Management of Offshore Aquaculture Operations

Putu Dana Karningsih

, Dewanti Anggrahini

, Agni Dipta Swastika

, Novi Dwijayanti

and Nur

Syahroni

Department of Industrial Engineering, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember, Surabaya, Indonesia

Department of Ocean Engineering, Institut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember, Surabaya, Indonesia

Keywords: Risk Management, Operational Risk, Offshore Aquaculture, House of Risk

Abstract: Aquaculture method has been well known in Indonesia for a long time. Inland aquaculture, such as the

brackish water pond, is a common practice for more than a couple of hundred of years. However, it is not the

same case for marine aquaculture, especially offshore. Fish demand is continuously increasing following the

growth of the world population. In spite of this, the number of wild captured marine fish is relatively stagnant

for the last 30 years, and there is a need to ensure the sustainability of marine ecology. To deal with this

challenge, the Indonesia Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries (MMAF) has a pilot project to install and

operate offshore aquaculture. Furthermore, this program is also aiming at providing more job opportunities

for the community, ensuring food security, and increasing the contribution of the fisheries sector to the

National GDP. To ensure the successfulness of this business, offshore aquaculture operational risk

management is required. The purpose of this study is to identify, assess, evaluate, and propose treatment

action for potential risks during offshore aquaculture operations by adopting the House of Risk method. This

study identifies 47 risk events and 67 risk agents (source of risk events) of offshore aquaculture operations.

Five risk agents are selected, and suitable treatment actions are proposed accordingly.

1 INTRODUCTION

With more than two-thirds of the Indonesia area is the

ocean and approximately 7 million of its people

involve in the fisheries sector, the Indonesian

government sees that the future of the country

depends heavily on sound maritime management.

Indonesia is the second-largest fish producer in the

world. Contribution of the Fisheries sector to national

Gross Domestic Product is 2,56% in 2016, and the

Indonesian government expects to increase it

continuously (CEA, 2016).

Traditionally wild capture fisheries are the main

source of fish; however, captured fish growth has

been relatively stagnant in the last 30 years. On the

other hand, aquaculture production showed rapid

growth from only around 7% in 1974 to 42% in 2012.

Moreover, in 2014, the contribution of aquaculture

fish production for human consumption is higher than

wild capture. Thus, aquaculture is expected to take on

a greater role in the future, supplying the majority

demand for increasing the world population (FAO,

2016b).

In Indonesia, total aquaculture production

increases sharply from approximately five times

between 2000 to 2016. The Ministry of Marine

Affairs and Fisheries has set targets that total

aquaculture production can reach 31.3 tons in 2019.

However, it is not easy to achieve the target as the full

potential of Indonesian aquaculture production has

not yet employed. The potential area in Indonesia

that is available to be utilized for marine, brackish,

and freshwater aquaculture production is still very

large (around 17.92 Million hectares), but only

around 26% that has been employed. Furthermore,

according to Slamet Soebjakto, Directorate General

of Aquaculture - Ministry of Marine Affairs and

Fisheries (MMAF), there are still 16.9 million

hectares potential area that has not been utilized in

2015. Additionally, the knowledge and skill of

Indonesia's fishermen are still limited (Soebjakto,

2015; Bappenas, 2018).

MMAF has put several programs to enhance

aquaculture's production progress accordingly. Some

examples of the programs are providing fish

fingerlings/fry, broodstocks, fish foods, and biofloc

systems (KKP, 2017). The president of Indonesia,

100

Karningsih, P., Anggrahini, D., Swastika, A., Dwijayanti, N. and Syahroni, N.

Risk Management of Offshore Aquaculture Operations.

DOI: 10.5220/0009422901000108

In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Industrial Technology (ICONIT 2019), pages 100-108

ISBN: 978-989-758-434-3

likewise, suggests that education should be given for

the fishermen to improve their understanding and

knowledge of aquaculture or modern fisheries

method. One of the MMAF special programs in 2018

is to install and operate Offshore Aquaculture in

Aceh, West Java, and Central Java. Each of these

offshore aquaculture units is targetted to produce

more than 900 tons of Barramundi/Seabass annually

as well as to provide jobs (income) for the

surrounding community (Soebjakto and Pregiwati,

2018).

To enable the successful implementation of

offshore aquaculture in Indonesia, it is important to

understand and manage the risks associated with

offshore aquaculture operations. Even though there

are a lot of studies on risk management of

aquaculture, specific research on offshore

aquaculture risk management, specifically in

Indonesia, is limited. Therefore, this study has five

main objectives, they are: (1) to identify potential

risks of Indonesia offshore aquaculture operations,

(2) to determine potential risks and its drivers

(causes), (3) to assess/measure risk magnitude, (4) to

evaluate risks and (5) to recommend risk treatments

plan.

To assist in the risk assessment process, the House

of Risk matrix is utilized and modified on this study

to correspond with offshore aquaculture operational

risks. A more detail description of the House of Risk

is presented in the next section. The method, results,

and discussion are elaborated in the third and fourth

sections, while section five presents the conclusion of

this study.

2 LITERATURE REVIEWS

In this section, several works of literature related to

aquaculture and risk management, including one of

the tools, House of Risk, are presented.

2.1 Aquaculture

Indonesian waters that have stable temperature and

levels of salinity provides a proper environment for

aquaculture production. In addition, a potential area

in Indonesia for aquaculture is still very huge. Up to

now, less than 30% of the area (i.e., seawater,

freshwater, brackish water) that has been utilized for

aquaculture while the biggest potential area is

seawater (around 12 million hectares). From 2000 to

2016, Indonesia's total aquaculture production

increased sharply (up to five times) from 788.500 tons

to 4.950.000 tons (FAO, 2016a).

In general, there are six methods of aquaculture

that are commonly employed in Indonesia, and they

are brackish water ponds, mariculture, freshwater

ponds, cages, floating cage nets, and paddy fields.

Brackish water ponds have been utilized in Indonesia

for approximately 400 years and are considered the

oldest method. Indonesia's major aquaculture

commodities are Shrimp, Seaweed, Grouper, Patin,

Tilapia, Goldfish, Catfish, Milkfish, and Gourami

(German-Indonesian Chamber of Industry and

Commerce, 2017). Mariculture is the cultivation of

marine animals and plants in natural (i.e., open or

enclosed section of the ocean) or controlled (i.e.,

tanks, ponds) marine waters (Deutsch et al., 2011).

Bush et al. (2019) divide aquaculture operations scale

into two levels, and they are: (1) small scale which

mainly provides income and food security to

households, (2) large scale that contributes more to

national revenue as it is targetted for supplying export

demand.

The terminology of "offshore Aquaculture,"

which is also known as "open ocean aquaculture,"

can be defined as "rearing of marine organisms under

controlled conditions in the Exclusive Economic

Zone—from the three-mile territorial limit of the

coast to two hundred miles offshore. Facilities may be

floating, submerged, or attached to fixed structures'

(Upton and Buck, 2010). There are many mariculture

(private) businesses that have been operated in

several parts of Indonesia, for example, at the

Buleleng area in Bali or Trenggalek area in East Java.

However, these aquacultures are considered as

coastal or off the coast aquaculture as these facilities

are located less than 3 km from the shore. In addition,

most of these aquaculture produces Grouper, Seabass,

and Seaweed for the local and international markets.

In April 2018, the first pilot, Offshore aquaculture

in Indonesia, was installed in Pangandaran, West

Java. It consists of eight holes, with each of them has

25.5 meters diameter and 15 meters in depth.

Moreover, it also includes one feeding system,

maintenance (feed barge), and one transport

vessel/transport boat. This offshore aquaculture is

aimed to produce 946 tonnes of Barramundi and

Seabass when it is fully operated. A similar offshore

aquaculture system is planned to be installed in Jepara

Central Java and Sabang Aceh. Moreover, these

offshore aquacultures are also aimed to open new job

opportunities to the nearby community as well as to

fulfill market demand. Thus, it would support the

MMAF program to enhance the contribution of the

fisheries sector to national GDP as well as food

security (Soebjakto and Pregiwati, 2018).

Risk Management of Offshore Aquaculture Operations

101

Jin, Kite-Powell, and Hoagland (2005) emphasize

the importance of risk management in this business as

it is in a high level of uncertainty regulation,

technology, and many more. Thus, to ensure a

successful business of offshore aquaculture, sound

knowledge, and understanding of any potential risk

that could impede this business should be well

managed accordingly by taking appropriate actions.

2.2 Risk Management

Risk can be defined as “the possible occurrence of an

event that produces adverse effects on man and his

environment. The degree of risk is related to both the

probability of the event’s occurrence and also to the

estimated outcome in terms of the nature, intensity,

and duration of the adverse effects” (Wasserman and

Wasserman's, 1979) in (Gratt, 1987). As risk could

influence the goal of an activity/project and may lead

to potential losses, managing risk is essential for any

business. To manage risk, we should understand

what, how, where, and when it could be happened and

build an appropriate mitigation plan.

Risk management focuses on assessing most if not

all potential and significant risks, then implementing

effective risk response (Airmic, Alarm and Irm, 2010;

Kayis and Karningsih, 2012). Several references have

proposed a diverse risk management process/stages.

Thomas, Kalidindi, and Ganesh (2006) suggest three

steps in managing risk, and they are (1) risk

identification, (2) risk assessment/measurement, (3)

risk prioritization and response. Scavarda et al. (2006)

suggest similar steps but with an additional one step

that is communicating and consulting with

stakeholders. International Organisation for

Standardisation (ISO) provides a generic framework

for risk management in 2009, which is called ISO

31000. It offers a common standard as well as a

comprehensive guide that integrates risk management

into an organization strategy with full support from

senior management. It consists of five main

processes, and they are: (1) establishing the context,

(2) risk assessment (i.e., risk identification, analysis,

and evaluation), (3) risk treatment, (4)

communication and consultation, (5) monitoring and

review.

The study of risk has been applied broadly in

many areas, including aquaculture. According to Risk

Management AS/NZS 4360 (1999) and Haring

(2015), risks can be classified based on various

attributes such as risk source, risk consequences,

time, location, and related person/factor/activity.

Arthur et al. (2009) examine potential risks in

aquaculture that are categorized according to their

source. This study shows that there are potential risks

that originated from aquaculture operations in

society. There are environmental, biological,

financial, social, and human health risks. For

example, environment risks could be occurred due to

pollution from excess feeds and water flow changing

or financial risks due to the bankruptcy of farming

operations. On the contrary, this study also identifies

that there are potential risks coming from society and

environment to aquacultures, such as the

environmental risk that is happened as a result of

pollution from inland agriculture or sea transportation

(ships) activities, or social risk which is due to lack of

skilled human resource for aquaculture operators.

While Jin, Kite-Powell, and Hoagland (2005) conduct

a risk assessment study to assist the investor in

making the decision in relation to aquaculture

business. They propose a firm-level investment-

production model. Moreover, as open water

(offshore) aquaculture is operated under uncertainty

from market demands, biological factors, and

regulations, thus they suggest the traditional rule of

Net Present Value should be altered.

There are some approaches/tools that could be

utilized for supporting risk management process, to

name a few: brainstorming, flow chart, structured

interview and questionnaire, fault tree, structured

interview, expert judgment, event tree, fault tree,

statistical and numerical analysis, simulation and

computer modeling (Ahmed, Kayis and

Amornsawadwatana, 2007; Grimaldi, Rafele and

Cagliano, 2012). Another tool, such as risk matrices,

has broadly utilized to measure and rank risks

according to its likelihood and consequences (Ristic,

2013).

Pujawan and Geraldin (2009) propose House of

Risk (HOR), a tool for managing risks in the supply

chain context, which is developed by integrating

Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) and

House of Quality (HOQ). HOR consists of two main

matrices. The first matrix, HOR stage 1 (table 1), for

identifying and classifying risk events and their

associated causes (risk agents) based on five SC

processes of SCOR (i.e., Plan, Source, Make, Deliver,

Return) framework.

ICONIT 2019 - International Conference on Industrial Technology

102

Table 1: HOR 1 matrix

Aggregate Risk Potential (ARP) is calculated by

using this formula (1) below:

ARP



O



∑





(1)

ARPj = Aggregate Risk Potential of risk agent j

Oj = occurrence of risk agent j

Si = severity of risk event i

Rij = relation value of risk event i with risk agent j

Thus, from this matrix, the ARP value for each

risk agent is calculated, and it could be ranked. The

decision-maker then could select how many risk

agents would be further analyzed for risk treatment.

The selection could be based on Pareto Law or the top

five or other particular criteria, depending on the

organization's personal consideration. This step is

generally called as risk analysis and evaluation. Then,

the formulation of risk treatment (action) for each

(selected) risk agent is conducted on the HOR stage 2

matrix. This matrix is aimed to measure and rank

alternatives of risk treatments for each risk agent

according to Effectiveness to Difficulty (EtD) Ratio.

The total effectiveness of each action is calculated by

using this formula (2) below:





∑

ARP





2

Ejk = the degree of effectiveness of action k in

reducing the likelihood of occurrence of risk agent j

Effectiveness to Difficulty (EtD) Ratio ratio is

calculated by dividing the Total Effectiveness of each

Action with Degree of Difficulty to perform this

action. The highest rank (rank 1) is given to the

preventive action with the highest ETD

Table 2: HOR 2 matrix

As this HOR is developed specifically for

managing risk in the Supply Chain Operations

context; therefore, in this paper, the matrix is

modified to suit the nature of this study that is

offshore aquaculture operations.

3 RISK MANAGEMENT OF

OFFSHORE AQUACULTURE

OPERATIONS

In this part, assessing the risk of offshore aquaculture

operations is conducted by following [14] steps,

namely: (1) establish the context, (2) risk

identification, (3) risk analysis, and (4) risk

evaluation. Next, each step is elaborated further in

the following subsections.

3.1 Establish the Context

This step is related to define external and internal

parameters, including determining scope and risk

criteria of offshore aquaculture operations. The

selection of the location of installation, construction

of the floating net cage (aquaculture structure), and

fish distribution/marketing are not included in this

study. In general, aquaculture operations could be

divided into two main activities: they are:

a. Cultivating the fish, from stocking (fish

seed/fingerling supply), feeding, nursing/monitoring,

and harvesting

b. Maintaining the floating net cage

The type of fish that is selected in this study are

Seabass, Barramundi, or Grouper, which are

considered as a high-value fish, and they have been

successfully grown in the current nearshore

aquaculture practices in Indonesia. The floating net

Bussiness

process

(Activity)

Risk

event

(Ei)

Risk agent (Aj) Severity

of risk

event (S

)

A1 A2 A3

Plan

E1 (R

) 9 7

E2 3 10

Occurance (O

) 9 8

ARP

567 240

Priority of Rank of

Agent j

1 2

Prioritized Risk

Agents (Aj)

Preventive Actions (PAk) ARPj

PA1 PA2 PA3

A2 Ejk 9 567

A3 3 9 240

Total effectiveness

of action k (TEk)

TE1 5823 2160

Degree of difficulty

performing Action k

(Dk)

D1 5 3

Effectiveness to

difficulty (EtD)

ratio

EtD1 1165 720

Rank of priority for

Preventive Action k

R1 1 2

Risk Management of Offshore Aquaculture Operations

103

cage installation is located between three miles to two

hundred miles of Indonesian offshore.

3.2 Identify Operations Risks

Identifying most (if not all) potential operations risks

of offshore aquaculture is conducted, starting by

gathering potential risks from literature studies. Then,

these risks are validated by interviewing six experts

from different field studies (i.e., Fisheries and Marine

Sciences, Ocean Engineering, and Biology) as well as

12 practitioners (i.e., fishermen, aquaculture business

owners and staffs). As a result, 47 risk events are

identified, which consists of 21 risks related to

floating cage maintenance and 26 risks related to fish

cultivation. Next, the source of each risk event or risk

agent also needs to recognize so effective risk

treatment can be applied properly to reduce, transfer,

or avoid these risk events. Risk agents (source of risk

event) are obtained by using a similar method and

conducted concurrently when identifying risk events.

As a result, 67 risk agents (i.e., 35 risk agents related

to floating cage maintenance and 32 risk agents

related to fish cultivation) are then identified

accordingly. Table 3 shows a partial list of risk events

with their associated risk agents. These risk events are

classified according to two main activities in

aquaculture (i.e., maintaining floating net and

cultivating fish).

Table 3: Partial list of a risk event and risk agent

3.3 Analyze and Evaluate Risks

Risk events and risk agents that have been identified

in the previous step are then re-arranged into the HOR

1 matrix. Next, the severity of each risk event, the

occurrence of each risk agent, and including relation

level between risk events with its risk agent(s) are

determined based on expert judgment. For this case

study, the selected respondent is one of Aquaculture

business practitioner that has operated his business

for almost ten years. He is not only owned

aquaculture business in several places in Indonesia

but also several fishing vessels, hatchery, and a

seafood restaurant. The respondent

determines/measures the value of severity and

probability based on scale 1 to 10. While scale 1

represents minor/insignificant consequences or very

rarely to occur, scale 5 means medium consequences

or possible to occur and scale 10 equal to major/very

high consequences or highly frequent/almost certain

to occur. While relation level between risk events and

risk agents utilizes three-level value, they are 1, 3, and

9, which represent low, moderate, and high relations

consecutively. Finally, Aggregate Risk Potential

(ARP) of each risk agent is calculated by using

formula (1). As a result, the partial calculation of

HOR 1 for this case study can be seen in Table 4.

Risk agent with the highest top five of ARP (rank

1 to rank 5) are selected for further analyze, they are

as follow: (1) Late delivery/problem of seed

suppliers/hatchery, (2) Damaged net due to marine

animals bites, (3) Low quality of fish feed, (4)

Pollution from surrounding area of offshore

aquaculture, (5) Lack of routine maintenance of net.

3.4 Formulate and Select Risk

Treatment Action

Selected risk agent(s) from the previous stage are then

analyzed by using the House of Risk (HOR) matrix

stage 2 to formulate risk treatment as well as select

the proper risk treatment. Table 5 shows the risk

treatment action for each five risk agent. These risk

treatment options are generated based on references

as well as discussion with experts and practitioners

(aquaculture owners).

Table 5: Risk treatment action for the top five risk agent

Risk agent Risk treatment (RT)

A4. Late

delivery/problem of

seed

suppliers/hatchery

RT1. Develop a partnership

with more than one fish seed

suppliers (multi suppliers and

multi-locations)

RT2. Manage inventory of fish

seeds

RT3. Manage/produce own fish

seedling

A8.Damaged cage

net due to marine

animals bites

RT4. Improve cage net strength

by combining with outer metal

fence

Main

Activities

Risk Events Risk Agents

Maintain

Net

Damaged /

broken Nets

(E1)

Lack of routine maintenance

(A11)

Close to Lifetime of the nets

(A12)

Marine animal bites the net

(A13)

Disproportion of fish density

in the cages (A14)

Do not use knotted nets or use

a thin net (A15)

Cultivating

Fish

Unavailable

of seed (E2)

Late delivery/problem on Seed

suppliers/ hatchery (A21)

High

mortality of

seed (E3)

Improper handling during

transport (A31)

ICONIT 2019 - International Conference on Industrial Technology

104

A13. Low quality

of fish feed

RT5. Develop procedure and

run testing for incoming fish

feed

A11. Pollution from

the surrounding

area of offshore

aquaculture

RT6. Routine checking for the

surrounding area while looking

for the source of pollution and

eliminate them

A18. Lack of

routine maintenance

of net cage

RT7. Develop a proper

maintenance schedule for net

cage

House of Risk (HOR) stage 2 is then utilized to

determine which risk treatment action recommended

based on difficulty and effectiveness. The level of

difficulty and effectiveness is determined by

judgment from several respondents, namely:

aquaculture owner and aquaculture expert. Based on

analysis of HOR stage 2 as can be seen in Table 6, the

recommendation of selected risk treatment action for

each prioritized risk agent are as follow:

(1) Develop partnerships with multiple fish seed

suppliers located in different locations.

(2) Combining original cage net with an outer

metal fence to increase its strength

(3) Develop a proper maintenance schedule for net

cage

(4) Develop procedure and run testing for

incoming fish feed

(5) Routine checking for the surrounding area

while looking for the source of pollution and

eliminate them

4 CONCLUSIONS

Aquaculture, including offshore aquaculture

operations, is considered a more environmentally

friendly way of fulfilling the rising market demand of

fish than traditional wild capture. Managing

operations risks of offshore aquaculture is essential to

ensure the successfulness of the MMAF program and

any aquaculture operations.

This study has identified 47 risk events and 67 risk

agents (source of risk events) of offshore aquaculture

operations. By adopting the House of Risk stage 1

matrix, these risks are analyzed and evaluated by

considering the expert's judgment. Five risk agents

are selected or prioritized based on the highest-

ranking (aggregate risk potential value) to further

analysis. For each risk agent, the alternative of action

for treating risk is determined and mapped into the

House of Risk stage 2. As a result, five risk treatments

are recommended to mitigate offshore aquaculture

operations risks.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research project is funded by Lembaga

Penelitian dan Pengabdian Kepada Masyarakat

(LPPM) ITS

REFERENCES

Ahmed, A., Kayis, B. and Amornsawadwatana, S. (2007)

‘A review of techniques for risk management in

projects’, Benchmarking: An International Journal,

14(1), pp. 22–36. doi: 10.1108/14635770710730919.

Airmic, Alarm and Irm (2010) ‘A structured approach to

Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) and the

requirements of ISO 31000 Contents’, Risk

Management, 7(1), p. 20. doi:

10.1016/j.solmat.2010.12.013.

Arthur, J. R. et al. (2009) Understanding and applying risk

analysis in aquaculture. New York.

Bappenas (2018) KEBERLANJUTAN DAN

KESEJAHTERAAN NELAYAN DIUTAMAKAN

ISPIKANI DALAM PENYUSUNAN RPJMN 2020-

2024. Available at:

https://www.bappenas.go.id/files/8315/4760/7726/Siar

an_Pers_-

_Keberlanjutan_dan_Kesejahteraan_Nelayan_Diutam

akan_ISPIKANI_Dalam_Penyusunan_RPJMN_2020-

2024.pdf.

Bush, S. R. et al. (2019) ‘Emerging trends in aquaculture

value chain research’, Aquaculture. Elsevier,

498(August 2018), pp. 428–434. doi:

10.1016/j.aquaculture.2018.08.077.

CEA (2016) Indonesia Fisheries : 2015 Review.

Deutsch, L. et al. (2011) ‘Global trade of fisheries products:

Implication for marine ecosystems and their services’,

in Köllner, T. (ed.) Ecosystem Services and Global

Trade of Natural Resources: Ecology, Economics and

Policies. London: Routledge, pp. 120–147.

FAO (2016a) The state of world fisheries and aquaculture,

The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2016.

doi: 92-5-105177-1.

FAO (2016b) the State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture

2016.Contributing to food security and nutrition for all.

Rome.

German-Indonesian Chamber of Industry and Commerce

(2017) Fisheries and Aquaculture Sector Report.

Available at:

https://indonesien.ahk.de/fileadmin/AHK_Indonesien/

Publication/PDF_Publication/EIBN/Fisheries_and_Aq

uaculture_Sector_Report_2017_FULL.pdf.

Gratt, L. B. (1987) ‘RISK ANALYSIS OR RISK

ASSESSMENT; A PROPOSAL FOR CONSISTENT

DEFINITIONS’, in Covello, V. T. et al. (eds)

Uncertainty in Risk Assessment, Risk Management,

and Decision Making. New York: Plenum Press, pp.

241–242.

Risk Management of Offshore Aquaculture Operations

105

Grimaldi, S., Rafele, C. and Cagliano, A. C. (2012) ‘A

Framework to Select Techniques Supporting Project

Risk Management’, in Cagliano, A. C. (ed.) Risk

Management – Current Issues and Challenges. InTech,

pp. 67–95.

Haring, I. (2015) ‘Introduction to Risk Analysis and Risk

Management Processes’, in Risk Analysis and

Management: Engineering Resilience. Singapore:

Springer Science+Business Media, pp. 9–26. doi:

10.1007/978-981-10-0015-7.

Jin, D., Kite-Powell, H. and Hoagland, P. (2005) ‘Risk

Assessment in Open-Ocean Aquaculture: a Firm-Level

Investment-Production Model’, Aquaculture

Economics & Management, 9(3), pp. 369–387. doi:

10.1080/13657300500242261.

Kayis, B. and Karningsih, P. D. (2012) ‘SCRIS: A

knowledge-based system tool for assisting

manufacturing organizations in identifying supply

chain risks’, Journal of Manufacturing Technology

Management, 23(7), pp. 834–852. doi:

10.1108/17410381211267682.

KKP (2017) Program Perikanan Budidaya Tunjukkan

Capaian Positif. Available at:

http://www2.kkp.go.id/artikel/1152-program-

perikanan-budidaya-tunjukkan-capaian-positif

(Accessed: 1 August 2019).

Nyoman Pujawan, I. and Geraldin, L. H. (2009) ‘House of

risk: a model for proactive supply chain risk

management’, Business Process Management Journal,

15(6), pp. 953–967. doi: 10.1108/14637150911003801.

Risk Management AS/NZS 4360:1999 (1999) Risk

Management AS/NZS 4360:1999.

Ristic, D. (2013) ‘Characteristics of Risk Matrices’, Safety

Engineering, 3(3), pp. 121–127. doi:

10.7562/SE2013.3.03.03.

Scavarda, A. J. et al. (2006) ‘A methodology for

constructing collective causal maps’, Decision

Sciences, 37(2), pp. 263–283. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-

5915.2006.00124.x.

Soebjakto, S. (2015) Laporan Kinerja Direktorat Jendral

Pengelolaan Laut 2015. Available at:

file:///D:/journal/Laporan KINERJA Direktorat

Jenderal Pengelolaan Ruang Laut Tahun 2015.pdf.

Soebjakto, S. and Pregiwati, L. A. (2018) KKP |

Kementerian Kelautan dan Perikanan, Mengenal

Sistem Budidaya KJA Offshore Pertama di Indonesia.

Available at: http://kkp.go.id/an-

component/media/upload-gambar-

pendukung/kkp/SIARAN PERS/April/SP73

MENGENAL SISTEM BUDIDAYA KJA

OFFSHORE PERTAMA DI INDONESIA.pdf.

Thomas, a. V., Kalidindi, S. N. and Ganesh, L. S. (2006)

‘Modelling and assessment of critical risks in BOT road

projects’, Construction Management and Economics,

24(4), pp. 407–424. doi: 10.1080/01446190500435275.

Upton, H. F. and Buck, E. H. (2010) ‘Open Ocean

Aquaculture’, Congressional Research Service, 7–

5700(RL32694). Available at: www.crs.gov

ICONIT 2019 - International Conference on Industrial Technology

106

APPENDIX

Table 6: House of Risk stage 1

Risk Management of Offshore Aquaculture Operations

107

Table 7: House of Risk stage 2

ICONIT 2019 - International Conference on Industrial Technology

108