The utilization of geothermal energy is recently disrupting the management of conservation forests. It has taken more than a decade to change related forest policy in justifying geothermal energy utilization in the conservation forests. This study combined the Advocacy Coalition Framework and the Research-Integration-Utilization models to analyze the driver of forest policy change related as per the legitimation of geothermal utilization linked to actor’s power and interests. Expert interviews, field observations, and document analysis were triangulated according to the methodology described in this study. The results show different interests of key actors affecting the geothermal practice through two opposing coalitions, namely, development and conservation coalition. Furthermore, the weak integration and implementation of science-based policy evoked conflicts, thus creating a deadlock for geothermal projects in the conservation forests. A sustainable and integrated policy is necessary to resolve conflicted interests without threatening the conservation forests and the local community.
AlbrightE. A. (2011). Policy change and kearning in response to extreme flood events in Hungary: An advocacy coslition approach. The Policy Studies Journal, 39(3), 485–511. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2011.00418.x.
2.
AldenA. (2016). Indonesia’s geothermal sector: Under the volcano: A regulatory update on Indonesia’s geothermal potential. Berwin Leighton Paisner.
3.
AshatA.ArdiansyahF. (2012). Igniting the ring of fire: A vision for developing Indonesia’s geothermal power. WWF Indonesia.
4.
BarkemeyerR.FiggeF.HoltD. (2013). Sustainability-related media coverage and socioeconomic development: A regional and north–south perspective. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 31(4), 716–740. https://doi.org/10.1068/c11176j.
5.
BöcherM. (2016). How does science-based policy advice matter in policy making? The RIU model as a framework for analyzing and explaining processes of scientific knowledge transfer. Forest Policy and Economics, 68, 65-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.04.001.
6.
BöcherM. (2020). Advanced approaches for a better understanding of scientific knowledge transfer in forest and forest-related policy. Forest Policy and Economics, 114, Article 102165.
7.
BöcherM.KrottM. (2014). The RIU model as an analytical framework for scientific knowledge transfer: the case of the “decision support system forest and climate change”. Biodiversity and Conservation, 23(14), 3641–3656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-014-0820-5.
8.
BöcherM.KrottM. (2016). Science makes the world go round: Successful scientific knowledge transfer for the environment/Michael Böcher, Max Krott. Springer.
9.
ChikoworeA. (2018). Advocacy coalition framework as an actor centred approach to policy formulation and implementation. International Wokshop on Public Policy.
10.
DevkotaGRajR. (2010). Interests and power as drivers of community forestry: A case study of Nepal. Göttingen University Press. https://doi.org/10.17875/gup2010-281.
11.
DharmawanB.BöcherM.KrottM. (2017a). Endangered mangroves in Segara Anakan, Indonesia: Effective and failed problem-solving policy advice. Environmental Management, 60(3), 409-421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-017-0868-6.
12.
DharmawanB.BöcherM.KrottM. (2017b). Failure of science-based win-win solution in fishery management: Learnings from Segara Anakan waters, Central Java, Indonesia. Ocean & Coastal Management, 141, 82-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.03.014.
13.
DoT. H.KrottM., and BöcherM. (2020). Multiple traps of scientific knowledge transfer: Comparative case studies based on the RIU model from Vietnam, Germany, Indonesia, Japan, and Sweden. Forest Policy and Economics, 114, Article 102134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102134.
EBTKE (2020). Rencana strategis direktorat jenderal energi baru, terbarukan dan konservasi energi 2020-2024. Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources.
16.
EBTKE (2021). Laporan kinerja ditjen EBTKE tahun 2020. Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources.
17.
ElliottC.SchlaepferR. (2001). Understanding forest certification using the advocacy coalition framework. Forest Policy and Economics, 2(3–4), 257–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1389-9341(01)00043-0.
18.
ErahmanQ. F.PurwantoW. W.SudibandriyoM.HidayatnoA. (2016). An assessment of Indonesia’s energy security index and comparison with seventy countries. Energy, 111, 364-376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.05.100.
19.
FanK.NamS. (2018). Accelerating geothermal development in Indonesia: A case study in the underutilization of geothermal energy. Consilience: The Journal of Sustainable Development, 19(1), 103–129.
20.
GörgC.WittmerH.CarterC.TurnhoutE.VandewalleM.SchindlerS.LivorellB.LuxA. (2016). Governance options for science–policy interfaces on biodiversity and ecosystem services: Comparing a network versus a platform approach. Biodiversity Conservation, 25(7), 1235–1252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-016-1132-8.
21.
Guido-SequeiraH. (Ed.). (2015). Geothermal development in protected areas, case history from Costa Rica. Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad.
HakimC. A.FauziA.EkayaniM. (2014). Pemilihan alternatif Kebijakan Pengelolaan Sumberdaya energi Panas Bumi di Kamojang, Jawa Barat dengan Analisis Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM). Jurnal Ekonomi, Pertanian, Sumberdaya Dan Lingkungan, 1(2), 26–43. https://doi.org/10.29244/jaree.v1i2.11774.
24.
HanH.SwedlowB.UngerD. (2014). Policy advocacy coalitions as causes of policy change in China? Analyzing evidence from contemporary environmental politics. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 16(4), 313–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2013.857065.
25.
HariyadiH (2015). Optimalisasi peran panas bumi dalam kerangka Undang Undang Panas Bumi. Kajian, 20(4), 367–378.
26.
HasanM. H.MahliaT. M. I.NurH. (2012). A review on energy scenario and sustainable energy in Indonesia. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(4), 2316–2328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.12.007.
27.
HindmarshR. (2014). Hot air ablowin! ‘Media-speak’, social conflict, and the Australian ‘decoupled’ wind farm controversy. Social Studies of Science, 44(2), 194–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312713504239.
HulmeM. (2009). Why we disagree about climate change: Understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity. Cambridge University Press.
30.
JanseG. (2006). Information search behaviour of European forest policy decision-makers. Forest Policy and Economics, 8(6), 579–592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2004.10.001.
KingiriA. N. (2014). Comparative strategic behavior of advocacy coalitions and policy brokers: The case of Kenya’s biosafety regulatory policy. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 16(4), 373–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2014.942569.
35.
KirchnerM.KrottM. (2020). Integrating forest science into natural hazard management praxis: an international case study based on the innovative RIU approach. International Forestry Review, 22(4), 449–463. https://doi.org/10.1505/146554820831255524.
36.
KlenkN. L.HickeyG. M. (2011). Government science in forestry: Characteristics and policy utilization. Forest Policy and Economics, 13(1), 37–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2010.08.005.
37.
KrellenbergK.KatrinB. (2014). Inter- and transdisciplinary research for planning climate change adaptation responses: The example of Santiago de Chile. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 39(4), 360–375. https://doi.org/10.1179/0308018814z.00000000097.
38.
KrottM. (2005). Forest policy analysis. Springer.
39.
KrottM.BaderA.SchusserC.DevkotaR.MaryudiA.GiessenL.AurenhammerH. (2014). Actor-centred power: The driving force in decentralised community based forest governance. Forest Policy and Economics, 49, 34-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2013.04.012.
40.
LavisJ. N.RobertsonD.WoodsideJ. M.McleodC. B.AbelsonJ. (2003). How can research organizations more effectively transfer research knowledge to decision makers?The Milbank Quarterly, 81(2), 221–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.t01-1-00052.
41.
LestariF. A.SaadahN.AzharM. (2016). Tinjauan yuridis pemberian ijin pemanfaatan panas bumi pada HK berdasarkan UU 21 2014 ttg panas bumi. Diponegoro Law Journal, 5(3), 1–20.
42.
LiebeU.DobersG. M. (2019). Decomposing public support for energy policy: What drives acceptance of and intentions to protest against renewable energy expansion in Germany?Energy Research & Social Science, 47, 247-260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.09.004.
43.
LiuL.BoumanT.PerlaviciuteG.StegL. (2019). Effects of trust and public participation on acceptability of renewable energy projects in the Netherlands and China. Energy Research & Social Science, 53, 137-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.03.006.
44.
MartinsH.BorgesJ. G. (2007). Addressing collaborative planning methods and tools in forest management. Forest Ecology and Management, 248(1–2), 107–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2007.02.039.
45.
MaryR. T.ArmawiA.HadnaA. H.PitoyoA. J. (2017). Panas bumi sebagai harta karun untuk menuju ketahanan energi. Jurnal Ketahanan Nasional, 23(2), 217–237. https://doi.org/10.22146/jkn.26944.
46.
MeijaardE.DennisR. A.SaputraB. K.DraugelisG. J.QadirM.C.A.GarnierS. (2019). Rapid environmental and social assessment of geothermal development in conservation forest areas in Indonesia. PROFOR.
47.
MeilaniH.WuryandaniD. (2010). Potensi panas bumi sebagai alternatif pengganti bahan bakar fossil untuk pembangkit tenaga listrik di Indonesia. Jurnal Ekonomi Dan Kebijakan Publik, 1(1), 47–74.
48.
MoEMR (2007). Blueprint pengelolaan energi nasional 2006-2025. Kementerian Energi dan Sumber Daya Mineral.
MontefrioM. J. F. (2014). State versus indigenous peoples’ rights: Comparative analysis of stable system parameters, policy constraints and the process of delegitimation. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 16(4), 335–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2014.938912.
52.
MoysonS. (2018). Policy learning over a decade or more and the role of interests therein: The European liberalization policy process of Belgian network industries. Public Policy and Administration, 33(1), 88–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952076716681206.
53.
NagasakaK.BöcherM.KrottM. (2016). Science-policy interaction: The case of the forest and forestry revitalisation plan in Japan. Land Use Policy, 58(11), 145–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.07.012.
54.
NagoM.KrottM. (2020). Systemic failures in north–south climate change knowledge transfer: A case study of the Congo Basin. Climate Policy, 23(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2020.1820850.
55.
NohrstedtD. (2005). External shocks and policy change: Three mile island and swedish nuclear energy policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 12(6), 1041–1059. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760500270729.
56.
Olson-HazbounS. K.KrannichR. S.RobertsonP. G. (2016). Public views on renewable energy in the Rocky Mountain region of the United States: Distinct attitudes, exposure, and other key predictors of wind energy. Energy Research & Social Science, 21, 167-179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2016.07.002.
57.
PambudiN. A. (2017). Geothermal power generation in Indonesia, a country within the ring of fire: Current status, future development and policy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 81(P2), 2893–2901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.06.096.
58.
PJLHK (2020). Laporan kinerja 2020.
59.
PrabowoC. (2016). Koordinasi kewenangan pada pengusahaan panas bumi untuk keperluan tenaga listrik. Padjajaran Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, 3(2), 389–406. https://doi.org/10.22304/pjih.v3n2.a9.
60.
PratiwiS.JuergesN. (2020). Review of the impact of renewable energy development on the environment and nature conservation in Southeast Asia. Energy, Ecology and Environment, 5(2020), 221–239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40974-020-00166-2.
61.
PregernigM. (2014). Framings of science-policy interactions and their discursive and institutional effects: examples from conservation and environmental policy. Biodiversity and Conservation, 23(14), 3615–3639. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-014-0806-3.
62.
REN21 (2019). Renewables 2019: Global status report.
63.
Rochyadi-ReetzM.ArltD.WollingJ.BräuerM. (2019). Explaining the media’s framing of renewable energies: An international comparison. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 7(119), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2019.00119.
64.
RoyanaR. (2013). Panduan kelestarian ekosistem untuk pemanfaatan panas bumi. WWF Indonesia.
65.
SabatierP. A. (1988). An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences, 21(2–3), 129–168. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00136406.
66.
SabatierP. A. (1998). The advocacy coalition framework: Revisions and relevance for Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 5(1), 98–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501768880000051.
67.
SabatierP. A.Jenkins-SmithH. C. (1993). Policy change and learning: An advovacy coalition approach. Westview Press.
68.
SabatierP. A.WeibleC. M. (Eds.). (2007). The advocacy coalition framework: Innovations and clarifications theories of the policy process (2nd ed.). Westview Press.
69.
SahideM. A. K.FisherM. R.MaryudiA.DhiaulhaqA.WulandariC.KimY.-S.GiessenL. (2018). Deadlock opportunism in contesting conservation areas in Indonesia. Land Use Policy, 77, 412-424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.05.020.
70.
SaputroW. (2015). Harmonisasi pengaturan pemanfaatan energi panas bumi dan perlindungan hutan konservasi. Scientific Article. Brawijaya University.
71.
SetiawanH. (2014). Geothermal energy development in Indonesia: Progress, challenges and prospect. International Journal on Advanced Science Engineering Information Technology, 4(4), 20–25. https://doi.org/10.18517/ijaseit.4.4.405.
72.
SetyowatiA. B.SriyantoA.AmsaA. W.SantosaA.AliadiA.SteniB. (2008). Konservasi Indonesia, Sebuah potret pengelolaan dan kebijakan. Ministry of Forestry Republic of Indonesia, Pokja Kebijakan Konservasi. https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/Pnadu286.pdf.
73.
SiagianU.YuwonoB.FujimoriS.MasuiT. (2017). Low-carbon energy development in Indonesia in alignment with Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) by 2030. Energies, 10(1), 52. https://doi.org/10.3390/en10010052.
74.
SloanS.CampbellM. J.AlamgirM.Collier-BakerE.NowakM. G.UsherG.LauranceW. F. (2018). Infrastructure development and contested forest governance threaten the Leuser Ecosystem, Indonesia. Land Use Policy, 77, 298-309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.05.043.
75.
SovacoolB. K.AxsenJ.SorrellS. (2018). Promoting novelty, rigor, and style in energy social science: Towards codes of practice for appropriate methods and research design. Energy Research & Social Science, 45(5), 12–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.07.007.
76.
StevanovM.KrottM. (2021). Embedding scientific information into forestry praxis: Explaining knowledge transfer in transdisciplinary projects by using German case. Forest Policy and Economics, 129, 102508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102508.
77.
SugiawanY.ManagiS. (2016). The environmental Kuznets curve in Indonesia: Exploring the potential of renewable energy. Energy Policy, 98, 187-198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.08.029.
78.
SuryantoroS.DwipaS.AriatiR.DharmaS. (Eds.). (2005). Geothermal deregulation and energy policy in Indonesia. World Geothermal Congress.
Wetang'ulaG. N. (2012). Geothermal energy development and potential, biodiversity conservation and torism development: Examples from Kenya. Short Course VII on Exploration for Geothermal Resources.
81.
WintersM. S.CawveyM. (2015). Governance obstacles to geothermal energy development in Indonesia. Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, 34(1), 27–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/186810341503400102.
