From Crisis Response to Strategic Resilience: A Capacity-Based Transformation of Türkiye's Development Planning Towards the 2053 Vision

ARCHITECTURAL SCIENCES AND SUSTAINABLE APPROACHES: URBAN RESILIENCE Editors Prof. Dr. Ömer ATABEYOĞLU Prof. Dr. Ertan DÜZGÜNEŞ October 15, 2025 Copyright © 2025 by İKSAD publishing house All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law. Institution of Economic Development and Social Researches (The Licence Number of Publicator: 2014/31220) TÜRKİYE TR: +90 342 606 06 75 USA: +1 631 685 0 853 E mail: [email protected] www.iksadyayinevi.com It is responsibility of the author to abide by the publishing ethics rules. Iksad Publications – 2025© Architectural Sciences and Sustainable Approaches: Urban Resilience ISBN: 978-625-378-337-2 Cover Design: Prof. Dr. Ertan DÜZGÜNEŞ October 15, 2025 Ankara / Türkiye Size = 16x24 cm PREFACE Dear Professors and Colleagues, We are pleased bring to life that Architectural Sciences and Sustainable Approaches: Urban Resilience, which was published as an e-book by IKSAD Publishing House with the editors Prof. Dr. Ömer ATABEYOĞLU and Prof. Dr. Ertan DÜZGÜNEŞ. This book project, entitled “Architectural Sciences and Sustainable Approaches: Urban Resilience,” aims to address sustainability-oriented approaches to urban resilience from theoretical, methodological, and practical perspectives. The volume seeks to establish a multi-layered platform of discussion, ranging from the scale of individual buildings to the entirety of the urban fabric. Within this framework, it welcomes contributions from scholars and researchers working in architecture, urban design, landscape architecture, urban and regional planning, environmental engineering, and related disciplines. With the valuable contributions of our chapter authors working in the professional disciplines of landscape architecture, architecture, city and regional planning, urban design and sustainability, we have completed Architectural Sciences and Sustainable Approaches: Urban Resilience book study has been completed with 24 book chapters. We would like to thank you, our esteemed authors, for their contributions to the preparation of the book. We would also like to thank the editorial board and IKSAD Publishing House. We wish to continue this process we have started in the coming years. In addition, we would like to express our sincere appreciation to Prof. Dr. Atila GÜL, the book coordinator of IKSAD Publishing House, for his guidance and support throughout the publication process. We hope that our book ‘Architectural Sciences and Sustainable Approaches: Urban Resilience’ will be helpful to the readers. Best regards. 15.10.2025 EDITORS Prof. Dr. Ömer ATABEYOĞLU Prof. Dr. Ertan DÜZGÜNEŞ EDITORS Prof. Dr. Ömer ATABEYOĞLU Prof. Dr. Ertan DÜZGÜNEŞ AUTHORS The authors were listed in alphabetical order Alper ÇABUK Ayça GÜLTEN Ayşe ÖZYETGİN ALTUN Ayşe Özge ŞİMŞEK SOYSAL Ayşegül TANRIVERDİ KAYA Demet EROL Deniz DEMİRARSLAN Ebru Vesile ÖCALIR Eda ŞENTÜRK Elif Kübra ÖZTÜRK Emine BAYDAN Esra KESKİN Feran AŞUR Feyza Sena ŞENOCAK Filiz KARAKUŞ Furkan AKDEMİR Gencay ÇUBUK Gülşah BİLGE ÖZTÜRK Halil DUYMUŞ Hamza ALTAŞ Hande AKARCA İnci OLGUN Kemal Mert ÇUBUKÇU Kumru ÇILGIN Mehmet Akif IRMAK Mehmet Emin DAŞ Mehtap ÖZENEN KAVLAK Merve ALICI AKA Mesut GÜZEL Muhammed Akif AÇIKGÖZ Muhammed Emir GÖRAL Murat YEŞİL Olcay Türkan YURDUGÜZEL Özge DÜZGÜN EREKİNCİ Pervin YEŞİL Rabia Nurefsan ACIKGOZ Sedef ŞENDOĞDU Seher Simay KUŞOĞLU Serim DİNÇ Sevilay YILDIZ Sinem SEYHAN Şevval ERGİNDOĞAN Şuheda ALTUNOK Temuçin Göktürk SEYHAN Tuba Nur OLĞUN Tuna BATUHAN Ufuk Teoman AKSOY Yusuf Eminoğlu REVIEWER LIST The authors were listed in alphabetical order Aslıhan TIRNAKÇI Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli University Atila GÜL Süleyman Demirel University Ayşe Kalaycı ÖNAÇ İzmir Katip Çelebi University Bige ŞİMŞEK İLHAN İstanbul Medipol University Burcu YILMAZEL Eskişehir Technical University Eda KOÇAK Siirt University Ekrem BAHADIR Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University Elif KUTAY KARAÇOR İstanbul Technical University Hakan ARSLAN Ondokuz Mayıs University Hilal TURGUT Karadeniz Technical University Meliha AKLIBAŞINDA Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli University Murat AKTEN Süleyman Demirel University Nihan Sümeyye GÜNDOĞDU Atlas University Okan Murat DEDE Amasya University Ömer Lütfü ÇORBACI Recep Tayyip Erdoğan University Selcen Nur Erikci Çelik Beykoz University Sibel AKTEN Isparta Unıversıty Of Applıed Scıences Sinem ÖZDEDE Pamukkale University Şeyma ŞENGÜR Ordu University Turgut KALAY Kütahya Dumlupınar University Tendü Hilal GÖKTUĞ Aydın Adnan Menderes University 173 1. Introduction Development is a complex, long-term, and multidimensional process that extends far beyond the pursuit of economic growth. It encompasses the sustained enhancement, adaptation, and integration of economic, social, institutional, and environmental systems. Within this comprehensive understanding, resilience emerges as a critical foundation for ensuring development continuity and social welfare. Resilience refers not merely to the ability to withstand shocks but to a society's strategic capacity to absorb disruptions, adapt to evolving conditions, and transform structurally when necessary - thereby maintaining and strengthening core functions over time. In today’s interconnected, rapidly changing, and risk-prone global landscape, this capacity is indispensable. Countries across the world are increasingly facing a complex array of risks -economic downturns, geopolitical instability, pandemics, technological disruptions, climate change, and natural disastersall of which threaten to undermine development gains and long-term policy objectives. As these challenges grow in both frequency and intensity, traditional reactive approaches to development planning are no longer sufficient. Instead, proactive, integrated, and forward-looking strategies that embed resilience into the core of national policy are urgently needed. These strategies must be capable of anticipating systemic risks, enhancing institutional flexibility, and fostering inclusive, adaptive governance. Türkiye, due to its unique geographic position, dynamic socio-economic structure, and exposure to diverse risks, stands at the forefront of this global shift toward resilience-oriented planning. From frequent earthquakes and economic volatility to demographic transitions and 174 regional political tensions, the country must navigate a wide array of acute shocks and long-term stressors. In the past, Türkiye’s development efforts often relied on short-term absorptive strategies to cope with crises. However, as the global risk environment becomes increasingly volatile, a transition toward a more robust and future-proof development paradigm has become imperative. In this context, the Twelfth Development Plan (2024–2028) represents a pivotal juncture in Türkiye’s development trajectory. While continuing to employ absorptive strategies to stabilize the system during crises, the plan also begins to emphasize the importance of building adaptive capacity— developing institutions that can learn, adjust, and evolve in response to change. Although transformative capacity is still in its early stages, this period must lay the groundwork for deeper structural reforms that will be advanced in subsequent planning cycles. The Twelfth Plan is therefore more than a continuation of prior efforts—it is a bridge that connects shortterm crisis response with long-term resilience, innovation, and sustainability. To operationalize resilience, this study adopts a framework based on three interrelated capacities: absorptive capacity, which enables systems to manage immediate shocks; adaptive capacity, which promotes learning and adjustment in response to change; and transformative capacity, which supports systemic reform and innovation for long-term sustainability. These dimensions, when strategically balanced across development phases, offer a pathway for managing current risks while preparing for future transitions. This phased model supports the gradual evolution from 175 reactive policy responses to proactive and transformative national development planning. Ultimately, this paper provides both a conceptual foundation and a strategic roadmap for embedding resilience into Türkiye’s long-term development agenda. Anchored in the twin transitions of the green economy and digital transformation, and aligned with international frameworks such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Paris Agreement, Türkiye’s resilience strategy can enable the country not only to safeguard its development gains, but also to emerge as a global leader in future-proof, inclusive, and sustainable development. By integrating resilience capacities into every phase of planning—from the Twelfth Development Plan to the 2053 Vision—Türkiye can build a more stable, adaptive, and transformative society in the face of uncertainty. 2. Theoretical Background: The Evolution of the Concept of Resilience The concept of resilience, derived from the Latin word resilire—meaning “to bounce back” or “to recoil”—has undergone significant evolution across various academic disciplines. Initially employed in the 19th century in engineering and shipbuilding to describe a material’s ability to withstand pressure and return to its original form (Tredgold, 1818; Mallett, 1862, as cited in McAslan, 2010), resilience began to emerge as a broader analytical framework in the natural and social sciences throughout the 20th century. Its adoption expanded particularly within ecology, psychology, and sociology, where it came to describe the ability of ecosystems, individuals, or communities to respond effectively to shocks and stresses (Alexander, 2013). 176 In its early conceptualizations—especially in ecological theory— resilience was associated with a system’s ability to return to a predisturbance equilibrium (O'Brien & Leichenko, 2000; Zobel & Khansa, 2014). Holling (1973) defined this as "engineering resilience," emphasizing recovery and the preservation of system stability. However, as the complexity and interconnectivity of global risks increased, scholars moved beyond this narrow understanding. Contemporary resilience thinking now embraces the capacity of systems not only to absorb disturbances but also to adapt and transform in the face of ongoing change (Olsson et al., 2015). This shift toward a more dynamic and integrated interpretation of resilience has been reflected in key international policy frameworks. The United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change position resilience as a central pillar for sustainable development, explicitly linking it to climate adaptation, institutional capacity-building, and social inclusion (United Nations, 2015a, 2015b). Despite its increasing prominence, however, operationalizing resilience remains challenging due to its context-specific and multi-dimensional nature (Pelling, 2010; Miller et al., 2010; Olsson et al., 2015). As a result, resilience continues to intersect with, and occasionally blur into, related concepts such as risk, vulnerability, adaptability, sustainability, and equity. In socio-ecological systems, resilience is now commonly analyzed through three interconnected and interdependent capacities: absorptive, adaptive, and transformative. Absorptive capacity refers to the ability of a system to endure shocks while maintaining core structures and functions. Adaptive 177 capacity denotes the ability of a system to learn from experience, reorganize its functions, and adjust incrementally in response to changing conditions. Transformative capacity, the most systemic of the three, refers to the capacity to initiate deep, structural changes that address the root causes of vulnerability and promote long-term sustainability (Folke et al., 2002; Lumbroso et al., 2017). These capacities are not isolated; they interact and reinforce one another over time, forming a continuum of resilience capabilities. The relationship between resilience and development is both complex and at times contradictory. While development is aimed at improving human well-being, economic conditions, and institutional efficiency, resilience ensures that these gains are not eroded by sudden or chronic disturbances. Nonetheless, tensions can arise—particularly when short-term development priorities, such as rapid economic growth, undermine longerterm resilience goals like environmental integrity or social cohesion. Scholars like Constas et al. (2014) and Jones & Tanner (2017) stress that resilience should be viewed not simply as a product of development but as an essential enabler of it—a foundational capacity that allows development trajectories to be sustained and adapted in uncertain and dynamic contexts. Measuring resilience is another significant challenge in both academic and policy circles. Given its multi-faceted character, scholars and institutions have developed a variety of frameworks to assess and track resilience across contexts. For instance, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has introduced tools such as the Resilience Index Measurement and Analysis (RIMA) and the Targeting Approach for Resilience Outcome (TANGO), which seek to quantify resilience using a combination of 178 qualitative and quantitative indicators across economic, social, and environmental dimensions (FAO, 2016; Henly-Shepard & Sagara, 2018). These frameworks aim not only to assess resilience levels but also to identify entry points for targeted interventions. In summary, the evolution of the resilience concept reflects a significant broadening from a narrowly defined engineering notion to a comprehensive analytical framework that captures the complexity and dynamism of socio-ecological systems. Today, resilience encompasses the capacity to absorb shocks, adjust incrementally, and transform structurally in pursuit of sustainable and equitable development. As such, it must be understood not as a fixed outcome, but as a continuous, strategic process that supports long-term development and system robustness in the face of uncertainty. 3. Methodology This study employs a qualitative document analysis methodology to investigate how resilience is conceptualized and integrated into Türkiye’s Twelfth Development Plan (2024–2028). The primary aim is to assess the strategic articulation of resilience across economic, social, institutional, and environmental domains, and to generate forward-looking insights that can inform resilience-centered planning for future development periods, particularly in light of the country’s 2053 Vision. Document analysis offers a systematic framework for extracting patterns, themes, and strategic orientations from policy texts. It is particularly effective in examining how conceptual priorities such as resilience are embedded in official narratives and goal structures (Yıldırım & Şimşek, 2018; Öz & Karabay, 2022). In this context, the method is used not only 179 to trace the presence of resilience-related terminology but also to interpret the coherence and depth of policy integration. The approach is well-suited for identifying strategic gaps, thematic consistencies, and the extent to which resilience planning aligns with broader national and international development agendas, including the Sustainable Development Goals and climate adaptation frameworks. Central to this analysis is the evaluation of three interconnected resilience capacities: absorptive, adaptive, and transformative. These capacities represent distinct yet complementary mechanisms by which systems respond to and evolve from risk. Absorptive capacity refers to the ability to buffer external shocks without substantial loss of function; adaptive capacity involves the capacity to reorganize and adjust to changing circumstances; and transformative capacity captures the potential for deep structural change when existing systems and paradigms prove insufficient (Folke et al., 2002; Lumbroso et al., 2017). The study assesses how these dimensions are reflected in the Twelfth Development Plan’s strategic goals, with the aim of determining their relative emphasis and integration. To carry out this evaluation, the strategic objectives outlined in the Development Plan were systematically mapped against resilience characteristics established in leading global frameworks. Specifically, the classification draws on the City Resilience Index developed by the Rockefeller Foundation (2015) and the OECD’s urban resilience indicators (Figueiredo et al., 2018). A conceptual mapping process was used to align keywords from the Development Plan with resilience capacities. These keywords were grouped into thematic clusters and 180 classified under umbrella categories representing economic, social, institutional, and environmental dimensions of resilience. In the visual mapping shown in Figure 1, the resilience attributes identified by the Rockefeller Foundation (purple boxes) are matched with related terms from Türkiye’s Twelfth Development Plan (yellow boxes). These terms were chosen based on their conceptual similarity to the resilience attributes. While some closely align, others were included because they express similar ideas or intentions within the context of the Plan, even if they do not fully correspond to the original definitions. The purpose of this visualization is to offer a clear and structured way to explore how the language used in the Plan reflects different aspects of resilience. Figure 1. Mapping Resilience Characteristics to Strategic Goals Despite the methodological rigor of the study, certain limitations should be acknowledged. First, the analysis is limited to the "objectives and goals" section of the Development Plan, deliberately excluding operational strategies, sectoral implementation mechanisms, and performance indicators. This narrowed scope helps to maintain focus on the strategic intent rather than on administrative execution. Second, compound expressions such as “urban transformation” were only included when they 181 clearly aligned with the definitions of absorptive, adaptive, or transformative capacity. Additionally, due to the semantic complexity of the Turkish language and the nuanced nature of policy discourse, particular attention was given to ensure that terms were interpreted within their appropriate resilience-related contexts. The document analysis was conducted in four stages. The first stage involved a preliminary review of the full Development Plan to identify overarching priorities and resilience-relevant themes. In the second stage, keywords related to resilience were extracted and categorized according to the four main domains. The third stage focused on mapping these themes to the three resilience capacities. Finally, the fourth stage entailed the interpretation of the results and the formulation of strategic recommendations, with the aim of guiding future development planning toward a more resilience-centered approach. Through this structured and multi-phase analysis, the study not only reveals the current status of resilience integration in Türkiye’s strategic planning but also offers a conceptual foundation for strengthening resilience across future development cycles. In doing so, it contributes to a long-term transformation agenda that is both aligned with Türkiye’s 2053 Vision and responsive to the complex economic, environmental, and institutional realities of the 21st century. 4. Evaluation of Resilience Dimensions and Capacities in Türkiye’s Twelfth Development Plan Türkiye’s Twelfth Development Plan (2024–2028) presents a strategic framework designed to address the complex interplay of economic, social, institutional, and environmental challenges. The Plan is shaped not only 182 by long-term development priorities but also by a series of recent domestic and global disruptions, most notably the COVID-19 pandemic (2020), Türkiye’s ratification of the Paris Agreement (2021), the Russia-Ukraine War (2022), and the devastating Kahramanmaraş earthquakes (2023). These events have elevated resilience from a secondary policy concern to a foundational element of national planning. Structured around five strategic axes—stable growth and a strong economy; competitive production through green and digital transformation; a qualified, healthy society rooted in strong families; disaster-resilient settlements and a sustainable environment; and democratic governance grounded in justice—the Plan aims to systematically integrate resilience into all policy dimensions, aligning national development with long-term sustainability. This section assesses the extent to which resilience is embedded within the Plan, categorized into four main domains: economic, institutional, social, and environmental. These domains are evaluated through the three core resilience capacities: absorptive, adaptive, and transformative. Economic resilience is one of the most explicitly articulated dimensions in the Plan. Its absorptive capacity is reflected in strategies aimed at minimizing the immediate impacts of economic shocks through macroeconomic stabilization, sectoral diversification, and support for entrepreneurship and innovation. Initiatives promoting labor specialization and the expansion of tourism into new markets illustrate efforts to reduce vulnerability to external shocks. However, despite these proactive measures, the Plan offers limited articulation of social protection mechanisms and shockresilient infrastructure—both critical components for buffering socioeconomic vulnerabilities during crises. 189 management, including provisions for emergency shelters, climateresilient infrastructure, and circular economy models. Incorporating robust environmental indicators will be crucial to achieving Türkiye’s sustainability targets as outlined in the 2053 Vision. A key limitation of the Twelfth Plan was its disproportionate focus on absorptive capacity at the expense of adaptive and transformative approaches. Future development plans should address this imbalance by embedding four guiding principles throughout their design: protection (to prevent regression during crises), flexibility (to enable evolution amid changing conditions), stability (to ensure continuity), and systemic integration (to foster coherence across sectors and institutions). This holistic approach will strengthen Türkiye’s capacity not only to withstand shocks but also to adapt and thrive sustainably over the long term. 5.1. A Balanced Approach to Resilience: Strengthening Capacities for Sustainable Development Türkiye’s development trajectory reflects a continuous effort to address a broad spectrum of economic, social, and environmental challenges. Its development policies increasingly emphasize resilience, focusing on both crisis preparedness and long-term sustainability. Achieving success in these policies depends on maintaining an effective balance among absorptive, adaptive, and transformative capacities. These three capacities perform complementary functions at various stages of development strategies, and understanding their interplay is essential for evaluating Türkiye’s overall development effectiveness. Absorptive capacity plays a critical role in managing immediate crises, especially during periods of economic or social instability. Historically, 190 Türkiye’s development plans have prioritized temporary solutions to urgent crises, activating absorptive mechanisms that provide rapid relief during acute disruptions. While absorptive capacity effectively mitigates short-term impacts, it falls short in addressing deeper, long-term challenges, as it focuses mainly on crisis management rather than structural transformation. Periods marked by intense economic and social crises illustrate this reliance on absorptive strategies, where urgent, temporary fixes stabilized fragile systems. However, absorptive capacity alone cannot sustain long-term resilience or systemic change. In contrast, adaptive capacity emphasizes proactive, strategic responses to long-term sustainability challenges. It enables systems to adjust and reorganize in response to shifting conditions, promoting flexibility, learning, and anticipatory capacity. This capacity has gained importance in Türkiye’s development planning, particularly in response to rapid changes in environmental, social, and economic contexts. Developing adaptive capacity requires strengthening institutional frameworks and fostering continuous learning processes that build resilience against future risks. Integrating adaptive capacity into development strategies ensures that Türkiye can respond effectively to evolving challenges, moving beyond reactive crisis management toward strategic adaptation. The deepest level of change is represented by transformative capacity, which entails fundamental shifts that reshape existing development paradigms. It fosters innovative, sustainable solutions that challenge the status quo and drive systemic change. Future development plans for Türkiye must emphasize transformative capacity to address structural issues that neither absorptive nor adaptive measures can fully resolve. By 191 prioritizing transformative capacity, Türkiye can accelerate its transition to resilient, sustainable economic, social, and environmental systems. This capacity will be pivotal in implementing profound changes that secure long-term development goals. Türkiye’s development policies increasingly recognize the critical importance of resilience capacities in navigating complex and evolving challenges. This study presents a conceptual framework that models potential transitions in absorptive, adaptive, and transformative capacities as strategic pillars of Türkiye’s national development planning. Table 1 illustrates these capacity shifts proposed by the study, depicting how resilience capacities could be prioritized and rebalanced across Türkiye’s future development plans. It is important to emphasize that the capacities and transitions shown do not represent an existing or historical state, but rather reflect the strategic evolution recommended by this research to support Türkiye’s 2053 Vision. Table 1. Study-Projected Evolution of Resilience Capacity Weights in Türkiye’s Development Plans Development Plan (DP) Resilience Capacity Resilience Capacity Resilience Capacity Absorptive Key Policies Adaptive Key Policies Transformative Key Policies Twelfth DP High Rapid crisis response, emergency relief, shortterm stabilization Low Limited flexibility, reactive institutional adjustments Moderate Initiation of structural reforms, preliminary green/digital initiatives Thirteenth DP High Strengthened emergency management systems, macroeconom Moderate Early warning systems, contingency planning, flexible governance Low Foundations for green and digital transformation 192 ic stabilization Fourteenth DP Moderate Targeted stabilization tools, sectoral shock absorbers High Proactive risk management, institutional learning, scenario planning Moderate Sustainabilitydriven reforms, sector integration Fifteenth DP Moderate Crisis management support, maintenance of core infrastructure High Embedding adaptive governance, long-term flexibility in policies Moderate Initiation of systemic structural transformation Sixteenth DP Moderate Operational continuity during transition High Systemic risk anticipation, multi-sector coordination High Comprehensive systemic reforms, innovation-led sustainability Seventeenth DP Low Baseline crisis response to residual shocks Moderate Integration of adaptive policies into mainstream governance High Full institutionalizati on of sustainable, resilient systems Table 1 provides a detailed and comprehensive depiction of the evolving resilience capacities embedded within Türkiye’s sequential Development Plans. This framework illustrates a progressive recalibration of absorptive, adaptive, and transformative capacities at each planning stage, reflecting the nation’s shifting strategic priorities as it transitions from immediate crisis management toward sustained systemic transformation and longterm sustainability. During the Twelfth Development Plan (2024–2028), absorptive capacity was prioritized to stabilize the economy and society in the face of immediate shocks. Policies primarily concentrated on rapid crisis response, emergency relief measures, and short-term macroeconomic stabilization. In contrast, adaptive capacity remained limited, predominantly reactive, with minimal institutional learning mechanisms, while transformative capacity was moderate, signaled by initial green and 193 digital initiatives. This stage underscores the necessary prominence of absorptive capacity in early crisis contexts but simultaneously highlights its insufficiency for fostering enduring resilience. The Thirteenth Development Plan (2029–2033) sustains a high emphasis on absorptive capacity but progressively integrates adaptive strategies, such as enhanced early warning systems and more flexible governance models. Transformative capacity, though still limited, begins to lay essential groundwork through expanded green and digital transitions. This plan serves as a critical strategic bridge, balancing the urgency of crisis management with the deliberate incorporation of adaptive and transformative elements, thereby facilitating a phased and resilient progression toward sustainable development. A significant paradigm shift occurs during the Fourteenth (2034–2038) and Fifteenth (2039–2043) Development Plans, where adaptive capacity assumes a central role. Policy frameworks evolve to prioritize proactive risk management, institutional learning, and scenario-based planning. Adaptive governance becomes institutionalized, bolstering flexibility and responsiveness to emerging challenges. Absorptive capacity is maintained at moderate levels to ensure continued crisis mitigation, while transformative capacity experiences moderate growth, driven by sustainability-focused reforms and innovative economic initiatives aimed at deeper systemic change. The Sixteenth (2044–2048) and Seventeenth (2049–2053) Development Plans represent the culmination of this strategic evolution, positioning transformative capacity as the dominant driver of resilience. These phases emphasize comprehensive systemic reforms across economic, social, 194 environmental, and institutional dimensions. Innovation, circular economy practices, and the institutionalization of sustainable development become fundamental pillars. Concurrently, adaptive capacity remains vital for ensuring ongoing learning and responsiveness, while absorptive capacity sustains essential baseline functions during transitional phases. This expanded model highlights the critical importance of a phased, balanced approach to sequencing resilience capacities within Türkiye’s development strategy. By deliberately transitioning from absorptive to adaptive and ultimately transformative capacities, Türkiye can establish a robust resilience architecture capable of effectively managing acute shocks and chronic stressors, adapting to evolving risks, and driving profound systemic change. The strategic layering and reinforcement of these capacities through targeted policies at each phase are essential to achieving the ambitious objectives of Türkiye’s 2053 Vision, fostering a flexible, sustainable, and future-ready society. Importantly, rather than creating entirely new resilience frameworks, future development plans should build upon the existing strategic foundation to ensure continuity and enhance policy effectiveness. The Twelfth Development Plan structured its policies around five principal axes—stable growth, competitive production, human and social development, resilient living spaces, and democratic governance— anchored by green and digital transformation goals. While this provides a solid base, refinement is necessary to correct imbalances and promote more even development across all resilience capacities. Moving forward, development plans should explicitly signal a more balanced approach: sustaining high absorptive capacity to manage 195 immediate risks, elevating adaptive capacity to moderate levels to increase systemic flexibility and responsiveness, and maintaining transformative capacity at a foundational yet deliberate level to enable gradual structural shifts. Subsequent plans should continue to increase adaptive capacity emphasis, marking a strategic pivot toward flexible, learning-oriented governance and transformation-ready policies, while preserving absorptive functions at moderate levels and fostering transformative capacity to encourage ongoing structural reform. Finally, the later plans should prioritize transformative capacity, facilitating deep systemic changes and shifting focus from crisis management toward durable resilience and sustainability. This analytical framework reinforces the essential role that resilience capacities play in shaping Türkiye’s development trajectory. As the country advances toward its 2053 Vision, the purposeful enhancement of adaptive and transformative capacities will be indispensable for addressing complex, interconnected future challenges. Embedding greater flexibility and systemic integration into resilience strategies will further strengthen Türkiye’s capability to respond effectively and sustainably to emerging uncertainties and crises. 5.2. A Phased Approach to Resilience: The Role of Future Development Plans Türkiye’s long-term development strategy, aligned with the 2053 Vision, requires a phased and dynamic approach to resilience planning. Each fiveyear Development Plan should represent a progressive stage in the country’s transition from immediate crisis response toward deep systemic transformation. This evolution depends on a gradual shift in the balance 196 between absorptive, adaptive, and transformative capacities, ensuring that Türkiye incrementally builds a more resilient, sustainable, and futureready structure. The Thirteenth Development Plan (2029–2033) should primarily focus on enhancing absorptive capacity, which is essential for managing acute and immediate crises through rapid interventions and emergency preparedness. Building upon the foundations laid by the Twelfth Plan, this phase must prioritize rapid response mechanisms, emergency management systems, and temporary stabilization tools designed to prevent systemic collapse. While absorptive capacity provides critical short-term relief, it alone is insufficient for achieving long-term transformation. Therefore, the Thirteenth Plan should also lay the groundwork for system strengthening, diversify institutional mechanisms, and develop contingency and early warning plans. During this phase, adaptive capacity should be supported through limited and flexible strategies, whereas transformative capacity remains a lower priority but is recognized as foundational for subsequent phases. Moreover, to address a significant shortcoming of the previous plan—its overemphasis on absorptive capacity at the expense of adaptive and transformative strategies—the Thirteenth Plan must embed four key resilience features: protection to prevent regression during crises; flexibility to allow evolution amid changing conditions; stability to ensure continuity in systems and policies; and systemic integration to foster coherence across sectors and institutions. Anchored in green and digital transformation goals, the Thirteenth Plan serves as a crucial bridge between short-term crisis management and the long-term sustainability objectives outlined in Türkiye’s 2053 Vision. By refining and extending 197 existing strategies with a forward-looking, resilience-centered focus, Türkiye can position itself as a global leader in resilience-based development. The Fourteenth Development Plan (2034–2038) should mark a clear shift toward the development of adaptive capacity. This phase emphasizes flexible governance structures, proactive risk management, and institutional learning and knowledge integration. While absorptive mechanisms established during the Thirteenth Plan remain necessary for crisis response, they take on a secondary role. The enhanced adaptive capacity will enable anticipation and adjustment to evolving risks, integration of resilience into routine decision-making processes, improved stakeholder coordination, and strategic planning informed by risk assessments and scenario analyses. Although transformative capacity remains relatively low during this period, it plants the seeds for future systemic transformation. By the time of the Fifteenth Development Plan (2039–2043), adaptive capacity should be fully consolidated as the central pillar of resilience strategy. Governance systems will have institutionalized learning from past crises, embedded adaptive mechanisms, and strengthened long-term flexibility. Concurrently, transformative capacity will begin gaining importance by initiating structured reforms aligned with sustainability goals. Absorptive capacity will continue to be relevant, albeit in a more supportive role focused on residual crisis management. This plan marks a critical transition where resilience evolves from reactive management toward anticipatory and strategic transformation. 198 From the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Development Plans (2044–2053 and beyond) onward, transformative capacity should take precedence in Türkiye’s resilience efforts. This stage will involve comprehensive systemic reforms, innovation in governance, economy, and environmental management, as well as cross-sectoral and inter-institutional collaboration. Adaptive capacity will continue to support ongoing learning and systemic integration, while absorptive capacity will ensure operational continuity during these transitions. The Seventeenth Plan will culminate this trajectory by completing major structural reforms that institutionalize permanent resilience. At this advanced stage, transformative capacity will anchor the development model, adaptive capacity will maintain the flexibility to respond to evolving challenges, and absorptive capacity will facilitate reflection and learning from past disruptions. The integration of all three capacities will be essential to achieving Türkiye’s sustainable development goals and embedding resilience permanently within national policymaking. This phased approach ensures strategic continuity while progressively strengthening Türkiye’s capacity to respond, adapt, and transform in the face of emerging challenges. By aligning each Development Plan with a dominant resilience capacity, Türkiye can effectively navigate uncertainties and foster an inclusive, future-proof society. In the planning process, Türkiye’s development strategies should initially emphasize absorptive capacity, given its higher importance in the early stages, to ensure rapid crisis intervention and infrastructure resilience. However, in the long term, adaptive capacity, which enhances the ability to adjust to environmental and societal changes, will become a critical 205 References Alexander, D. E. (2013). Resilience and disaster risk reduction: An etymological journey. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 13(11), 2707–2716. Access Address (15.10.2024): https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/13/2707/2013/. City Resilience Index. (2015). City Resilience Framework. The Rockefeller Foundation and ARUP. Access Address (07.09.2024): https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/report/city-resilience-index/. Constas, M., Frankenberger, T., Hoddinott, J., Mock, N., Romano, D., Béné, C., & Maxwell, D. (2014). A common analytical model for resilience measurement: Causal framework and methodological options. Food Security Information Network, Resilience Measurement Technical Working Group. FAO. (2016). The resilience index measurement and analysis (RIMA). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Figueiredo, L., Honiden, T., & Schumann, A. (2018). Indicators for resilient cities (OECD Regional Development Working Papers 2018/02). OECD Publishing. Access Address (05.04.2024): https://ods.ceipaz.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/6f1f6065en.pdf. Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., Holling, C. S., & Walker, B. (2002). Resilience and sustainable development: Building adaptive capacity in a world of transformations. Ambio, 31, 437–440. Access Address (20.09.2024): https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi= a952965f4fc487df198eacbd3f756dbcb121b503. Henly-Shepard, S., & Sagara, B. (2018). Resilience measurement practical guidance note series: An overview. Mercy Corps, Resilience Evaluation, Analysis and Learning (REAL). Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4, 1–23. Access Address (20.09.2024): https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.04.110173.000245. Jones, L., & Tanner, T. (2017). 'Subjective resilience': Using perceptions to quantify household resilience to climate extremes and disasters. 206 Regional Environmental Change, 17(1), 229–243. Access Address (22.09.2024): https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10113-016-09952.pdf. Lumbroso, D. M., Suckall, N. R., Nicholls, R. J., & White, K. D. (2017). Enhancing resilience to coastal flooding from severe storms in the USA: International lessons. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 17(8), 1357–1373. Access Address (13.09.2024): https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/17/1357/2017/nhess-17-13572017.pdf. McAslan, A. (2010). The concept of resilience: Understanding its origins, meaning and utility. Adelaide: Torrens Resilience Institute, 1-13. Access Address (12.08.2024): https://www.flinders.edu.au/content/dam/documents/research/torre ns-resilience-institute/resilience-origins-and-utility.pdf#page=1.21. Miller, F., Osbahr, H., Boyd, E., Thomalla, F., Bharwani, S., Ziervogel, G., ... & Nelson, D. (2010). Resilience and vulnerability: Complementary or conflicting concepts? Ecology and Society, 15(3). Access Address (20.09.2024): https://www.jstor.org/stable/26268184?seq=1. O’Brien, K. L., & Leichenko, R. M. (2000). Double exposure: Assessing the impacts of climate change within the context of economic globalization. Global Environmental Change, 10(3), 221–232. Olsson, L., Jerneck, A., Thoren, H., Persson, J., & O’Byrne, D. (2015). Why resilience is unappealing to social science: Theoretical and empirical investigations of the scientific use of resilience. Science Advances, 1(4), e1400217. Access Address (06.06.2024): https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.1400217. Öz, H., & Karabay, E. (2022). Kalkınma planları temelinde yükseköğretim politika ve hedefleri. Yükseköğretim Dergisi, 12(3), 437–449. Access Address (20.09.2024): https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/2950093. Pelling, M. (2010). Adaptation to climate change: From resilience to transformation. Routledge. 207 T.C. Cumhurbaşkanlığı Strateji ve Bütçe Başkanlığı. (2023). On İkinci Kalkınma Planı (2024–2028). Ankara: T.C. Cumhurbaşkanlığı. Access Address (02.05.2024): https://www.sbb.gov.tr/wpcontent/uploads/2023/12/On-Ikinci-Kalkinma-Plani_20242028_11122023.pdf. United Nations. (2015a). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. United Nations. Access Address (05.04.2024): https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda. United Nations. (2015b). Adoption of the Paris Agreement. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Access Address (05.04.2024): https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2018). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri. Seçkin Yayıncılık. Zobel, C. W., & Khansa, L. (2014). Characterizing multi-event disaster resilience. Computers & Operations Research, 42, 83–94. Access Address (06.06.2024): https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2011.09.024. 212 Assoc. Prof. Dr. Tuna BATUHAN E-mail: [email protected] Educational Status: Associate Professor, Department of Public Administration, Division of Urbanization and Environmental Issues, Atatürk University, Türkiye License: Gazi University, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Türkiye Double Major B.A. in International Relations, Gazi University, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Türkiye (2003– 2006) Degree (Master’s): PhD Doctorate: The Florida State University, College of Social Sciences and Public Policy, USA Professional Experiences: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Tuna Batuhan is a faculty member at Atatürk University, serving in the Department of Public Administration as the Head of the Division of Urbanization and Environmental Issues. His research focuses on urban resilience, sustainable development, strategic planning, and public policy. His academic work reflects an interdisciplinary approach that bridges policy studies and planning perspectives. He previously held academic positions in the Department of Urban and Regional Planning and the Faculty of Architecture and Design. During his doctoral studies at Florida State University, he worked as a research assistant and teaching fellow. Dr. Batuhan has contributed to and led numerous national and institutional projects—many supported by the Presidency of Türkiye—particularly in the areas of urban policy, strategic planning, and regional development. He has published extensively on issues such as resilient urban transformation, institutional capacity, and the strategic dimensions of urban governance. 213 Res. Asst. Şuheda ALTUNOK E-mail: [email protected] Educational Status: Ph.D. Candidate in Public Administration, Atatürk University License: Kocaeli University, Political Science and Public Degree:PhD Doctorate: Public Administration, Atatürk University Professional experiences: Şuheda Altunok is a Research Assistant in the Department of Public Administration at Atatürk University. She is currently a Ph.D. candidate, and her research interests center on urban governance, resilience, and sustainable development. She has contributed to national research projects, including those supported by the Presidency of Türkiye, and has co-authored scholarly publications and book chapters in the fields of public policy, disaster governance, and urban resilience.