Due to the high concentration of people and infrastructures in European cities, the possible impacts of climate change are particularly high (cities’ social, economic and technical vulnerabilities). Adaptation measures to reduce the sensitivity of a city to climate risks are therefore of particular importance. Nevertheless, it is also common to develop compact and dense urban areas to reduce urban sprawl. Urban infill development and sustainable spatial climate policies are thus in apparent conflict with each other. This article examines how German cities deal with the tensions between these two policy fields. Using six case studies, a new heuristic analysis method is applied. This study identifies three key governance aspects that are essential for promoting the joint implementation: instruments, organisation and interaction. Based on our case studies, we conclude that successful implementation can only be achieved through integrative governance including all three domains.

High-resolution population data are a necessary basis for identifying affected regions (e.g., natural disasters, accessibility of social infrastructures) and deriving recommendations for policy and planning, but municipalities are, as in Germany, regularly the smallest available reference unit for data. The article presents a dasymetric-based approach for modeling high-resolution population data based on urban density, dispersion, and land cover/use. In addition to common test statistics like MAE or MAPE, the Gini-coefficient and the local Moran’s I are applied and their added value for accuracy assessment is tested. With data on urban density, a relative deviation between the modeled and actual population of 14.1% is achieved. Data on land cover/use reduces the deviation to 12.4%. With 23.6%, the dispersion measure cannot improve distribution accuracy. Overall, the algorithms perform better for urban than for rural areas. Gini-coefficients show that same spatial concentration patterns are achieved as in the actual population distribution. According to local Moran’s I, there are statistically significant underestimations, especially in the highly-dense inner-urban areas. Overestimates are found in the transition to less urbanized areas and the core areas of peripheral cities. Overall, the additional test statistics can provide important insights into the data, which go beyond common methods for evaluation.

This paper deals with the question of whether the responsible body of regional planning has an influence on the regulatory intensity of regional plans on the one hand and on regional settlement development on the other hand. Seven hypotheses are formulated for this purpose. Based on a nationwide evaluation of regional plans and data on settlement development in Germany, these hypotheses are tested. The presumed clear correlations between the degree of centralization of responsible bodies and the regulatory intensity cannot be confirmed. However, a final hypothesis for further research can be stated. The effect of regulatory intensity on land take varies between different responsible bodies. The effectiveness of the formal spatial planning instruments depends on the implementation competencies of the responsible body.