Purpose Extreme weather events driven by climate change, such as heatwaves, droughts and floods, significantly threaten urban sustainability and ecosystems. Coordinated and comprehensive urban planning is crucial for mitigation efforts. Climate change adaptation documents (CCADs) are essential tools for building urban resilience. However, their scope and focus vary significantly depending on the national and local context. This paper aims to compare Czech and German CCADs, specifically focusing on adaptation measures for water retention, drought mitigation and heat island reduction. Design/methodology/approach The study examined city size, wealth and CCAD publication dates. By analysing specific adaptation measures, the authors identified differences in CCADs between large and small cities, as well as among cities of similar size and wealth. In addition, it was investigated whether the aspect of time plays a relevant role. The scope of this study is focused on the content analysis of the planning documents themselves; it does not assess the real-world implementation rates, effectiveness or “success” of the proposed measures. Findings Qualitative content analysis reveals fundamental differences between CCADs; however, no significant variation was found based on city size and wealth. Research limitations/implications Limited by content analysis, the study cannot explain planner motivations. Future qualitative research is needed to investigate the political and social drivers behind CCAD development. Social implications CCADs enhance urban resilience and quality of life by mitigating extreme weather. The study reveals differing national risk perceptions (drought vs flood). Inconsistent plan quality implies social inequity in climate resilience and highlights the need for public engagement to improve preparedness. Public engagement and addressing vulnerabilities are crucial for equitable adaptation outcomes. Originality/value Unlike previous studies comparing CCADs, this paper focuses on specific adaptation measures.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Čermáková et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: