Establishment of an Ecological Planning and Design Network for Disaster-Resilient Settlements

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 141 1. Introduction The increasing frequency and severity of natural disasters in the 21st century have made the vulnerability of cities and settlements more apparent. The concept of ‘natural disaster’ itself has been questioned, and it has been argued that disasters are largely the product of social and political processes (Wijkman & Timberlake, 1984). The frequency of disasters, economic losses, and the number of people affected have increased globally. This situation reveals that, despite improvements in disaster management capacity, social vulnerability has become more widespread (Feldbrügge & von Braun, 2002). These developments have not eliminated global inequality; rather, increasing vulnerabilities have created greater risks, particularly in developing countries (Alexander, 2006). Methodological studies on specific types of disasters, such as drought, point to the need to develop risk indicators and monitoring systems (AghaKouchak et al., 2015; Carrão, Naumann & Barbosa, 2018). Disaster risk assessment approaches have diversified over time, with comparative analyses conducted based on static-dynamic representations of hazard, exposure, and vulnerability components (Ward et al., 2020). Climate change, rapid urbanisation, ecosystem degradation, and inadequate planning practices are exacerbating the social impacts of disaster risks and complicating the achievement of sustainable development goals. However, significant inconsistencies have been observed among disaster risk indices, particularly in exposure indicators (Garschagen et al., 2021). This situation causes multifaceted impacts not only on the built environment but also on social, economic, and ecological systems. Long-term analyses show a downward trend in individual and 142 material risk, but an increase in financial risk in the insurance sector (Boccard, 2021). Recent data reveal that the impact of disasters affects a wider segment of the population in countries with low levels of human development. In today's world, where traditional engineering solutions are insufficient in combating disasters, nature-based solutions (NbS) are emerging as a new paradigm. Therefore, the importance of NbS and justice-focused international intervention mechanisms is emphasised (Donatti et al., 2024). NbS are integrated approaches that aim to reduce disaster risks by utilising ecosystem services, while also enhancing ecological sustainability and societal well-being. These solutions include applications such as green infrastructure, blue spaces, permeable surfaces, natural flood basins, and ecological corridors, and enhance resilience to disasters in both rural and urban areas. NbS are gaining increasing attention in disaster risk reduction (DRR) policies in terms of sustainability, co-benefits, and the integration of ecosystem services. Post-2000 literature shows that these solutions are being addressed more systematically in the context of DRR. Typologies proposed to develop effective and comprehensive NbS strategies in a spatial context take into account variables such as application approach, landscape unit, targeted hazard types, biome conditions, and techniques used (Nehren et al., 2023). However, the success of NbS is shaped not only by biophysical factors but also by social acceptance and perception. Factors influencing public perception include risk awareness, trust, place attachment, and social conflict, and within this framework, the PA-NbS theoretical model is proposed (Anderson & Renaud, 2021). It is emphasised that potential co-benefits and adverse effects of NbS 143 applications should be assessed together at an early stage to ensure their sustainability (Ommer et al., 2022). User-centred structures in which the purpose, method, and components of the assessment process are carefully defined are also mentioned in the literature (Veerkamp et al., 2021). Global analyses show that the likelihood of NbS implementation is higher in countries with high needs and capacity. This highlights the need for natural capital management and policy coherence (Tyllianakis et al., 2022; Debele et al., 2023). While the benefits of NbS in terms of ecosystem services are highlighted in European examples, spatial mismatch and data gaps pose significant limitations (McVittie et al., 2018; Dubo et al., 2023). In contexts such as São Paulo and India, governance deficiencies, prioritisation of grey infrastructure, and lack of long-term strategy are noteworthy (Young et al., 2019; Ghosh et al., 2024). The integration of nature-based solutions into disaster management is not only related to technical and environmental adequacy but also directly linked to spatial planning, policy-making, and local capacity. Global-scale analyses using large datasets show that NbS applications are concentrated in hydro-meteorological disasters (floods, landslides, avalanches) and that the most commonly used methods are green infrastructure, afforestation, and water conservation techniques (Debele et al., 2023). However, it has been observed that these applications are not always located in the areas most at risk, particularly in the Alps, where spatial mismatches between needs and applications have been identified (Dubo et al., 2023). Experiences from ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA) examples show that multi-scale applications have high potential, but data gaps, financial sustainability, and challenges in measuring co-benefits limit 144 implementation success (McVittie et al., 2018). The São Paulo example shows that, despite decision-makers' positive perceptions of NbS, grey infrastructure continues to dominate implementation, and sectoral integration is lacking in governance (Young et al., 2019). Similarly, analyses conducted in the Indian context suggest that, despite recommendations for NbS applications in urban flood management based on international best practices such as Sponge City and Room for the River, these approaches remain limited due to deficiencies in legal infrastructure and comprehensive planning (Ghosh et al., 2024). All these findings show that, in order for NbS to be an effective tool in disaster management, comprehensive strategies are needed not only in ecological terms but also in governance, spatial and social dimensions. In this context, this book chapter focuses on the integration of nature-based solutions and ecological principles into spatial planning processes for disaster risk reduction, adopting the creation of an ecological planning and design network for disaster-resilient settlements as its central axis of discussion. Within this framework, the EPD-Net (Filling The Gap: Development of Ecological Planning and Design Learning Network and an Adaptive Smart Training Module for Disaster Resilient and Sustainable Cities) project, supported by Erasmus+ and implemented with a multistakeholder structure, offers a comprehensive approach that includes digital, pedagogical, and managerial components aimed at enhancing disaster resilience capacity. The project aims to integrate ecological resilience-based content into higher education curricula in the fields of spatial planning and design, which are directly related to disaster management. Additionally, it promotes interdisciplinary knowledge 145 production through AI-supported smart learning modules, multilingual educational materials, case analyses, and workshop applications. In contrast to disaster policies that are mostly shaped by technical engineering solutions in the literature, this project offers a unique contribution by addressing NbS approaches from the perspectives of local knowledge, social participation, and pedagogical transformation. Within the scope of this section, the components of this network structure, educational strategies, inter-actor collaboration, and policy-making capacity will be discussed. 2. Conceptual Framework In creating disaster-resilient settlements, ecological planning and design concepts must be addressed within a multi-scale and multi-actor framework. In this section, the concept of ‘ecological planning and design’ is first explained, followed by an assessment of key components such as vulnerability, adaptation, and recovery under the heading of ‘disaster resilience’. Additionally, within the framework of NbS and sustainability principles, the theoretical interplay and synergistic functioning of these concepts are discussed. 2.1. Definition of Ecological Planning and Design Ecological planning and design is an interdisciplinary and multi-scale approach that aims to shape human settlements in interaction with natural systems, in line with long-term sustainability and resilience goals. This approach is based on the holistic assessment of biophysical, socio-cultural and managerial data. As Wang, Palazzo & Carper (2016) point out, this approach is based on viewing the relationship between humans and nature not as a dualistic opposition but as one of mutual dependence and 146 ecological wisdom. The model developed by Steiner and Brooks (1981) structures ecological planning as a decision-making process consisting of seven stages: goal setting, inventory, suitability analysis, alternative development, implementation, management, and evaluation. This structure points to a systematic planning methodology that integrates computer-assisted analysis and interdisciplinary collaboration. Over time, this framework has expanded to include new thematic axes such as ecosystem services, green infrastructure, resilience, and biodiversity (Heymans et al., 2019). In the current literature, ecological planning is being redefined to explain more complex urban dynamics using the social-ecological-technological systems (SETS) approach. McPhearson et al. (2022), within this framework, emphasise the interactive structures of nature, society and technology, arguing that urban planning decisions should be made through multi-layered systems. This understanding is supported by tools such as UPSUF, which develops decision support systems based on natural capital and urban ecosystem services (Puchol-Salort et al., 2021). Ecological planning requires an approach that is not only environmentally protective but also sensitive to social justice, aesthetic integrity, and cultural values. Ignatieva, Stewart & Meurk (2011) emphasise that green spaces are not only habitats but also areas of social and cultural interaction, drawing attention to the multifunctional nature of ecological networks. In this sense, ecological planning is an effort to reintegrate the urban fabric with both natural and social values. On the other hand, Bibri (2022) addresses ecological planning within the framework of smart eco-cities supported by digital tools such as big data, spatial modelling, and urban 147 metabolism. They argue that sustainable urban forms can be reconfigured through parameters such as density, greening, and low carbon footprint. Similarly, Semeraro et al. (2021) argue that nature-based solutions should be designed in site-specific ways based on human health, permeability, and social needs. In this context, the governance, financing, social equity, and technical capacity deficiencies highlighted by McPhearson et al. (2025) indicate that ecological planning must be addressed not only in physical terms but also in institutional and political dimensions. When all these approaches are brought together, ecological planning and design emerge as a planning paradigm shaped by multi-dimensional principles such as technological innovation, social participation, institutional collaboration, and cultural awareness, rather than merely the protection of natural processes. 2.2. Disaster Resilience: Vulnerability, Adaptation, Recovery The concept of disaster resilience is not limited to physical robustness or infrastructural resilience. It refers to a multi-layered and dynamic structure that also includes social, institutional, economic and cultural dimensions. Resilience analyses a system's response to risk-prone components through three fundamental concepts: vulnerability (the likelihood of damage), adaptation (the capacity to respond to shocks), and recovery (the ability to rebuild after a disaster) (Table 1). Şen (2021) addresses this tripartite structure under the headings of ‘absorption capacity,’ ‘adaptation,’ and ‘coping,’ emphasising that resilience is a holistic system shaped by the interaction of social, technical, economic, and institutional factors. This approach also reflects the paradigm shift observed in disaster management literature. There has been a shift from strategies focused on reducing 148 vulnerability to policies aimed at increasing resilience. The Hyogo and Sendai Frameworks and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) have placed the construction of resilient societies at the centre of disaster risk reduction (Şen, 2021). In this context, resilience is seen not only as a defence mechanism but also as a means of sustainable development and social justice. Table 1. Disaster Resilience Components. Component Definition Vulnerability The likelihood of suffering damage from a disaster; the level of social, economic and physical sensitivity. Adaptation Adaptation The capacity of a system to adapt to environmental and social changes before, during and after a disaster. Recovery The ability of the system to return to its functional state and/or rebuild in a more resilient manner after a disaster. It is important to emphasise that resilience is not a static characteristic but a process-oriented capacity. Jiang, Ritchie & Verreynne (2021) address resilience in three stages: situational awareness, adaptation capacity, and transformation ability. This structure is defined by the steps of ‘sensing,’ ‘seizing,’ and ‘transforming’ and demonstrates that organisations can respond strategically to crises by restructuring their existing resources. Similarly, Parsons et al. (2021) used their Australian Disaster Resilience Index to show how social, economic, and institutional capacity are affected by spatial inequalities, noting that resilience is generally low in rural areas. The concept of resilience has evolved over time through three evolutionary stages: ‘bounce back,’ ‘build back better,’ and ‘bounce forward.’ Graveline and Germain (2022) analyse this evolution through the lens of social learning, community-based approaches, and social capital, framing 149 resilience not merely as an outcome but as a strategic learning process. In this context, resilience is built not only through engineering-based measures but also through socio-political processes supported by participatory governance, institutional flexibility, and local knowledge systems. Zhang, Lv & Sarker (2024) examine resilience in the tourism sector, highlighting the impact of risk reduction, community participation, and sustainable planning on post-disaster recovery processes. This sector example demonstrates that resilience is not solely dependent on physical infrastructure but also on social and economic systems. At the community level, reducing the impact of disasters on public health is one of the most visible outcomes of resilience capacity. Programmes such as COAST, COPEWELL and Ready CDC, analysed by Abrash Walton et al. (2021), have highlighted the importance of interventions aimed at strengthening indicators such as mental health, disaster preparedness and social capital in low-resource municipalities. These approaches point to the need for a multi-level resilience network that extends from individuals to institutions. Overall, resilience to disasters is not merely a capacity to ‘bounce back,’ but rather a multi-actor, multi-level process of reconstruction that involves reducing vulnerabilities, developing adaptation mechanisms, and building transformative potential. To achieve success in this process, interdisciplinary knowledge production, inclusive decision-making mechanisms, and policies that prioritise contextual flexibility must be implemented simultaneously. 150 2.3. NbS and Sustainability Principles NbS are defined as multi-dimensional and multi-stakeholder intervention strategies that aim to enhance both environmental sustainability and social well-being by strengthening ecosystem processes. NbS not only generate environmental benefits but are also structured in an integrated manner with sustainability principles in areas such as social justice, governance capacity, and systemic transformation. Particularly in urban contexts, these solutions gain meaning through structures that are responsive to local needs, inclusive, and based on collaborative learning. Kabisch, Frantzeskaki & Hansen (2022) propose a systematic framework linking nature-based solutions to sustainability through five core principles: (1) systemic understanding, (2) simultaneous benefits for humans and biodiversity, (3) long-term and inclusive solutions, (4) contextual appropriateness, and (5) learning-communication orientation. These principles define the necessary conditions for NbS applications to be sustainable not only at the technical level but also at the social and managerial levels. In this context, concepts such as justice, inclusivity, and co-production are linked to the normative foundations of sustainability. Wijsman and Berbés-Blázquez (2022) link the success of NbS to principles of distributive, recognitive, and procedural justice, emphasising that technocratic approaches can lead to problems of social legitimacy. The authors propose five key inquiry headings to provide normative clarity, arguing that social sciences should be more actively integrated into NbS processes. This approach envisions participation not only at a formal but also at a functional level, and sustainability goals advancing on the basis of social acceptance. Global analyses conducted by Cook et al. (2025) 157 capacity and social resilience by disseminating educational outcomes. The project aims to pioneer an education-based paradigm shift towards the construction of disaster-resilient, sustainable, and equitable settlements. 3.3. International Partnership and Cooperation Structure Developing a comprehensive and effective intervention in disaster-focused ecological planning education is only possible through a multi-stakeholder and multidisciplinary cooperation structure. In this context, the EPD-Net project has been designed with a broad-based international consortium structure representing academia, the private sector, professional organisations and civil society. The consortium consists of various institutional profiles, including higher education institutions (HEI), vocational education providers (VET), research institutes (RI), software and artificial intelligence companies (SME & LE), professional associations (PC), non-governmental organisations (NGO) and international network structures (Table 4). Table 4. EPD-Net Project Partners and Areas of Contribution. Partner Institution Type Areas of Contribution Higher Education Institutions (HEI) Academic content development, definition of learning outcomes Vocational Education Providers (VET) EQF-compliant modular education design and implementation Research Institutes (RI) Data analysis, resilience research, evaluation Software & Technology Companies (SME/LE) Artificial intelligence module, digital platform design Professional Organisations (PC) Policy-level contribution, professional dissemination Non-Governmental Organisations (NGO) Community-based learning, social inclusion International Networks European-scale dissemination and visibility 158 In addition to geographical diversity, disciplinary diversity has also been taken into account in the partnership structure. Partners from different fields of expertise, such as planning, landscape architecture, disaster management, geographic information systems, digital teaching design, and professional qualification systems, participate equally in the knowledge production and content development processes (Figure 3). The coordinator of the consortium is Eskişehir Technical University. The implementation processes are organised under a three-tier governance structure: the Executive Committee, which makes strategic decisions; the Project Coordinator, who ensures the coordination of processes; and the work package leaders, who are responsible for each work package. A consensusbased governance principle has been adopted for decision-making processes, and communication, planning, and evaluation mechanisms have been structured to operate at regular intervals. Figure 3. Geographical diversity and disciplinary differences in the partnership structure 159 This structure plays a strategic role not only in the development of project outputs but also in the dissemination, sustainability, and policy interaction phases. The presence of various professional organisations facilitates access to professional networks. In addition, technology companies contribute to the development of digital infrastructure. Higher education institutions play a leading role in the production of academic content and modules, while VET providers and professional associations integrate these outputs into education systems. In this way, EPD-Net is not just a project, but a collaborative, multi-level, and sustainable learning ecosystem. 4. Discussion and Evaluation The dissemination of ecological planning and nature-based solution approaches in the context of disaster management through education brings about not only individual knowledge and skill development, but also institutional transformation and effective interventions at the policy level. The EPD-Net project addresses these multi-layered objectives within an interdisciplinary learning network, offering a new resiliencefocused education paradigm. This section evaluates the relationship between the project's theoretical foundations and its practical outcomes, presenting a comprehensive discussion on the place of ecological planning in education, network-based operations in institutional capacity building, and compatibility with the EQF. 4.1 The Role of Ecological Planning in Education Ecological planning and design offer a multidimensional approach that serves to organise the physical environment, reduce social inequalities, prevent disaster risks, and develop sustainable lifestyles (Wang, Palazzo 160 & Carper, 2016; Heymans et al., 2019). However, in many countries, this multi-layered content is still not sufficiently represented in higher education programmes. Although Steiner and Brooks' (1981) classic model proposed the integration of biophysical data into planning, today's urban crises, technological transformation, disaster risk, and social justice require the integration of these new axes into the model (McPhearson et al., 2022; Puchol-Salort et al., 2021). The EPD-Net project has developed a pedagogical intervention aimed at integrating disaster-focused ecological planning into the academic curriculum, centring on this transformation. The AI-supported learning module designed within the scope of the project is structured with interdisciplinary content, case analysis, and workshop-based learning approaches. Thus, the theoretical foundation of ecological planning is supported by practical skills. This structure aligns with the objectives of researchers such as Bibri (2022) and Semeraro et al. (2021), who advocate for bridging the gaps between digital transformation, ecosystem services, and social needs. 4.2 The Role of Network Structures in Developing Institutional Capacities Disaster-focused ecological planning requires institutional learning and interaction beyond individual expertise. Parsons et al. (2021) and Abrash Walton et al. (2021) have demonstrated that disaster resilience can be most effectively developed through local-scale, inter-institutional network structures. In this context, EPD-Net brings together partners from different countries and institutions to build an interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral learning ecosystem. 161 The consortium structure includes higher education institutions, vocational training providers, technology companies, and professional organisations. This structure supports content production as well as dissemination and sustainability. This interaction model directly aligns with the principles of transformative learning, multi-stakeholder governance, and knowledge sharing proposed by Cook et al. (2025) and Wickenberg et al. (2022). The development of institutional capacities provides a critical foundation for new-generation education models that integrate technology and pedagogy. 4.3 Alignment with the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) One of EPD-Net's strongest points is that the project outputs are structured in line with the EQF. The EQF is a system that makes it possible to clearly define learning outcomes and recognise them across countries (Symeonidis & Blomqvist 2025). Within this framework, the project aims to integrate not only with the EQF but also with frameworks such as ESCO, ECVET, DigComp, and EntreComp. This approach ensures that learning outcomes are compatible with the European labour market, measurable, and transferable. In the literature, competency-based education models are seen as a key element for professional transformation in the fields of disaster management and ecological planning (Zhang et al., 2024). EPD-Net defines both individual and institutional capacity within this framework, thereby proposing a system that can be disseminated across Europe and beyond by structuring resilience-focused planning skills according to EQF levels. The project targets EQF levels 5-6-7, representing a multi-layered learning system that encompasses undergraduate and postgraduate education as well as professional development. 162 5. Conclusions and Policy Recommendations The increase in the frequency and impact of disasters necessitates a rethinking of spatial planning approaches based not only on engineering solutions but also on ecological principles, social justice, and multistakeholder governance models. The success of this transformation is directly linked to policy documents and the training of human resources capable of implementing these policies. At this point, the EPD-Net project integrates nature-based solutions and ecological planning principles with disaster management. It also aims to increase resilience capacity at both the individual and institutional levels by offering an interdisciplinary learning ecosystem. The AI-supported learning module designed within the scope of the project contributes to content production, equitable access to education, co-production, and digitalisation processes with its EQFcompliant content structure and multilingual, multi-actor network design. It is necessary to integrate education systems with disaster risk reduction and sustainable development goals and to make ecological planning and resilience-based content more visible in higher education curricula. In this context, nature-based solutions, climate adaptation, green infrastructure strategies, and a socio-ecological systems perspective should be addressed simultaneously in applied disciplines such as planning, landscape architecture, disaster management, and geographic information systems. Additionally, by adopting EQF-compliant modular structures, it will be possible to develop recognisable and transferable qualifications across Europe, enhance the transparency of learning outcomes, and support professional mobility. As emphasised in the literature, not only technical skills but also horizontal skills such as transformative learning, governance 163 literacy and social participation capacity play a decisive role in building resilient societies. In this context, policymakers at the national and local levels need to place disaster-focused ecological planning at the centre of urban strategy documents, education and professional development policies. The interdisciplinary, digital, and participatory learning model developed by EPD-Net is considered a scalable and replicable tool that can serve this purpose. The learning module and open-access resources offered by the project have a flexible structure that can be used not only in universities but also by vocational education providers, local governments, and professional associations. In a broader context, the construction of disaster-resilient, sustainable, and equitable cities is only possible through a fundamental paradigm shift in education systems, and EPD-Net is positioned as an important policy tool in this transformation process. 164 Acknowledgements and Information Note This study was supported by the project titled "EPD-NET: Filling the Gap: Development of Ecological Planning and Design Learning Network and Adaptive Smart Training Module for Disaster Resilient and Sustainable Cities" (GAP-101183961). The article complies with national and international research and publication ethics. Ethics Committee approval was not required for the study. In this study, artificial intelligence was used solely for the purpose of enhancing the language and clarity of the manuscript; it did not play any role in the analysis, interpretation, or generation of the results. Author Contribution and Conflict of Interest Declaration Information 1st Author 50%, 2nd Author 25%, 3rd Author 25% contributed. There is no conflict of interest. 165 References Abrash Walton, A., Marr, J., Cahillane, M. J., & Bush, K. (2021). Building community resilience to disasters: A review of interventions to improve and measure public health outcomes in the Northeastern United States. Sustainability, 13(21), 11699. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111699. AghaKouchak, A., Farahmand, L., Melton, F., Andreadis, J., Tzeng, K. K., Moftakhari, E., & Mehran, A. (2015). Advances in drought monitoring and prediction: A review. Reviews of Geophysics, 53(3), 452–480. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014RG000456. Alexander, D. (2006). Globalization of disaster: Trends, problems and dilemmas. Journal of International Affairs, 59(2), 1–22. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24358424. Anderson, C. C., & Renaud, F. G. (2021). A review of public acceptance of nature-based solutions: The ‘why’, ‘when’, and ‘how’ of success for disaster risk reduction measures. Ambio, 50(8), 1552–1573. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-021-01502-4. Bibri, S. E. (2022). Eco-districts and data-driven smart eco-cities: Emerging approaches to strategic planning by design and spatial scaling and evaluation by technology. Land Use Policy, 113, 105830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105830. Boccard, N. (2021). Analysis of trends in disaster risk. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 53, 101989. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101989. Carrão, H., Naumann, G., & Barbosa, P. (2018). Global projections of drought hazard in a warming climate: A prime for disaster risk management. Climate Dynamics, 50(7–8), 2137–2155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-017-3740-8. Cook, E. M., Kim, Y., Grimm, N. B., McPhearson, T., Anderson, P., Bulkeley, H., ... Zhou, W. (2025). Nature-based solutions for urban sustainability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 122(29), e2315909122. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2315909122. Debele, S. E., Leo, L. S., Kumar, P., Sahani, J., Ommer, J., Bucchignani, E., ... Di Sabatino, S. (2023). Nature-based solutions can help reduce the impact of natural hazards: A global analysis of NBS case studies. 166 Science of the Total Environment, 902, 165824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.165824. Donatti, C. I., Nicholas, K., Fedele, G., Delforge, D., Speybroeck, N., Moraga, P., ... Zvoleff, A. (2024). Global hotspots of climate-related disasters. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 108, 104488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2024.104488. Dorst, H., van der Jagt, A., Runhaar, H., & Raven, R. (2021). Structural conditions for the wider uptake of urban nature-based solutions – A conceptual framework. Cities, 116, 103283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103283. Dubo, T., Palomo, I., Laorden Camacho, L., Locatelli, B., Cugniet, A., Racinais, N., & Lavorel, S. (2023). Nature-based solutions for climate change adaptation are not located where they are most needed across the Alps. Regional Environmental Change, 23(12). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-022-01998-w. Feldbrügge, T., & von Braun, J. (2002). Is the world becoming a more risky place? Trends in disasters and vulnerability to them (ZEF Discussion Papers on Development Policy No. 46). Center for Development Research (ZEF), University of Bonn. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.18730. Garschagen, M., Doshi, D., Reith, J., & Hagenlocher, M. (2021). Global patterns of disaster and climate risk—An analysis of the consistency of leading index-based assessments and their results. Climatic Change, 169(11). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03209-7. Ghosh, P., Sudarsan, J. S., & Nithiyanantham, S. (2024). Nature-based disaster risk reduction of floods in urban areas. Water Resources Management, 38, 1847–1866. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-02403757-4. Graveline, M.-H., & Germain, D. (2022). Disaster risk resilience: Conceptual evolution, key issues, and opportunities. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 13(3), 330–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-022-00419-0. Heymans, A., Breadsell, J., Morrison, G. M., Byrne, J. J., & Eon, C. (2019). Ecological urban planning and design: A systematic literature review. Sustainability, 11(13), 3723. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11133723.