Does Policy Research Really Matter for Local Climate Change Policies?

Abstract

This paper examines the role of policy-relevant research in climate change policy development. It attempts to address a practically important question: does policy research actually make a difference in the processes of formulating and institutionalizing local climate change policy? Two case studies from Central Java Indonesia are presented. The analysis focuses on the policy development processes in the cities of Semarang and Pekalongan, both of which were based on an urban climate vulnerability assessment. We discuss and compare the policy-making processes in terms of three analytic dimensions: the type of policy measures, agent, and policy approach. We examine the relationship between assessment outcomes and the efforts to institutionalize climate change policy in the two cities. These case studies show that although policy actors in both cities have developed strategies and policy measures for addressing climate change, the quality of policy-relevant research was a marginal consideration in the policy formulation processes. An established agenda within a policy network had greater impacts on policy-making than research outputs, which were articulated and used in the context of this agenda. Advocacy coalitions re-defined and re-interpreted what research has shown. Understanding this ability is key to ascertain why or why not policy-relevant research matters.

本文考察政策研究对气候变化政策发展的影响，试图切实回应以下问题：政策研究是否在 地方气候政策的制定和制度化过程中真正发挥了作用？研究以印度尼西亚中爪哇的两个个 案为例，集中分析了三宝垄和北加浪岸两座城市的政策制定过程。这两座城市都被评估为 气候脆弱城市。文章从三个角度探讨和比较了政策制定过程，这三个角度是：政策措施类 型、主体和政策路径，并考察了这两座城市评估结果与气候变化政策制度化的关系。两个 个案研究表明，尽管两个城市的政策制定者都制定了应对气候变化的策略和措施，政策相 关研究的质量却是政策形成过程中并没有发挥重要作用。政策网络内已确立的日程比相关 的研究结果对政策制定的影响更大。倡导联盟重新界定和解释了研究结果。理解这种能力对于弄清政策研究的重要性或其缺失至关重要。

Keywords:

• Climate change adaptation
• policy research
• vulnerability assessment
• advocacy coalition
• policy impacts
• Indonesia