Resilience has become a popular term in spatial planning, often replacing sustainability as a reference frame. However, different concepts and understandings are embedded within it, which calls for keeping a critical stance about its widespread use. In this paper, we engage with the resilience turn in spatial planning and we dwell on the relation between resilience and sustainability from a planning perspective. Building on insights from ecology, complex system theory and epistemology, we question whether resilience can effectively act as a ‘boundary object’, i.e., a concept plastic enough to foster cooperation between different research fields and yet robust enough to maintain a common identity. Whilst we do not predicate a dichotomy between resilience and sustainability, we argue that the shift in the dominant understanding of resilience from a descriptive concept, to a broader conceptual and normative framework, is bound to generate some remarkable tensions. These can be associated with three central aspects in resilience thinking: (i) the unknowability and unpredictability of the future, whence a different focus of sustainability and resilience on outcomes vs. processes, respectively, ensue; (ii) the ontological separation between the internal components of a system and an external shock; (iii) the limited consideration given by resilience to inter- and intra-generational equity. Empirical evidence on actual instances of planning for resilience from different contexts seems to confirm these trends. We advocate that resilience should be used as a descriptive concept in planning within a sustainability framework, which entails a normative and transformative component that resonates with the very raison d’être of planning.

The European Union (EU) 2020 Biodiversity strategy aims at guaranteeing and enhancing the future supply of ecosystem services (‘ES’) in the member states. In an ex-ante assessment of plausible environmental policies, we projected the supply of 10 ES under 3 policy alternatives of land-use change (‘Nature Protection’, ‘Payment for carbon sequestration’ and ‘Payment for recreational services’) in the 27 EU member states (EU27). We assessed changes in supply of individual services across administrative units (at the NUTS-2 and EU27 levels) as well as bundles (at the EU27 level) between 2010 and 2040. Results show that the policy options only marginally affected ES bundles but several services could change substantially at the EU27 level (e.g. energy content from agricultural production and pollination). Wood supply, carbon sequestration and moderation of wind disturbance responded very differently across policy alternatives. At the NUTS-2 level, biocontrol of pests, carbon sequestration, moderation of wind disturbance and wood supply showed the most contrasted deviation from their regional supply in 2010. Finally, while payments for carbon sequestration benefited carbon sequestration as expected, specific payments for recreation services failed to promote them. Our analyses suggest that protecting nature appeared to be the best way of fostering ES supply within Europe.

This paper investigates the application of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) to spatial planning in Italy. We discuss SEA effectiveness by focusing on three main dimensions: sustainable development, environmental policy integration and democratic governance. The methodology includes the analysis of 27 SEA reports and interviews with key actors. Findings suggest that SEA is beginning to insinuate ecological rationality and improving environmental policy integration across planning levels and disciplinary boundaries. SEA also leads to progress in transparency and communication, whereas the actual involvement of the public in decision making is still weak. Future developments may address the potential contribution of SEA to focusing planning on long-term, shared, visions of socio-ecological systems