Your contributions are invaluable, and I am sincerely grateful for your support in making this article more robust and impactful. May your kindness be rewarded with double goodness. Thank you very much, wish you continued health and success.

Warm regards,
Nur Syamsiyah

Universitas Padjadjaran

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Thank you for your evaluation

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Thank you for your evaluation

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Thank you for your evaluation  

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Thank you for your evaluation

Are the results clearly presented?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Thank you for your evaluation

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Thank you for your evaluation

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments:

The manuscript is improved considerably. 

There is 30% similarly excluding bibliography. I recommend the authors to attend to this and minimize those further.

Responses:

Thank you very much for your thorough review and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate your acknowledgment of the potential in our research, and we take your comments very seriously.

Regarding the similarity index, we have reduced it from 30% to 20%. Some of the detected similarity was due to the journal format and bibliography. We have addressed this by paraphrasing and adding a few sentences. I have also included the results of the updated plagiarism check using Turnitin.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

    Minor English editing might be needed.

Response :

Thank you for your comments regarding the quality of the English in the manuscript I sent. The author has limitations, but the author tries to present articles that have good language quality with the help of various parties who really helped the author in perfecting this manuscript. One again I truly appreciate your comments. I have revised and paraphrased the sentences according to the reviewer's suggestions. Thank You.

5. Additional clarifications

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

1. Summary

Dear Reviewer

I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude for taking the time to review my article titled " Risk mitigation in environmental conservation for potato production in Cisangkuy Subwatershed, Bandung Regency, West Java, Indonesia" Your valuable insights and constructive feedback have greatly contributed to improving the quality and clarity of the manuscript.

I truly appreciate your thorough evaluation of the content and your thoughtful suggestions for enhancement. Your expertise in the field has been instrumental in refining the article, and I believe that your input will significantly strengthen the overall contribution of this work.
I have conscientiously considered all your comments and made the necessary revisions in accordance with your recommendations. Your dedication to the peer-review process is highly commendable, and your commitment to elevating the quality of research is evident. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

Once again, thank you for your time, effort, and expertise. Your contributions are invaluable, and I am sincerely grateful for your support in making this article more robust and impactful. May your kindness be rewarded with double goodness. Thank you very much, wish you continued health and success.

Warm regards,
Nur Syamsiyah

Universitas Padjadjaran

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Thank you can be improved.

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Thank you can be improved.

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Thank you for your evaluation

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Thank you can be improved.

Are the results clearly presented?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Thank you for your evaluation, I tried to provide clear results by adding a few sentences to the discussion.

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes/Can be improved/Must be improved/Not applicable

Thank you can be improved.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments:

Several areas that require significant improvement, particularly in the introduction, the second section, and formatting.

Firstly, the introduction remains overly verbose, dedicating excessive space to detailing the research area while neglecting the scientific issues at hand. Although the authors included a concluding statement addressing the scientific problem as per the  reviewer's feedback, this addition is insufficient. It is crucial for the authors to reconsider the balance between the importance of the region and the theoretical contributions of their research. For an international audience, the novelty of the theoretical framework should take precedence over regional specifics. Therefore, I strongly recommend that the authors substantially reduce the current length of the introduction regarding the area and instead focus on articulating the research questions, existing gaps in the literature, and how this study aims to address these gaps.

Secondly, the second section of the manuscript is excessively lengthy, particularly the theoretical review, which would be better positioned within the introduction. This adjustment would help to clearly delineate the two key aspects of the research: its practical guidance and its theoretical contributions. Additionally, the methods and research area descriptions could be condensed. I suggest that the authors include more informative visual elements, such as maps of the study area and sampling points, to enhance reader comprehension. The current figures lack sufficient detail and do not effectively support the text.

Lastly, there are several formatting issues that need careful proofreading. For instance, the inclusion of a period at the end of the title is unnecessary and should be corrected.

Responses:

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback. We greatly appreciate your detailed suggestions, which will significantly improve the quality of our manuscript.

We acknowledge the need to revise the introduction to strike a better balance between the importance of the research region and the theoretical contributions of the study. We will reduce the portion dedicated to describing the research area and focus more on articulating the research questions, identifying gaps in the literature, and explaining how our study addresses those gaps, particularly for an international audience. (Page 4, Lines 29-32)

Regarding the second section, we agree that it is too lengthy, especially the theoretical review, and we will work on integrating it into the introduction for a more streamlined structure. The methods and description of the research area will also be condensed, and we will enhance the visual presentation of the manuscript by adding more detailed figures, including maps of the study area and sampling points, to improve clarity and support the text effectively. (Page 5, Figure 1, Lines 1-3)

Lastly, we will carefully review the formatting and correct any issues, including the unnecessary period at the end of the title. (Page 1-26, yellow highlight)

Thank you again for your thorough review, and we look forward to making these improvements in our revision.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point : different typos are present in the text

Quality of English Language

(x) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper. 

Response :

5. Additional clarifications