This research analyzes rural resilience interpretations, highlighting challenges in practice and policy implications.
In recent years, the European Commission has actively promoted the concept of rural resilience (European Commission, 2025), but there are still many divergent views on the operationalisation of the concept at EU, national and local levels. Drawing from quantitative and qualitative evidence (e-survey, 18 semi-structured interviews and four focus groups), from studies based in Ireland, Portugal, Slovenia and EU-wide perspective, we analysed the practitioners’ understanding of rural resilience; and identified key factors and challenges for implementation in practice. Findings reveal that, while rural resilience is a conceptual construct open to multiple interpretations, a clear distinction can be observed between theoretical and practitioner interpretations. Theoretical perspectives tend to adopt a broader, more systematic view of rural resilience, transformative and “bouncing forward” approaches, whereas practitioner interpretations are typically narrower, focusing on robustness, adaptability, context-specific actions and immediate community needs. Our findings have implications for policy formation, highlighting that resilience is a long-term process rather than a fixed outcome.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mikolič et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: