Corresponding Author: Nirza
Asyani Kabalmay
Email: [email protected]
INTRODUCTION
Along with the rapid development
of the times in this modern era, the basic need that a person must have is the
need for a place to live that is suitable to live in (Santoso, 2017). The residence in question is
where a person's daily life takes place in the form of a house. This shelter is
adequate from a structural and non-structural perspective (Prasetyono
& Dani, 2022). The community's right to have a
livable house has also been regulated in Law Number 1 of 2011 concerning
Housing and Settlement Areas, which states that having a decent house is the
right of all Indonesian people (Mardiansyah
& Adisti, 2020).
In Indonesia, including the
Southeast Maluku Regency area, 10,503 people are no exception; several local
communities still need houses with livable house standards (RTLH). A livable
house is a house that meets building safety requirements and sufficient minimum
building area and the health of the people inside the house (Indonesia,
2014). Due to the unequal distribution
of RLH problems in our country, the Indonesian Public Works and Public Housing
Service put forward the idea of a Self-Help Housing Stimulant Assistance (BSRS)
program, which was coordinated directly with the Southeast Maluku Regency
Housing and Settlement Area Service as the right solution for people who have
uninhabitable houses and low income (Ihwan et al., 2022). The BSRS program is a
government program facilitated by providing a certain amount of funds to
construct or repair uninhabitable houses (Rahayu,
2019).
Southeast Maluku Regency is a
Maluku Province region that receives a state budget to support various regional
government programs. One of the programs that received the state budget was the
BSRS program activities in the Southeast Maluku district, with funding sources
obtained from the APBD regional budget worth IDR. 25,000,000 and DAK worth Rp.
25,400,000 with a total allocation of 174 recipients spread across nine
villages, namely Ohoi Ibra, Ohoi Ngabub, Ohoi Elaar Lamagoran, Ohoi Dian Darat,
Ohoi Letvuan, Ohoi Danar, Ohoi Mastur, Ohoi Depur, Ohoi Lus. This program has a
whole new type of development. In the process of implementing the BSRS program
with a relatively large allocation of funds on a scale, of course, it cannot be
separated from various problems or obstacles that occur in the field, starting
from implementation mechanisms, preparation stages, administration, costs to
several other components which also have a significant influence, against the
failure to achieve the objectives of an effective BSRS program. This needs
special attention related to risk management regarding risk identification,
risk assessment, and handling or mitigating the risks.
Risk management is an organized
approach to finding potential risks to reduce the occurrence of unexpected
things (Kembuan
et al., 2019). Furthermore, unexpected
negative consequences can be identified, and appropriate response plans can be
developed to overcome these potential risks (Darmawi,
2022). Risk management is critical in
an activity, both a planning program and a construction project, because it is
needed to analyze several potential obstacles that may occur and have an
unfavorable influence on subsequent work in the activity (Wena,
2015). Suppose risk management is
carried out from the start by identifying potential risks to determine the
extent to which these potential risks are likely to occur. Risk assessments and
appropriate control methods can be carried out in that case (Fitriyani et al., 2023).
The Self-Help Home Stimulant
Assistance Program (BSRS) is one of the activities that naturally experience
various obstacles, so it has a high chance of causing risks (Priyadevi et al., 2022). To control the impacts of these
potential risks, sound risk management needs to be implemented from the start
to obtain risk mitigation as a reference for minimizing the risks (Mamangkey et al., 2019).
Implementing the BSRS Program in
the Southeast Maluku Regency region has yet to receive more attention,
especially regarding risk identification and how to control them, so poor risk
management often occurs every year the BSRS Program is implemented. Some of the
risks that generally occurred during the implementation of the previous BSRS
Program were the lack of coordination between the BP2P Implementation Work Unit
and city district coordination, which gave rise to the Risk that the recipients
of the BSRS Program assistance were often mistaken so that during the
verification stage there were potential recipients who did not meet the
requirements by the provisions. Additionally, scheduling the BSRS Program
implementation is often delayed due to several factors, such as workers' wages
needing to be higher.
Based on these problems, it is
necessary to have an appropriate risk management system so that it can be
implemented in the implementation of the BSRS Program. This is to identify
risks that will occur and find ways to control risks or mitigate them. So, this
research study aims to analyze risk identification and assessment and determine
risk control in the Self-Help Housing Stimulant Assistance Program in Southeast
Maluku Regency.
METHOD
The method used in this research is
quantitative. The
population in this study were all people who worked at the Southeast Maluku
Regency Housing and Settlement Area Service Office. Sampling in this research
was carried out using a saturated sampling method. The sample was taken from
the entire population, namely 30 respondents, considering that the parties
involved in the BSRS program could not be reduced because they were one unit.
The data in this research is primary data divided into two parts, namely questionnaires
and surveys, as well as secondary data, which includes General Data on the
Self-Help Home Stimulant Assistance Program, Cost Budget Plan, Detailed
Schedule of the BSRS Program, Data on Stages of Implementation of the BSRS
Program, Documentation Data on the Implementation of the BSRS Program. Research
data collection and processing were conducted at the Southeast Maluku Regency
Housing and Settlement Area Office Location from June 2023 to October 2023.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Validity and Reliability Test
Table 1. Results of the validity test of the preparatory work
questionnaire (Probability)
|
Preparatory work
|
|
PSP1
|
Pearson Correlation Sig.
(2-tailed) N
|
766** ,000 30
|
|
PSP2
|
Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed)
N
|
,467** ,009 30
|
|
PSP3
|
Pearson Correlation Sig.
(2-tailed) N
|
,604** ,000 30
|
|
PSP4
|
Pearson Correlation Sig.
(2-tailed) N
|
,460* ,010 30
|
|
PSP5
|
Pearson Correlation Sig.
(2-tailed) N
|
,464** ,010 30
|
|
PSP6
|
Pearson Correlation Sig.
(2-tailed) N
|
,486** ,006 30
|
|
PSP7
|
Pearson Correlation Sig.
(2-tailed) N
|
,633** ,000 30
|
|
PSP8
|
Pearson Correlation Sig.
(2-tailed) N
|
.504** .005 30
|
|
PSP9
|
Pearson Correlation Sig.
(2-tailed) N
|
,672** ,000 30
|
|
PSP10
|
Pearson Correlation Sig.
(2-tailed) N
|
,738** ,000 30
|
|
PSP11
|
Pearson Correlation Sig.
(2-tailed) N
|
,512** ,004 30
|
|
PSP12
|
Pearson Correlation Sig.
(2-tailed) N
|
,813** ,000 30
|
|
Preparatory work
|
Pearson Correlation N
|
1 30
|
Source: Research data (2023)
It can be seen from the score column in the Pearson correlation row that
all calculated R > R tables mean the results are valid. It can be seen that
all sig values < 0.05 are valid.
Table 2.
Cronbach Alpha Value of Preparatory Work (Probability)
|
Reliability
Statistics
|
|
Cronbach's
Alpha
|
N
of Items
|
|
,678
|
7
|
Source: Research data (2023)
The results above show that the
Cronbach Alpha value of 0.678 is more than the limit value of 0.6, so all items
are declared appropriate or reliable (0.678 > 0.60).
Table 3.
Validity test results of implementation work (Probability)
|
Implementation Work
|
|
PLK1
|
Pearson Correlation
|
528**
|
|
Sig. (2-tailed)
|
,003
|
|
N
|
30
|
|
PLK2
|
Pearson Correlation
|
.408*
|
|
Sig. (2-tailed)
|
,025
|
|
N
|
30
|
|
PLK3
|
Pearson Correlation
|
,422*
|
|
Sig. (2-tailed)
|
,020
|
|
N
|
30
|
|
PLK4
|
Pearson Correlation
|
,455*
|
|
Sig. (2-tailed)
|
011
|
|
N
|
30
|
|
PLK5
|
Pearson Correlation
|
754*
|
|
Sig. (2-tailed) N
|
,000 30
|
|
PLK6
|
Pearson Correlation Sig.
(2-tailed) N
|
765,000 30
|
|
PLK7
|
Pearson Correlation
|
760*
|
|
Sig. (2-tailed) N
|
,000 30
|
|
Implementation Work
|
Pearson Correlation N
|
1 30
|
Source: Research data (2023)
It can be seen from the score
column in the Pearson correlation row that all calculated R > R tables mean
the results are valid. It can be seen that all sig values < 0.05 are valid.
Table 4.
Cronbach Alpha Value of Work Implementation (Probability)
|
Reliability
Statistics
|
|
Cronbach's
Alpha
|
N
of Items
|
|
,824
|
12
|
These results show that the
Cronbach Alpha value of 0.824 is more than the limit value of 0.6, so all items
are declared reliable (0.824 > 0.60).
Severity
Measure
Table 5.
Validity Test Results of Preparatory Work (Consequences)
|
Preparatory work
|
|
PSP1
|
Pearson Correlation Sig.
(2-tailed) N
|
,558** ,001 30
|
|
PSP2
|
Pearson Correlation Sig.
(2-tailed) N
|
,637** ,000 30
|
|
PSP3
|
Pearson Correlation Sig.
(2-tailed) N
|
.477** .008 30
|
|
PSP4
|
Pearson Correlation Sig.
(2-tailed) N
|
,690** ,000 30
|
|
PSP5
|
Pearson Correlation Sig.
(2-tailed) N
|
.428* .018 30
|
|
PSP6
|
Pearson Correlation Sig.
(2-tailed) N
|
467** ,009 30
|
|
PSP7
|
Pearson Correlation Sig.
(2-tailed) N
|
,690** ,000 30
|
|
PSP8
|
Pearson Correlation Sig.
(2-tailed) N
|
,637** ,000 30
|
|
PSP9
|
Pearson Correlation Sig.
(2-tailed) N
|
,689** ,000 30
|
|
PSP10
|
Pearson Correlation Sig.
(2-tailed) N
|
,611** ,000 30
|
|
PSP11
|
Pearson Correlation Sig.
(2-tailed) N
|
,662** ,000 30
|
|
PSP12
|
Pearson Correlation Sig.
(2-tailed) N
|
,621** ,000 30
|
|
Preparatory work
|
Pearson Correlation N
|
1 30
|
Source: Research data (2023)
It can be seen from the score
column in the Pearson correlation row that all calculated R > R tables mean
the results are valid. It can be seen that all sig values < 0.05 are valid.
Table 6.
Cronbach Alpha value of preparatory work (Consequences)
|
Reliability
Statistics
|
|
Cronbach's
Alpha
|
N
of Items
|
|
,790
|
12
|
Source: Research data (2023)
These results show that the Cronbach
Alpha value of 0.790 is more than the limit value of 0.6, so all items are
declared reliable (0.790 > 0.60).
Table 7.
Validity Test Results of the Work Implementation
Questionnaire (Consequences )
|
Implementation Work
|
|
PLK1
|
Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N
|
.446* .013 30
|
|
PLK2
|
Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N
|
,641 ** ,000 30
|
|
PLK3
|
Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N
|
,434* 016 30
|
|
PLK4
|
Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N
|
591** .001 30
|
|
PLK5
|
Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N
|
789*,000 30
|
|
PLK6
|
Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N
|
733* 000 30
|
|
PLK7
|
Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N
|
,591* 001 30
|
|
Implementation Work
|
Pearson Correlation N
|
1 30
|
Source:
Research data (2023)
It can be seen from the score column in the Pearson
correlation row that all calculated R > R tables mean the results are valid.
It can be seen that all sig values < 0.05 are valid.
Table
8. Cronbach Alpha Value of Implementation Work (Consequences)
|
Reliability
Statistics
|
|
Cronbach's
Alpha
|
N
of Items
|
|
,627
|
7
|
Source: Research data (2023)
These results show that the
Cronbach Alpha value is 0.627, more than the limit value of 0.6, so all items
are declared reliable (0.627 > 0.60).
Risk Assessment
Risk Index
The parameters used in risk research are opportunities (probabilities),
which are multiplied by the consequences (consequences) so that the risk value
obtained from each measured parameter or risk index is equal to multiplying the
probability by the impact (Cooper,
2004). The following are the results
of the risk index assessment for each work item, which can be seen in Table 9.
Table 9.
Risk Index
|
No
|
Occupation and Risk Variables
|
Code
|
Risk Value (Probability x Severity)
|
|
I
|
Preparatory
Work
The
proposed CPB location is not appropriate
Lack of
coordination between BP2P work units and district/city coordination
Lack of
public knowledge about RLH
CPB does
not meet the requirements
Limited
support team formation
Team
mobilization that has not been achieved
Lack of
media for socialization and dissemination of information
Extension
activities are less effective
The process
of forming a PKB team is problematic
Delay in
the process of identifying home repair needs
Limited
shop selection survey
The
preparation of the proposal is incomplete
|
PSP1
PSP2
PSP3
PSP4
PSP5
PSP6
PSP7
PSP8
PSP9
PSP10
PSP11
PSP12
|
20.24
10.56
16.51
19.86
4.00
11.14
22.84
13.29
22.08
19.98
10.01
21.76
|
Source: Research data (2023)
Risk
Matrix
After
obtaining the risk index value, the next step is to determine the risk level
classification based on the AS/NZS 4360:2004 risk matrix. Risk level grouping is
categorized into Very High (VH) meaning, High (H) meaning, Moderate (M)
meaning, and Low (L) meaning. The following are the results of the risk ranking
based on the AS/NZS 4360:2004 risk matrix
Table 10.
Risk Matrix
|
Risk
Value
|
Risk
Category
|
Levels
|
|
1-3
|
Low
|
L
|
|
4-9
|
Moderate
|
m
|
|
10-16
|
High
|
H
|
|
17-25
|
Very
high
|
VH
|
Source: AS/NZS 4360:2004
Information���
Very High (VH): Very high Risk,
very risky, and requires immediate treatment.
High (H): High Risk, requires
special attention from management
Medium (M): Medium risk,
requires clear responsibilities
Low (L ): Low Risk can be handled with routine procedures
Table 11.
Risk Rating Results (AS/NZS 4360:2004)
|
No
|
Work
|
Potential Risks
|
Code
|
Risk Value
|
Risk Category
|
|
1
|
Community
preparation
|
There was a
delay in implementation
|
PSP7
|
22.8459
|
Very High (H)
|
|
2
|
Community preparation
|
There was a
delay in implementation
|
PSP9
|
22.0851
|
Very High (H)
|
|
3
|
Community
preparation
|
There was a
delay in implementation
|
PSP12
|
21,761
|
Very High (H)
|
|
4
|
Proposing
and determining the location
|
There was a
re-proposal and delays in implementation
|
PSP1
|
20.2451
|
Very High (H)
|
|
5
|
Community
preparation
|
There was a
delay in implementation
|
PSP10
|
19.9809
|
Very High (H)
|
|
6
|
CPB
Selection
|
There was a
delay in implementation
|
PSP4
|
19,866
|
Very High (H)
|
|
7
|
Use of
funds
|
Inappropriate
quality of house use
|
PLK3
|
18,983
|
Very High (H)
|
|
8
|
CPB
Selection
|
There was a
delay in implementation
|
PSP3
|
16.5291
|
High (H)
|
|
9
|
Community
preparation
|
There was a
delay in implementation
|
PSP8
|
13,299
|
High (H)
|
|
10
|
Preparation
of activities
|
There was a
delay in implementation
|
PSP6
|
11.7581
|
High (H)
|
|
11
|
Proposing
and determining the location
|
There was a
delay in implementation
|
PSP2
|
10.5621
|
High (H)
|
|
12
|
Community
preparation
|
Inappropriate
quality of house use
|
PSP11
|
10,016
|
High (H)
|
|
13
|
Use of
funds
|
There was a
delay in implementation
|
PLK7
|
9.3899
|
Moderate (M)
|
|
14
|
Use of
funds
|
There was a
delay in implementation
|
PLK4
|
6,677
|
Moderate (M)
|
|
15
|
Use of
funds
|
There was a
delay in implementation
|
PLK5
|
5.3599
|
Moderate (M)
|
|
16
|
Pre-implementation
|
There was a
delay in implementation
|
PLK2
|
4,697
|
Moderate (M)
|
|
17
|
Pre-implementation
|
There was a
delay in implementation
|
PLK1
|
4,102
|
Moderate (M)
|
|
18
|
Preparation
of activities
|
There was a
delay in implementation
|
PSP5
|
4.0086
|
Moderate (M)
|
|
19
|
Use of
funds
|
There was a
delay in implementation
|
PLK6
|
3,568
|
Low (L)
|
Source: Research data (2023)
Risk Control
The risk level is a critical parameter in construction management to be a
benchmark in making decisions because, through the existing risk level, a
decision can be made based on a priority scale and can determine how to control
the Risk (Misbah, 2017). Risk control in this research
aims to provide a strategy for controlling the self-help Home Stimulant
Assistance program at the Southeast Maluku Regency Housing and Settlement Area
Office.
In this research, by knowing the results of the risk assessment
calculations and analysis, a risk level is obtained where there is a risk that
has the potential to be very high or very dangerous for the program being
implemented. As a step to control Risk, in this case, free interviews were
conducted with related parties. As for the risk control strategy based on
interviews and the literature used, it can be carried out using the following
approach:
Table 12.
Risk Control
|
No
|
Risk Variables
|
Interview result
|
Literature Review
|
|
1
|
Minimal
media for socialization and dissemination of information
|
Control is
carried out by adding activities related to information dissemination and
outreach and facilitating the workforce's budget.
|
Reducing
Risk (Risk Reduction), AS/NZS 4360:2004
|
|
2
|
The process
of forming a PKB team is problematic
|
Control is
carried out by improving the quality of the provision and guidance of PKB and
TFL members.
|
Reducing
Risk (Risk Reduction), AS/NZS 4360:2004
|
|
3
|
The
preparation of the proposal is incomplete
|
Control is
carried out by improving the quality of the provision and guidance of PKB and
TFL members.
|
Reducing
Risk (Risk Reduction), AS/NZS 4360:2004
|
|
4
|
The
proposed CPB location is not appropriate
|
Control is
carried out by improving coordination between the province and the district.
|
Reducing
Risk (Risk Reduction), AS/NZS 4360:2004
|
|
5
|
Delay in
the house identification process
|
Control is
carried out by improving the quality of the provision and guidance of PKB and
TFL members.
|
Reducing
Risk (Risk Reduction), AS/NZS 4360:2004
|
|
6
|
CPB does
not meet the requirements
|
Control is
carried out by not including CPBs that do not meet the requirements of the
BSRS program.
|
Avoiding
Risk (Risk Avoidance), AS/NZS 4360:2004
|
|
7
|
Use of
inappropriate quality materials
|
Control is
carried out by transferring responsibility to the shop as the supplier of
goods and artisans if they do not work according to technical instructions.
|
Transferring
risks (Risk Transfer), AS/NZS 4360:2004
|
|
8
|
Lack of
public knowledge about RLH
|
Control is
carried out by improving the quality of socialization activities and
improving TFL's ability to handle socialization activities.
|
Reducing
Risk (Risk Reduction), AS/NZS 4360:2004
|
|
9
|
Extension/socialization
activities are less effective
|
Control is
carried out by improving budget and workforce efficiency
|
Reducing
Risk (Risk Reduction), AS/NZS 4360:2004
|
|
10
|
Team
mobilization that has not been achieved
|
Control is
carried out using budget efficiency.
|
Reducing
Risk (Risk Reduction), AS/NZS 4360:2004
|
|
11
|
Lack of
coordination between BP2P work units and district coordination
|
Control is
carried out by improving the quality of coordination between provincial and
district parties,
|
Reducing
Risk (Risk Reduction), AS/NZS 4360:2004
|
|
12
|
Limited
shop selection survey
|
This
control is carried out by transferring responsibility to the shop as the
provider of goods.
|
Transferring
risks (Risk Transfer), AS/NZS 4360:2004
|
Source: Research data (2023)
Reducing Risk (Risk
Reduction)
To control Risk,
you must emphasize the probability and consequences figures by preparing a risk
management booklet for the BSRS program (Maiqfirlana et al.,
2023). The following are actions that can be taken:
a.
Additional
activities are related to disseminating information and socialization and
facilitating human resources who work but are carried out efficiently during
implementation time.
b.
Improving
the quality of provision and guidance for TFL and KPB members
c.
Routinely
improving the quality of coordination between the BP2P Working Unit and
District Coordination both before and after proposing the location of potential
aid recipients.
d.
Improvements
to budget efficiency, implementation time, and workforce.
Transferring Risk
(Risk Transfer)
They are
transferring the Risk to other parties who work in the implementation process,
namely the shop and the artisans. In this case, the quality of building
materials is transferred to the shop due to the limitations of the shop as a
means of providing goods in the Southeast Maluku area. The quality of the
materials is transferred to the craftsman if they do not follow the technical
instructions (Juknis) that have been provided.
Avoiding Risk (Risk
Avoidance)
In order to avoid
the Risk of potential aid recipients who do not meet the requirements, it is
best to be firm in not including potential aid recipients who do not meet the
requirements of the self-help housing stimulant assistance program because it
will significantly influence the implementation schedule.
Risk Assessment
Analysis
Based on the
results of the risk ranking using the risk matrix according to the AS/NZS
4360:2004 standard, which can be seen in Table 10, this research has found
seven work variables with a very high level (Very High Risk) that exist at the
community preparation, proposal, and work stages: location determination, CPB
selection, and use of funds. For the high-risk level, five risk variables were
obtained at the stages of community preparation work, proposing and determining
locations, preparing activities, and CPB selection. Six risk variables are
obtained at the fund use and pre-implementation work stages for the moderate
risk level. For the low-risk level (Low Risk), one risk variable is obtained at
the stage of fund use work.
Risk Control
In this research,
risk control is carried out to control risks with very high-risk levels (Very
High Risk) and high-risk levels (High Risk) by interviewing competent parties.
After that, the results of the interviews are presented based on the literature
used in this research. The control strategy for the BSRS program is to prepare
a Risk Management Booklet for the Self-Help Home Stimulant Assistance Program
in Southeast Maluku Regency, which already contains a risk control strategy
before the program is implemented, which includes a risk control strategy.
����������� The
risk control strategy obtained from the results of interviews and also
literature reviews based on the AS/NZS 4360:2004 standard is to reduce Risk,
which includes increasing socialization activities and disseminating
information, as well as improving the quality of briefing activities and the
quality of coordination which must be carried out routinely and efficiently.
Budget, implementation time, and workforce. This is done by transferring the
Risk to the shop providing the goods and artisans and avoiding Risk, namely by
being firm in the decision maker so that CPBs who do not comply with the
requirements are not registered as aid recipients.
CONCLUSION
Based on the results of the research and
discussion, the following conclusions can be formulated: 1) In the risk
management research on the Self-Help Home Stimulant Assistance Program at the
Southeast Maluku Regency Housing and Settlement Area Service Office, there were
19 risk variables based on the results of interviews and literature review. 2)
Based on the results of data processing and risk matrix classification using
the AS/NZS 4360:2004 standard, seven variables with very high-risk levels were
obtained, five variables with high-risk levels (High Risk), six variables with
risk levels moderate (Moderate), one variable with a low-risk level (Low Risk).
3) Based on the results of interviews and literature review AS/NZS 4360:2004
related to risk control for the Self-Help Home Stimulant Assistance program,
risk control was carried out by preparing a Risk Management Booklet for the
Self-Help Home Stimulant Assistance Program in Southeast Maluku Regency as a
risk control strategy. The risk controls are as follows: a) Reducing Risk (Risk
Retention): increasing information dissemination and outreach activities,
improving the quality of workforce training and guidance, improving the quality
of coordination of related parties, as well as efficiency regarding budget,
implementation time, and workforce. b) Transferring Risk: transferring
responsibility to the shop as the provider of goods and to the craftsman if
they do not work according to the technical instructions that have been
previously directed. c) Avoiding Risk (Risk Avoidance): Do not further process
CPB that does not meet the requirements.
REFERENCES
Cooper, D. (2004). The Australian and New Zealand standard on
risk management, AS/NZS 4360: 2004. Tutorial Notes: Broadleaf Capital
International Pty Ltd, 128�151.
Darmawi, H. (2022). Manajemen risiko. Bumi Aksara.
Fitriyani, F., Putri, N. W., Fathul, T. T., Fiqran, W. A.,
& Angela, M. (2023). Identifikasi Bahaya dan Penilaian Risiko Pekerja
Industri Mebel Kota Payakumbuh. Jurnal Keselamatan Kesehatan Kerja Dan
Lingkungan, 4(2), 103�112.
Ihwan, M., Fadillah, C., Hidayah, S. N., & Sumardiana, B.
(2022). Pemenuhan Hak Atas Rumah Layak Huni Bagi Masyarakat Miskin. Jurnal
Pengabdian Hukum Indonesia (Indonesian Journal of Legal Community Engagement)
JPHI, 5(1), 89�101.
Indonesia, G. B. C. (2014). Greenship Homes Version 1.0. Direktorat
Pengembangan Perangkat Penilaian GBCI, Jakarta.
Kembuan, A. S., Mandagi, R. J. M., &
Lumeno, S. S. (2019). MODEL RISIKO
PENGELOLAAN SDM KONSTRUKSI DALAM INTERNATIONAL JOINT OPERATION PADA PROYEK
INFRASTRUKTUR JALAN TOL MANADO–BITUNG. Jurnal Sipil Statik, 7(1).
Maiqfirlana, A., Huda, S., & Utami, A. F. (2023). Dampak
Program Bantuan Stimulan Perumahan Swadaya Terhadap Kondisi Sosial Ekonomi
Penerima Bantuan. Jurnal Ilmiah Wahana Pendidikan, 9(20), 71�83.
Mamangkey, A., Lumolos, J., & Pangemanan, F. (2019).
Pelaksanaan program bantuan stimulan perumahan swadaya (bsps) di kecamatan
amurang timur kabupaten minahasa selatan. Jurnal Eksekutif, 3(3).
Mardiansyah, A., & Adisti, N. A. (2020). Analisis Yuridis
Pasal 98 Ayat (3) Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 2011 Tentang Perumahan Dan
Kawasan Permukiman (Kajian Terhadap Penetapan Lokasi Perumahan Kumuh Oleh
Pemerintah Daerah Dengan Peraturan Daerah). Jurnal Legislasi Indonesia, 17(4),
451�458.
Misbah, M. (2017). Asesmen Maturitas Manajemen Risiko
Perusahaan Pada Kontraktor Kecil Dan Menengah. Jurnal Teknik Mesin Mercu
Buana, 6(2), 147�154.
Prasetyono, P. N., & Dani, H.
(2022). Identifikasi Risiko pada Pekerjaan Proyek Konstruksi Bangunan Gedung
sebagai Tempat Tinggal. Publikasi Riset Orientasi Teknik Sipil (Proteksi),
4(1), 42�47.
Priyadevi, N. S., Nur, T., &
Purwanti, D. (2022). Implementasi Program Bantuan Stimulan Rumah Swadaya (Bsrs)
Di Dinas Pekerjaan Umum Dan Tata Ruang Kota Sukabumi. Jurnal Inovasi
Penelitian, 3(3), 5269�5276.
Rahayu, S. B. (2019). Implementasi
Program Bantuan Stimulan Perumahan Swadaya (BSPS) Di Jawa Timur.
Santoso, U. (2017). Hukum Perumahan.
Prenada Media.
Wena, M. (2015). Manajemen risiko dalam
proyek konstruksi. Jurnal Bangunan, 20(1�12).
