Table 1 Synthesizing and summarizing commonalities and differences between the findings for the two cases: Metropolitan Region of Amsterdam (MRA) and Mumbai Metropolitan Region (MMR).

Finding 1: short-lived urban rhythms and tactical urbanism dominate in the face of lock-ins, rendering long-term planning futile.

Both regions prioritize alleged “quick wins” through incremental responses in urban systems with short lifecycles. Both have fixed timeframes for planning.

MRA recognizes the long-term transformation process and the importance of incorporating multiple nested temporal frames within a single planning timeframe. However, the underlying master plan remains static, limiting its adaptability to change.

MMR participants do not discuss long-term strategies, as there is a lack of adherence as well as significant delays in the implementation of master plans.

Finding 2: disasters fail to inform transformative urban change.

Both cases acknowledge the role of disasters as catalysts for change.

MRA’s approach to planning for resilience after

disasters and outlier events remain erratic and abstract.

MMR develops concrete interventions for disaster management, but is highly reactive, and not aligned with risk-informed plans or policies.

Finding 3: overtly structured planning approach in MRA and the prescriptive approach in MMR are restricting temporal flexibility in planning.

Both cases discuss the dynamics of urban renewal, maintenance and transformation as temporal windows to integrate resilience.

A history of structured planning in the MRA has created inertia in existing planning and policy-making, hindering their ability to adapt or respond effectively to disruptions despite ample future projections.

MRA engages in concrete planning approaches incorporating urban layers, enabling tangible strategies.

MMR’s approach is conservative, prescriptive, and mechanical, relying on past metrics and market forces and exhibiting limited flexibility to change.