In the face of accelerating climate change, urbanization and the need to adapt to these changes, the concept of resilience as an interdisciplinary and positive approach has gained increasing attention over the last decade. However, measuring resilience and monitoring adaptation efforts have received only limited attention from science and practice so far. Thus, this paper aims to provide an indicator set to measure urban climate resilience and monitor adaptation activities. In order to develop this indicator set, a four-step mixed method approach was implemented: (1) based on a literature review, relevant resilience indicators were selected, (2) researchers, consultants and city representatives were then invited to evaluate those indicators in an online survey before the remaining indicator candidates were validated in a workshop (3) and finally reviewed by sector experts (4). This thorough process resulted in 24 indicators distributed over 24 action fields based on secondary data. The participatory approach allowed the research team to take into account the complexity and interdisciplinarity nature of the topic, as well as place- and context-specific parameters. However, it also showed that in order to conduct a holistic assessment of urban climate resilience, a purely quantitative, indicator-based approach is not sufficient, and additional qualitative information is needed.

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.

In diesem Beitrag wird ein großer Teil der publizierten deutschsprachigen, raumwissenschaftlichen Forschungsergebnisse von 2003 bis 2014 auf eine vermutete Lücke zwischen theoriebasierter Forschung und der Planungspraxis hin betrachtet. Dazu werden insgesamt 1929 Beiträge aus Schriftenreihen der Akademie für Raumforschung und Landesplanung (ARL) und drei Fachzeitschriften in unterschiedlichem Detaillierungsgrad analysiert. Im ersten Schritt findet eine Typisierung statt, im zweiten Schritt folgen detailliertere Analysen. Die Vermutung der Diskrepanz wird insgesamt bestätigt. Nur ein Teil der untersuchten Artikel argumentiert erkennbar theoriebasiert. In diesen gelingt die empirische Überprüfung von Theorien meist nur ansatzweise und der praktische Nutzen der Forschungsergebnisse ist nur selten erkennbar. Positionierungen aus der Praxis argumentieren umgekehrt kaum forschungsbasiert. Dieser Befund zeigt auch, dass dem Anspruch der Planungswissenschaften auf Transdisziplinarität nur zum Teil Genüge getan werden kann. Das könnte zum einen auf Gründe im Forschungssystem zurückzuführen sein, ist aber auch forschungskonzeptionellen Defiziten der Raumplanungsforschung geschuldet. In this article a major part of the German-language output in spatial sciences between 2003 and 2014 is examined towards a supposed gap between theory-based research and planning practice. Thus a total of 1929 articles contained in scientific series of the Akademie für Raumforschung und Landesplanung (ARL) and three journals is analysed to different degrees of detailing. In the first step, a classification was conducted in order to organise the empirical results. In a second step, detailed analyses were followed. The assumption of a gap all in all is confirmed: Only a small part of the examined articles argues visible theory-based. And within these articles the empirical examination of theories mostly is succeeding only rudimentary and the practical benefit of the research results is rarely noticeable. This finding as well shows, that the requirement of transdisciplinarity in the planning sciences can only partly be fulfilled. This could be the result from reasons in between the system of research as well as in conceptual deficits in the planning research itself.

The change of paradigm of the policy for rural regions towards cooperative and actor-orientated regional development nowadays is hardly doubted. Nevertheless there are few findings on the effectivity of these subsidiaries. Presented in this article is the result of a nation-wide regional statistical analysis to the correlation of the support-programmes for cooperative regional development on one hand and established regional development indicators und the other hand. The distinctive feature to other analyses is the simultaneous analysis of several programmes supported by several political departements over a longer period. The result is obvious: in fact, effects for the regional development are not commensurable. This remarkable finding should give impulses for the enhancements of the instruments of rural development.

This paper considers the use of planning methods in German planning practice against the background of the ‘communicative turn’. The debate about concepts of rationality in Germany as well as in other countries can be said to have resulted in the paradigm of communicative actor-oriented planning achieving at least the same standing as the analytical rationality of the classical expert-based planning model. The inconsistent use of the term method in research corresponds to empirical findings indicating that the term is used ambiguously in practice. Nonetheless, planning methods fulfil a number of functions in practice. The notion of a relatively clear division between ‘analytical-rational’ methods on the one hand and ‘communicative’ methods on the other hand was relativized by experimental investigations. The setting in which the methods are applied seems of more importance; even apparently ‘analytical-rational’ planning methods can be implemented in a more or less communicative fashion.