Resilience isn’t one-size-fits-all: Rethinking resilience for locally impactful solutions

The term resilience gets used frequently these days, especially in hurricane-prone places like Florida. But what it actually means can vary depending on who is using it and in what context. When discussing flood-related hazards, whether coastal, fluvial, or pluvial, resilience might refer to green infrastructure, flood storage, floodplain restoration, seawalls, water/wastewater utilities, elevated roadways, drainage upgrades, or zoning changes. Resilience can also refer to the impacts from other climate-related hazards, such as extreme high and low temperatures. It can also refer to other topics not related to climate, such as information technology systems, the electrical grid, the economic system, or the social environment. This wide range of interpretations is part of the challenge. Without a consistent definition, the term can become vague or even misleading.

The sometimes-ambiguous use of “resilience” can lead to confusion, especially in floodplain planning and infrastructure design, where decisions directly affect public safety and long-term investment. Florida is a compelling case. The state’s low-lying terrain, growing population, and exposure to increasingly intense weather are pushing existing systems beyond their design capacity. In this environment, defining resilience clearly and implementing forward-thinking, practical solutions is more critical than ever.

Resilience is not a one-size-fits-all concept. The strategies that work in one community might not be feasible or appropriate elsewhere. Understanding how local context, regulatory frameworks, and planning priorities shape resilience efforts is essential to implementing effective solutions.

In recent years, the concept of resilience has moved from specialized planning circles into a broader public discourse. It is now commonly featured in municipal planning documents, state policies, and infrastructure funding programs. While this shift reflects an encouraging level of attention, it also brings risks. As the term becomes more widely used, its meaning tends to drift or become overly broad.

For some, resilience means investing in physical infrastructure to manage future flood risks, such as larger pipes, new mechanical utility infrastructure, seawalls, or berms along waterfront parks. For others, it may center on policy-driven efforts such as land-use planning, regulatory changes like new policies or by-laws, or the integration of nature-based solutions as part of infrastructure improvements and new development/redevelopment projects. While all these approaches can contribute to resilience, using the term too broadly can lead to misinterpretation. It becomes difficult to assess which strategies are most effective or whether they address the underlying vulnerabilities at all.

Labeling a project as resilient does not automatically imply it improves a community’s capacity to prepare for, respond to, or recover from extreme weather. It also does not imply that the project will not be impacted by extreme weather, but rather that it has the ability to bounce back to its functional condition faster after a significant event. That gap between a project’s label and its functionality can complicate funding priorities, public expectations, and long-term planning efforts. It is essential to define what resilience means in each context, what the goals are, how outcomes will be measured, and who ultimately would benefit.

There are several commonly referenced approaches to achieving resilience:

• Green infrastructure employs natural systems or processes to attenuate, capture, and treat stormwater and infiltrate it into the ground. Examples include bioswales, constructed wetlands, rain gardens, and permeable pavement. These options can reduce the burden on gray infrastructure while providing co-benefits such as urban cooling, improved air and water quality, or biodiversity. Green infrastructure is often a flexible, scalable option that allows for adaptation over time, which is a key quality in resilience planning.
• Floodplain restoration is another widely recognized strategy. This can involve removing impediments in existing flood pathways, regrading land, or reconnecting engineered waterways to their natural flood storage areas or flow paths. These efforts reduce downstream flood risk, improve ecological function, and can lower insurance costs. In rapidly developing areas like Florida, even modest restoration efforts can have significant benefits in flood reduction, particularly where historical floodplains have been paved over.
• Gray infrastructure solutions, such as levees, seawalls, pump stations, underground storage tanks, larger conveyance pipes, and elevated roadways are also essential, especially in high-risk, built-out areas. These systems are critical to maintaining functionality during severe weather. However, they often come with high construction and maintenance costs and may offer limited flexibility over time. Many communities are now seeking a hybrid approach that leverages both green and gray solutions to meet multiple goals.

The implementation of resilient design can also differ geographically. Florida exemplifies the growing urgency for integrated planning. Much of the state’s stormwater infrastructure was not designed for today’s rainfall patterns, let alone future projections. Continued development adds more impervious surfaces and compounds stormwater runoff issues. In response, many local governments have updated their design standards to reflect future precipitation trends, invested in major drainage upgrades, revised zoning codes to limit construction, or imposed additional flood mitigation requirements in vulnerable areas. While these efforts vary across jurisdictions, the trend is clear: resilience must be embedded early in planning and budgeting.

Other states provide instructive contrasts. In South Carolina, strategies around resilience have emphasized large-scale land conservation and marsh restoration as buffers against coastal flooding. Community-driven efforts have focused on elevating structures and improving localized drainage in flood-prone neighborhoods.

In Massachusetts, where communities face both coastal and inland flood risks, resilience efforts have centered on regulatory approaches. The state has supported green infrastructure retrofits, floodplain buyouts, and dam removals to enhance flood storage capacity. Rather than relocating infrastructure outright, most municipalities have used land use regulations to steer new development and redevelopment toward safer, more sustainable outcomes.

These examples underscore a central truth: resilience is inherently local. Topography, development patterns, policy frameworks, and funding resources all influence which strategies are appropriate and achievable. A solution that works in Charleston, South Carolina, or Boston may not translate directly to Tampa or Fort Myers, Florida, and vice versa. That is why clear definitions, thoughtful prioritization, and site-specific planning are critical.

For engineering and planning professionals, defining goals upfront is essential. Are we trying to reduce chronic or acute flooding? Improve water quality? Protect vulnerable populations or critical infrastructure? These answers guide not only the technical approach but also how success is measured over time. And given the uncertainty of future weather impacts, designs must also prioritize flexibility and long-term adaptability.

As communities face more frequent and severe weather events, resilience has become a defining theme in planning and infrastructure design. But resilience is not a single project or a static checklist. It is a mindset and an approach to understanding risk, setting priorities, and building systems that reflect local conditions and future needs.

There is no universal model for resilience. Each community must assess its own landscape, constraints, and opportunities. Whether through green infrastructure, structural upgrades, policy reform, or all of the above, the goal remains the same: to build systems and communities capable of withstanding disruption and recovering stronger.

Resilience only succeeds when it is grounded in clear definitions, informed by science, and implemented through long-term, coordinated planning.