Mandatory Climate-Risk Maps Rank Highest for Regional Planning Reform in Gayo Lues

Abstract

Objective: This policy analysis identified institutional barriers to integrating climate risk considerations into regional development planning in Gayo Lues Regency and evaluated policy alternatives for operationalizing climate vulnerability information within regional planning processes. Method: Secondary data from planning documents, regulatory frameworks, and regional administrative records were examined using Urgency–Seriousness–Growth (USG) prioritization, multilevel root-cause analysis, and comparative assessments of three policy alternatives based on Bardach's four feasibility criteria and Dunn's six evaluation criteria. Results: The manuscript reported 37 hydrometeorological events between 2020 and 2025 and an estimated 20–30% decline in food production, although these contextual figures required verification against the original regional records. The highest-priority institutional problem was identified as the absence of climate risk maps at the district and subdistrict levels, primarily attributed to the lack of an operational requirement linking map preparation to regional planning approval. Among the three policy alternatives, the third option, which proposed mandatory integration of climate vulnerability and environmental carrying-capacity maps into the planning review process, received the highest evaluation scores: 18 out of 20 under Bardach's criteria and 29 out of 30 under Dunn's criteria. Conclusion: Establishing a binding and technically standardized requirement for climate vulnerability and environmental carrying-capacity mapping emerged as the preferred policy alternative within the study's evaluation framework. Effective implementation would require interagency coordination, dedicated budget allocations, clearly defined technical standards, and periodic updates to maintain the relevance of climate risk information. However, the reported evaluation scores reflected comparative policy assessments rather than empirical evidence that the proposed intervention had been implemented or had reduced climate-related losses.