CONCEPT FACTSHEET
<aside>
Mainly considers SOIL PERFORMANCE and QUALITY challenges ****
In URBAN, PERI-URBAN and RURAL settings
No Net Land Take (NNLT) Hierarchy: COMPENSATE
Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) Hierarchy: AVOID
| Main spatial planning challenges it addresses: | UNHEALTHY AND UNSAFE LIVING ENVIRONMENT |
|---|---|
| LOSS OF NATURE QUANTITY AND QUALITY | |
| HIGH CO2 EMISSIONS | |
| WATER QUANTITY EXTREMES | |
| Main soil challenges it addresses: | REDUCED REGULATION SERVICES |
| REDUCED CARRYING SERVICES | |
| LOSS IN BIODIVERSITY IN SOILS | |
| WATER IMBALANCES | |
| Main Families of Soil Practices it connects to: | WATER-SENSITIVE PRACTICES |
| RESTORING FOREST COVER | |
| RESTORING AND REGENERATING DEGRADED SOILS | |
| Spatial morphology it is mostly linked to: | ALL SPATIAL MORPHOLOGIES |
| </aside> |
In the face of a changing climate that negatively impacts nature, ecosystems, human activities and settlements, the planning practice finds itself in need to respond, prepare and anticipate for (further) damage. In this context, climate adaptation planning is a timely concept that can support practitioners and policy makers in the development of resilient territories, reducing harm and contributing to the exploitation of beneficial opportunities (IPCC, 2022). Undeniable acknowledgement of the importance of climate adaptation planning is the fact that adaptation measures have already been mainstreamed in major European frameworks such as the EU Adaptation Strategy (2021) and the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 (includes the Nature Restoration Law (2024)), on top of the fact that Member States are increasingly integrating climate change adaptation strategies in their national planning systems (EC, 2021b).
Recognising the role that natural assets can play in climate action as key providers of ecosystem services (EC, 2021a), securing the protection and stewardship of natural resources is an essential task within adaptation measures (IPCC, 2019). Among them, soil is central for planning, not only because of its role within environmental cycles and the ecosystem services it provides (reducing flood risks, storing carbon, supporting resilient ecosystems), but also because it sustains human activities, infrastructure, production systems, and settlements (EC, 2021a). Planning decisions that fail to consider it will eventually fail to support sustainable livelihoods.
<aside>
Contents
</aside>
Climate change adaptation planning and resilience refers to planning decisions that take current and future climatic conditions into account, placing particular focus on its changing features in the face of global environmental pressures. The application of this concept aims to anticipate, prepare for, “minimize and compensate the negative impacts of climate change while simultaneously identifying and capitalizing on potential opportunities” (Birchall & Koleyak, 2023, p. 63). In other words, adaptation measures in planning aim at moderating harm, reducing vulnerability and building territorial resilience (IPCC, 2022).
The effects of climate change pose significant, tangible stress for humans, biodiversity, economic systems and natural resources. They can take the form of both sudden, extreme events, (like heatwaves or heavy rainfall) or slow, progressive phenomena (such as drought, or biodiversity loss) (Birchall & Koleyak, 2023). Climate change adaptation planning should take both into account, making use of diverse tools to prepare for and address them. From policy frameworks to land use decisions, regulations of anthropogenic mass and protection of natural ecosystems, urban and regional planners can use a myriad of strategies to promote territorial resilience and sustainability across urban, peri-urban and rural areas. Instruments can be translated into water resource planning, biodiversity conservation measures, risk management, environmental assessments, design of climate-resilient and green infrastructure, among others (EEA, 2020; IPCC, 2022).
Nature protection plays a key role in climate change adaptation planning and resilience, given the essential ecosystem services that it provides. In this context, soil occupies a central position (EC, 2021a; EC, 2021b). Its capacity to absorb water, support vegetation and agricultural production, store carbon, reduce flood and drought risks, and host biodiversity (EC, 2021a; IPCC, 2019) makes it a central asset to be protected and preserved, “an indispensable ally for climate change mitigation and adaptation” (EC, 2021a, p. 1).
Climate change adaptation planning and resilience has therefore immense potential for soil-inclusivity across urban, peri-urban and rural settings. Accounting for soil conditions and the effects of territorial development for them, adaptation planning can draw on a range of soil-inclusive spatial concepts. Among them, the sponge-city concept, floodable parks, and green roofs are particularly relevant for urban contexts, where built-up areas with large proportions of sealed land can be found. Nature-based solutions can also be applied in urban settings, as well as in peri-urban ones. In these areas, green-blue infrastructure can play a key role in soil-inclusive development too. In rural settings, peatland restoration and water-sensitive design hold great power for the promotion and protection of soil health.
<aside>
DISCOVER MORE ABOUT
Click on the tabs to find out more about these concepts.
Sponge City - Sponge Landscapes
The concept of sponge city stems from recent initiatives that are being implemented in the context of effective urban stormwater management. Based on ecological principles and centred around water ecosystems, the concept emerged in China, against a background of rapid urban expansion, high levels of soil sealing and climate change, all of which combined resulted in reduced capacities for urban centres to manage heavy rainfall (and other extreme climatic events) (Wan & Zhang, 2026; Zhang et al., 2019). Similar to the Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDSs) in the United Kingdom and Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) in Australia, the sponge city concept addresses flood risks by working both with stormwater management systems and green infrastructure (Tong et al., 2026). It aims at managing runoff “at its source before it enters the environment,” meaning a network of local, decentralised solutions addressing the problem on site, in the same area where precipitation falls, stimulating soil infiltration (Tong et al., 2026, p. 2; SpongeScapes, 2024).
The sponge city strategy aims not only at catching and absorbing stormwater, but also at storing it and saving it, to later on release it gradually, like a sponge (Zhang et al., 2019). This management, which relies on the water regulation and filtering capacity of healthy, unsealed soils, can be particularly useful in times of water shortages.
In practice, the sponge city concept can translate into a number of measures operating at different scales. At the park level, a typology of sponge city park can be based on their position in the local hydrological sequence: source landscapes, where rainfall is intercepted and infiltrated close to where it falls (e.g. sunken green spaces, bioretention areas, permeable surfaces); flow landscapes, which convey and slow down runoff as it moves through the site (e.g. bioswales, vegetated channels); and sink landscapes, which collect and temporarily hold larger volumes of water (e.g. retention and detention ponds, constructed wetlands) (Tong et al., 2026). Beyond parks, the same logic can be applied at building and catchment scale through green roofs, rain gardens, permeable pavements, and underground storage tanks or cisterns, often combined within a single site as a "treatment train" rather than deployed as standalone features (Zhang et al., 2019). This decentralised, multi-scalar deployment, sometimes referred to in the literature as Low Impact Development (LID), contributes to limiting the extent of soil sealing, and is what distinguishes the sponge city approach from conventional centralised drainage infrastructure, which relies on pipes and large reservoirs to move water away rather than retaining it on site (Zhang et al., 2019).
While sponge city measures are typically discussed at the urban scale, they can also be situated across peri-urban and rural landscapes, applying different measures along the water’s natural path. In upper, rural parts of a catchment, interception and infiltration can be prioritised through land uses such as reforestation and permeable soils; on slopes and in agricultural areas further down, the emphasis shifts to slowing runoff through practices such as hedgerows, buffer strips, and micro-relief; and in the lower valleys the focus turns to temporary storage through wetland restoration, floodplain reconnection, and detention basins (SpongeScapes, 2024).
In this sense, the sponge city and sponge landscapes concept offers a concrete pathway for soil-inclusive climate change adaptation planning, with soil health as a necessary requirement of stormwater management, rather than a separate planning concern.
Nature-based Solutions
Nature-based Solutions (NbS) are defined by the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) as “actions to protect, conserve, restore, sustainably use and manage natural or modified terrestrial, freshwater, coastal and marine ecosystems which address social, economic and environmental challenges effectively and adaptively, while simultaneously providing human well-being, ecosystem services, resilience and biodiversity benefits” (UNEP, 2022, p. 2). The concept, which became popular in the early 2010s, encompasses a broad spectrum of actions that can take up diverse shapes and be applied across a myriad of contexts. To prevent this comprehensiveness from rendering the concept meaningless, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) developed the Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions, an operational framework comprising eight criteria to guide effective NbS:
In the context of spatial planning and design, and under the climate change adaptation approach, NbS can be translated into urban tree planting, de-sealing actions, constructed wetlands or coastal dune management, as well as green roofs and walls, urban forests, agroforestry systems and floodplain restoration, spanning a spectrum from largely ecological to more engineered solutions, explored further under green-blue infrastructure. These interventions can directly affect soil structure and improve soil health, helping address infiltration capacity challenges, contamination, biodiversity loss, reduced nutrient storage, and low provisioning and regulation services, among others. The EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 and the EU Mission "A Soil Deal for Europe" have both positioned NbS as a cornerstone of European climate adaptation and land management policy (European Commission, 2020).
Green-Blue Infrastructure
Green-blue infrastructure refers to a planned network of natural, semi-natural and artificial spaces (with parks, wetlands, river corridors, urban forests, permeable surfaces, and water bodies) that delivers multiple ecosystem services simultaneously (European Commission, 2013; Ghofrani et al., 2017). The 'green' component encompasses vegetation and soil-based systems; the 'blue' includes water bodies, drainage channels, and hydrological processes. Together, they form a spatially interconnected network that delivers multiple ecosystem services, moderating heat, managing stormwater and controlling floods, supporting biodiversity, improving air and water quality, and providing health benefits (as well as recreational ones) (Ghofrani et al, 2017; Lamond & Everett, 2019).
This concept operates across multiple geographic levels, from site and catchment to city-region and rural landscapes, and relies highly on connectivity for its benefits to be realised: an interconnected network of green-blue elements delivers services that isolated components cannot, including water storage for agricultural irrigation and industrial use in rural and peri-urban contexts (Ghofrani et al., 2017).
Soil sits at the foundation of the green-blue infrastructure network. The European Commission (2013) identifies land and soil as key components of the EU's natural capital, and argues that systematically incorporating green-blue infrastructure into spatial planning and design and decision-making helps reduce the loss of ecosystem services associated with land take and soil sealing, contributing directly to restoring soil functions. In this sense, soil health preservation and promotion are a core of the objectives of green-blue infrastructure planning and design.
Peatland Restoration
Peatland restoration represents a significant climate adaptation (and mitigation) intervention at the landscape scale: peatlands are among the most efficient carbon sequestration systems of the planet (Andersen et al., 2016; Parish et al., 2007). In Europe, they are estimated to cover around 5.5% of the land surface and storing over 20% of the terrestrial soil carbon stock (Zak & McInnes, 2022). Peatlands, which can be found in different types (the most prominent, bogs and fens) are wetland ecosystems characterised by the accumulation of partially decomposed organic matter (peat) under waterlogged conditions (Parish et al., 2007). They are critical for biodiversity conservation, climate regulation and human wellbeing, and they also play a key role in water management, storing high quantities of global freshwater, as well as slowing its release in upland catchments and reducing downstream flood risk (Andersen et al., 2016; Parish et al., 2007). When degraded (due to drainage, grazing, urban development, exploitation or fires), peatlands can become significant sources of carbon dioxide emissions and lose their capacity to manage water flows, regulate floods, and sustain biodiversity (Parish et al., 2007).
Since fully recovering a degraded peatland’s carbon, water and biodiversity related functions is both timely and complex, protecting intact and neat-natural peatlands is generally more effective than restoring them (Zak & McInnes, 2022). In this sense, spatial planning and design can play a key preventive role: designating peatlands and their surrounding buffer zones within ecological networks or protected areas, controlling drainage and peat extraction, and regulating land uses on adjacent land that affect the water table. The EU Nature Restoration Law sets binding targets for peatland protection and restoration, but recent evidence cautions against land-use choices that appear beneficial but are not: afforesting drained peatlands without first restoring their hydrology, for instance, does not fully recover ecosystem function and can further compromise long-term carbon storage (Jurasinski et al., 2024). For spatial planning, this underlines the need for land-use decisions around peatlands to be grounded in hydrological and soil evidence, rather than in vegetation cover alone.
Restoration, when needed, can reverse degradation processes through rewetting measures, (ditch blocking, dam removal, interrupting water pumping) applied both in progressive, “slow” terms and through inundation, as well as by removing degraded topsoils (Zak & McInnes, 2022). Peatland restoration outcomes are however neither immediate nor uniform. Carbon and nitrogen sequestration can recover relatively quickly following rewetting, but biodiversity recovery is typically much slower, sometimes taking decades (Zak & McInnes, 2022). This means that the most suitable rewetting strategy depends on site-specific factors, on one hand, and that long-term timeframes must be considered in decision-making for restoration measures to be successful, on the other.
</aside>
The application of this concept can help address the following soil-related planning challenges: