Resilience Thinking in Spatial Planning: Challenges and Opportunities for Climate Change Adaptation

Authors: Birthe Uhlhorn (corresponding author), Institute of Landscape Development, Recreation and Conservation Planning, BOKU University, Austria, birthe.uhlho[email protected], ORCID: 0000-0001-7287-117X Gesa Pflitsch, Institute of Landscape Development, Recreation and Conservation Planning, BOKU University, Austria, [email protected], ORCID 0000-0002-5762-4899 Verena Radinger-Peer, Institute of Landscape Development, Recreation and Conservation Planning, BOKU University, Austria, verena.radinger-[email protected], ORCID 0000-0001-6030-3300 Debate a rticle SPECIAL ISSUE: Spatial Transformation from a Planning Perspective Resilience Thinking in Spatial Planning: Challenges and Opportunities for Climate Change Adaptation Birthe Uhlhorn, BOKU University Gesa Pflitsch, BOKU University Verena Radinger-Peer, BOKU University Introduction The scientific debate about the application of resilience thinking in spatial planning presents an ambivalent picture. On the one hand, the potential of such an approach is emphasised, in particular its ability to address the challenges posed by variable, dynamic and uncertain baseline data for decision-making, which are amplified by the complexity and speed of developments of e.g. climate change and biodiversity loss. On the other hand, challenges and limitations arise in translating the theoretical concept of resilience into concrete planning instruments, due to e.g. Abstract Resilience thinking, emphasising adaptability and transformability, provides a systems-based framework for fostering flexibility, participatory processes, and long-term sustainability in spatial planning. While extensively studied in urban contexts, its application in rural areas and small municipalities remains underexplored. This debate article examines the potentials and challenges of integrating resilience thinking into climate change adaptation strategies in rural spatial planning, with a focus on Lower Austria as a case study. By analysing resilience capacities — absorptive, adaptive, and transformative — at the municipal level, we find that current efforts are predominantly short-term and reactive, such as flood protection measures, with limited systemic integration into planning processes. Fragmented climate change adaptation efforts, coupled with governance constraints like insufficient expertise and financial resources, further impede the development of long-term resilience. The article underscores the need for a multi-level approach that bridges local knowledge with broader planning frameworks to foster transformative resilience in rural areas, calling for further research to address these gaps. Keywords Resilience; spatial planning; climate change adaptation European Journal of Spatial Development 22(2) 137 a lack of clear definition, diverging normative interpretations, and conceptual ambiguity across disciplines (Albers & Deppisch, 2013; Coaffee et al., 2018; Davoudi et al., 2012). The use of resilience thinking in spatial and urban planning is rather recent and uncommon, although there are numerous approaches that draw on elements used in resilience thinking such as capacity building, enhancing participatory processes, reducing territorial and social vulnerability, and increasing capacity for adaptation (Asadzadeh et al. 2022, Magoni, 2017). The present debate article aims to a) synthesise the current debate on the potentials and challenges of resilience thinking in spatial planning, b) discuss in how far the concept of resilience thinking can support the incorporation of current challenges like Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) into spatial planning and c) reflect how the local level, in particular rural municipalities, are challenged by implementing resilience thinking into local planning to adapt to climate change. We explore these questions through theoretical reflection and empirical findings from the ACCORD project, which investigated local CCA practices in six municipalities in Lower Austria. In Lower Austria, land use is dominated by forestry and agriculture, including arable farming and permanent grasslands (Amt der NÖ Landesregierung 2022, 2023). The region is characterised by a mix of agricultural and industrial areas, predominantly smalland medium-sized municipalities, and high exposure to climate risks such as heat, drought, and floods. Over half of its municipalities have fewer than 2,500 inhabitants (Österreichischer Gemeindebund, 2025). In the absence of strategic planning documents at higher levels, municipalities play a key role in implementing CCA within spatial planning. Therefore, Lower Austria serves as an insightful case to illustrate the challenges and opportunities associated with integrating resilience thinking into CCA in rural small to medium sized municipalities. Conceptual Foundations of Resilience Thinking Holling (1973) was the first to introduce the concept of resilience into the scientific discourse on ecosystems. He illustrated how resilience offers a new framework for understanding ecosystem dynamics, while challenging traditional notions of stability. According to Holling, resilience is the ability of a system to absorb changes while maintaining its fundamental function, contrasting it with stability, which was defined as the speed at which a system returns to equilibrium, i.e., a steady state, after a disturbance (Gunderson, 2000). Holling (1996) distinguishes between engineering resilience, which emphasises a system's rapid return to equilibrium after disturbances, and ecology resilience, which highlights the ability of complex systems to absorb disturbances and transition between stable states (Gunderson, 2000). Both concepts share equilibrium thinking, with engineering resilience focusing on returning to a pre-existing state, while ecology resilience emphasises the ability to transform into a new stable state (Davoudi et al., 2012). European Journal of Spatial Development 22(2) 138 The latest addition in resilience theory expands on ecological resilience by explicitly including human dimensions and emphasising the capacity for transformation (Folke et al., 2010). Socio-ecological resilience or evolutionary resilience, as stated in Davoudi et al. (2013) refers to the capacity of interconnected social and ecological systems to adapt, transform, and learn in response to change. This includes the importance of cross-scale interactions, feedback dynamics, and the integral role of human actions in shaping system evolution and development (Davoudi et al., 2013). In the context of socio-ecological resilience, development is thus viewed as an opportunity that prioritises social learning, adaptability, and transformative change, emphasising the integration of diverse knowledges as essential for navigating and managing transitions effectively (Biggs et al., 2015; Folke, 2006). For that reason, resilience thinking provides a comprehensive approach for managing social-ecological systems with a focus on flexible and adaptive capacities (Folke et al., 2010). The afore mentioned dimensions of resilience, adaptability and transformability, highlight not only how systems respond to disturbances but also the normative nature of the resilience concept, as it raises the question of which system states are seen as sustainable and desirable (Meerow et al., 2016). In a nutshell, resilience thinking aims towards elaborating suitable solutions in order to enhance the system’s adaptation capabilities to real and potential risk situations and those of uncertainty (Magoni, 2017; Tyler & Moench, 2012). Resilience Thinking in Spatial Planning Although we experience a so-called “resilience renaissance” (Bahadur et al. 2010), in particular in urban planning (e.g. Asadzeadeh et al. 2022; Meerow et al. 2016), there are still challenges to translate the theoretical concept of resilience into concrete planning instruments (Coaffee et al., 2018; Davoudi et al., 2012). Meerow et al., (2016) identify six central tensions in resilience discourse, which range from various conceptualizations of “urban” to conflicting understandings of system stability and the scope of adaptability to disagreements over normative goals and temporal priorities. The authors thus propose to define resilience in the context of (urban) planning as a “boundary object”, a common object or concept that appeals to multiple “social worlds” and can, therefore, foster multidisciplinary scientific collaboration (Star & Griesemer, 1989). By considering the 5 “W”s (Who? What? When? Where? Why?) they propose an approach to make the contested concept of urban resilience tangible in planning processes. Resilience thinking has emerged as an attractive concept with respect to cities, not least because a majority of studies describes urban areas as “networks” or “complex systems” (Batty, 2008), playing a major role in global energy-related carbon emissions (IPCC, 2024). However, also rural regions may be referred to as dynamic, multiscalar, and heterogeneous systems in which numerous actors, institutions, and environmental processes interact across European Journal of Spatial Development 22(2) 139 networks (Nelson et al., 2021, Flood et al. 2022). Precisely these characteristics, together with their close ties to urban areas, make rural regions key arenas for integrating resilience thinking in the context of climate change, as fostering resilience in smaller social-ecological systems generates feedback effects that drive transformational change at larger scales (Folke et al., 2010). While the majority of resilience studies to date have concentrated on urban contexts, an emerging body of research increasingly addresses rural resilience (e.g OECD, 2025; Tang et al., 2025). So far only few studies consider urban as well as other regional contexts, as e.g. the framework provided by Asadzadeh et al. (2022) who develop three distinct conceptions of resilience: (a) engineering resilience focusing on absorptive coping capacity (b) ecological resilience centered on adaptive capacity, and (c) socio-institutional resilience that prioritizes transformative capacity. In Austria, this perspective is of particular relevance, as two-thirds of the population live in rural areas, with agriculture and forestry dominating approximately 90% of land use (EC, 2020; WKO, 2025). Rural areas are therefore of great economic importance to Austria. Furthermore, nearly two-thirds (65.6 %) of municipalities have fewer than 2,500 inhabitants in Austria (Österreichischer Gemeindebund, 2025). As such, greater integration of practical knowledge and experience from different contexts could not only help to bridge the conceptual gaps mentioned above, but also enable resilience strategies to be tailored to the specific needs and dynamics of different spatial settings. Local Adaptation Patterns in Lower Austria According to the framework described by Asadzadeh et al. (2022), absorptive capacity includes short-term protective measures such as dikes, retention basins, and reactive tools like temporary area closures, mobile barriers, and rapid evacuation schemes. However, these interventions risk path dependency and maladaptation and should therefore be integrated into adaptive management cycles. Adaptive capacity relies on continuous learning and feedback loops, by incorporating climate and soil-moisture data into planning, regularly updating plans, engaging stakeholders in scenario workshops, and using flexible land-use regulations. Transformative capacity, by contrast, seeks governance innovation and profound system change which demands intermunicipal resilience networks, new guiding visions, large-scale participatory visioning processes, transparent data portals, and ongoing reflection mechanisms. All of these represent efforts that require substantial time and resources and often encounter political resistance to structural shifts. When applying this to the municipalities in Lower Austria examined in the ACCORD project, it becomes evident that coping measures, particularly those addressing climate-related hazards such as floods, are implemented in affected areas to manage immediate risks. However, CCA European Journal of Spatial Development 22(2) 140 activities often remain fragmented and lack an overarching strategy, with initiatives such as tree planting, rainwater management, and cycling paths typically driven by state-level funding opportunities. There is also a limited understanding at the local level of the full potential of adaption strategies. As a result, no fundamental improvements or changes are made to dominant vulnerable structures, such as the regulation of soil sealing in building codes or the integration of landscape elements in cleared agricultural areas to prevent wind erosion. Climate change is increasingly seen as a significant challenge for spatial planning marked by high complexity, numerous stakeholders with conflicting interests (Lönngren & Van Poeck, 2021). While there is a close connection between the specific climatic impacts and the adaptation measures that can be developed locally, especially small and medium-sized municipalities in rural regions often struggle with the complexity of CCA due to limited staff and expertise (Clar & Steurer, 2014; Fila et al., 2023). What we observed in Lower Austrian municipalities reflects the absorptive pattern that Asadzadeh et al. (2022) describe, where planning instruments and finance mechanisms serve to maintain “business as usual” during and after crises. Institutional Barriers to Adaptive Planning The ACCORD project found that short-term economic growth and political compromise often take precedence over long-term resilience and sustainable planning. While there are some sectoral planning efforts, such as the partial integration of flood risks into planning tools, these lack a comprehensive approach. Strategic planning, which would allow for an integrated, systems thinking perspective, has not yet been implemented in the municipalities studied. By contrast, adaptive capacities would emphasise continuous learning and iterative adjustments to both external and internal drivers of change, manifesting in incremental, needs-based strategies, such as integrating real-time climate and soil-moisture data into planning, regularly updating land-use regulations, and engaging stakeholders through scenario workshops to flexibly manage evolving risks. Resilience thinking is becoming increasingly popular in spatial planning as a way to deal with uncertainty and complexity in urban and regional systems (Krishnan et al., 2023). The resilience debate highlights tensions between stability-focused management and adaptabilitycentered approaches, emphasising the need for interdisciplinary collaboration to address the complexities of social-ecological systems in a changing world (Davoudi et al., 2012). Rather than relying on rigid, short-term plans, it promotes the development of flexible strategies that consider different scenarios. Resilience thinking emphasises a shift from controlling stable systems to enhancing their capacity to adapt, transform and maintain desired trajectories, recognising that disturbances can be drivers of innovation and renewal rather than threats (Berkes et al., 2003). Resilience from a spatial planning perspective focuses on minimizing vulnerability, enhancing European Journal of Spatial Development 22(2) 141 social and institutional learning capacities, and improving territorial governance to strengthen adaptability and reduce risks (Brunetta & Salata, 2019). However, despite these potentials, notable challenges associated with resilience thinking in spatial planning have been highlighted. According to Jones (2018), resilience in complex systems is context-dependent, meaning it varies based on the type of shock and system involved, and it is emergent due to the continuous changes in response to interactions with other systems across different scales. In addition, resilience fluctuates over time as a result of the interactions between the system, its internal components, and the larger systems it is part of. This means that resilience cannot be seen as just a property of a system, but as a dynamic process that is constantly changing based on changing conditions and influences. The systemic approach of resilience thinking makes the management and planning of social-ecological systems complex, as the interactions and feedback loops are difficult to predict, and the system constantly adapts on its own. Adapting resilience frameworks to local conditions faces challenges such as the necessity for long-term data elaboration and spatial interpolation, variability in climatic contexts, and limitations of the predict-and-prevent approach in considering indirect effects like systemic and institutional weaknesses (Brunetta & Salata, 2019). In light of these challenges, the adequacy of the local level, often characterized by limited resources and fragmented capacities, for the development and implementation of effective resilience strategies is increasingly being questioned (IPCC, 2022; OECD, 2014; UNDRR, 2015). From Concept to Governance: Who Should Lead Resilience Planning? This question not only concerns the distribution of responsibilities, but also touches on the practical conditions required for implementing resilience thinking effectively. The literature highlights several key factors necessary for the effective implementation of resilience thinking in practice. Successful application of resilience thinking requires translating resilience concepts to practice, engaging stakeholders, and maintaining organisational support (Mitchell et al., 2014; Sellberg et al., 2018). Folke et al. (2002) propose two valuable tools for building resilience in socio-ecological systems: a) structured scenarios and b) active adaptive management. In many cases, however, the absence of clear national policies, means that local engagement becomes a decisive factor for progress in adaptation (Dannevig et al., 2013). In addition, CCA is marked by pervasive uncertainty about both causes and solutions (Lönngren & Van Poeck, 2021). These uncertainties present significant challenges for planners and policymakers attempting to address climate change through spatial planning mechanisms because it affects multiple systems simultaneously, is difficult to predict, and often leads to conflicts among various stakeholders (Sun & Yang, 2016). These challenges become more difficult when local governments lack the resources or expertise to implement resilience effectively. European Journal of Spatial Development 22(2) 142 In Austria, these conditions are shaped by a federal and decentralised planning system. Spatial planning is organised hierarchically, but there is no overarching national law or framework legislation. Instead, each of the nine federal states holds exclusive legislative authority, enacting its own planning laws and defining binding objectives and instruments for planning bodies (NÖ Raumordnungsgesetz, 2014). At the national level, the National Adaptation Strategy (NAS) and the Austrian Spatial Development Concept (ÖREK 2030) provide recommendations for integrating climate change adaptation into spatial planning, but do not include mandatory measures for states and municipalities. At the federal state level, the extent to which climate adaptation is explicitly addressed varies between states (Kanonier & Schindelegger, 2018). In Lower Austria, no strategic planning documents exist that systematically address CCA objectives. Nevertheless, the Lower Austria Spatial Planning Act (NÖ Raumordnungsgesetz, 2014) requires that adaptation be considered in the formulation of (a) the local development concept, which defines long-term goals; (b) the land use plan, which assigns zoning categories; and (c) the development plan, which determines the type and form of development within specific areas. As a result, municipalities carry a disproportionately large responsibility for implementing CCA measures within planning processes. Findings from the ACCORD project underscore the limitations of this arrangement: CCA activities in the municipalities are often fragmented and reactive, increasing the risk of maladaptation. There is little to no connection between these activities and larger-scale policies at the regional or state level, resulting in a lack of integration of CCA policies into local planning. Additionally, there is no system-wide perspective, as vertical policy integration and the incorporation of CCA measures into planning instruments remain insufficient. Moreover, local governance capacities are constrained. The municipalities studied exhibit limited climate governance capacities, including financial and human resources as well as technical expertise. In some cases, climate adaptation efforts rely on need-based projects driven by stakeholder involvement, with organisations like the Energy and Environment Agency of Lower Austria (eNu) acting as a crucial bridge between local and state levels. In addition, at the local level, we see mayors playing a central role as agenda setters and coordinators, using social capital to drive initiatives forward. Conclusion Current socio-ecological crises such as climate change pose significant challenges for spatial planning. Resilience thinking provides an important concept for addressing the challenges of climate change adaptation in spatial planning. Its emphasis on flexibility, learning, and systemic understanding offers a valuable counterpoint to rigid and control-oriented planning European Journal of Spatial Development 22(2) 143 approaches. However, the practical application of these ideas remains limited, particularly in rural municipalities, where adaptation efforts continue to focus on short-term and reactive measures rather than long-term, transformative strategies. The case of Lower Austria highlights how decentralised planning systems can create both opportunities and constraints. On the one hand, local actors possess detailed knowledge of local conditions and benefit from close relationships with stakeholders. On the other hand, they are often expected to implement complex adaptation measures without sufficient resources or support from higher governance levels. In this context, mayors and local leaders frequently take on central roles, filling gaps in coordination and driving initiatives forward. While these individual efforts are commendable, they rarely lead to structural change unless they are supported by broader institutional frameworks. What is needed is a stronger focus on governance arrangements and institutional mechanisms that allow resilience thinking to be contextualised, coordinated, and embedded across levels. Such a shift would not only refine the academic debate but also open pathways for research on how local adaptive capacities can be better linked to regional and national strategies, enabling resilience to move from short-term coping towards genuinely adaptive and transformative change. European Journal of Spatial Development 22(2) 144 Acknowledgements We would like to thank the ACCORD project team for their valuable contributions to this research and the anonymous reviewers for their insightful feedback and constructive comments. We are also grateful to the ARL – Academy for Territorial Development in the Leibniz Association – for organising the Summer School 2024, which drew our attention to this special issue and fostered inspiring discussions. Conflict of interest The authors declare no conflict of interest regarding this article’s research, authorship, or publication. Funding This study was made possible through the support of the Climate and Energy Fund within the framework of the 14th Austrian Climate Research Program (www.klimafonds.gv.at) References Adams, V. M., Álvarez-Romero, J. G., Capon, S. J., Crowley, G. M., Dale, A. P., Kennard, M. J., Douglas, M. M., & Pressey, R. L. (2017). Making time for space: The critical role of spatial planning in adapting natural resource management to climate change. Environmental Science & Policy, 74, 57–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.05.003 Albers, M., & Deppisch, S. (2013). Resilience in the light of climate change: Useful approach or empty phrase for spatial planning? European Planning Studies, 21(10), 1598–1610. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2012.722961 Amt der Niederösterreichischen Landesregierung. (2022). Landwirtschaft, Forstwirtschaft und Bodenschutz. https://www.umweltbericht.at/landwirtschaft-forstwirtschaft-undbodenschutz-2024/ Amt der Niederösterreichischen Landesregierung. (2023). Der Grüne Bericht 2023 – Bericht über die wirtschaftliche und soziale Lage der Land ‑ & Forstwirtschaft in Niederösterreich. St. Pölten: Abteilung Landwirtschaftsförderung, Amt der NÖ Landesregierung. https://www.noe.gv.at/noe/Landwirtschaft/Gruener_Bericht_2023_FINAL.pdf Asadzadeh, A., Kötter, T., Fekete, A., Moghadas, M., Alizadeh, M., Zebardast, E., Weiss, D., Basirat, M., & Hutter, G. (2022). Urbanization, migration, and the challenges of resilience thinking in urban planning: Insights from two contrasting planning systems in Germany and Iran. Cities, 125, 103642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.103642 Batty, M. (2008). The Size, Scale, and Shape of Cities. Science, 319(5864), 769–771. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1151419 Bahadur, A. V., Ibrahim, M., & Tanner, T. (2010). The resilience renaissance? Unpacking resilience for tackling climate change and disasters. Institute of Development Studies. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12413/2368 Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (Hrsg.). (2003). Navigating social-ecological systems: Building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge University Press.