Measuring climate change adaptation policy output: Toward a two‐dimensional approach

Abstract

As jurisdictions across the globe step up their efforts to adapt to climate change, it is important to assess progress by taking stock of and comparing adaptation policy. However, scholars and practitioners are struggling to conceptualize and measure adaptation policy. In this article, we propose a new two‐dimensional framework to measure public adaptation policy output, namely, the Climate Adaptation Policy Index (CAPI). The index combines multiple indicators from two core interdependent dimensions, namely, an institutionalization dimension focusing on strategic plans and administrative capacities for adaptation; and a measures dimension capturing concrete adaptation measures in relevant action areas such as in green and open spaces, transport infrastructure, buildings, public education, and disaster management. Our approach is extensive but feasible and may be adjusted for use in different contexts and policy areas. We probe our approach at the local level using original survey data from a diverse sample of 211 municipalities located in the state of Hessen in central Germany. A factor analysis suggests that the two dimensions constitute a meaningful measurement of municipal adaptation policy output. A cluster analysis identifies five groups of municipalities representing different stages of adaptation policy progress in Hessen. Finally, a regression analysis examines potential determinants of local adaptation policy making such as the size and wealth of municipalities. The results highlight the potential of the CAPI for analyzing both the state and the making of municipal adaptation policy.

Tackling climate change on the local level: A growing research agenda

“…Schulze and Schoenefeld (2023) recognize the need to evaluate and compare adaptation measures and propose in their paper a new two‐dimensional framework to measure public adaptation policy output. Their “Climate Adaptation Policy Index (CAPI)” combines two dimensions: an institutionalized and a measures dimension.…”

“…Switzer and Jung (2023) apply the contextual responsiveness theory (see Mullin, 2008; Switzer & Jung, 2023). Schulze and Schoenefeld (2023) more specifically build on the concept of institutional adaptation that captures adaptation governance including policy, instrumental, organizational, and coordination aspects (see also Patterson, 2021). The concepts of adaptation capacity and adaptation readiness also include multiple dimensions and, to some extent, policy indicators (Schulze & Schoenefeld, 2023).…”

“…When it comes to adaptation policy, Schulze and Schoenefeld (2023) identify the wealth and size of a municipality as an important determinant of local adaptation policy. Soni et al (2023), additionally identify risk awareness, i.e., the existence of local hazards as an important driver of adaptation policymaking.…”

“…More knowledge about policy instruments through systematic assessments and comparison of their effectiveness can thus contribute to policy learning at the local level and thus the implementation of more successful policies (Domorenok & Zito, 2021;Neij & Heiskanen, 2021;Otto et al, 2021). In this special issue, Kern et al (2023), Soni et al (2023), and Schulze and Schoenefeld (2023) highlight the importance of policy learning through systematic assessments and comparisons. Kern et al (2023) study the medium-size forerunner cities Turku, Groningen, Rostock, and Potsdam and compare them regarding climate policy and transformation pathways.…”

“…These are primarily global climate networks for policy learning opportunities and local networks for a shared understanding of how to deal with environmental threats. Schulze and Schoenefeld (2023) recognize the need to evaluate and compare adaptation measures and propose in their paper a new two-dimensional framework to measure public adaptation policy output. Their "Climate Adaptation Policy Index (CAPI)" combines two dimensions: an institutionalized and a measures dimension.…”