Inland Adaptation: Developing a Studio Model for
Climate-adaptive Design as a Framework for Design Practice
Joshua Frank Cerra
ABSTRACT Climate change is coming to every city, and
many cities will experience dramatic climate change–
associated extremes in temperature and precipitation,
with serious impacts on human and natural systems.
This article shares a studio approach used at both the
graduate and undergraduate level for investigating the
many impacts of climate change and promoting a more
comprehensive approach to climate-adaptive design,
especially for inland city locations. Adaptation strate-
gies in the framework include (a) floodplain storage;
(b) low impact development; (c) resilient planting design/
ecological resilience; (d) landscape connectivity; (e) urban
heat island mitigation; and (f) multi-modal mobility. The
framework draws from existing techniques and methods
that are currently utilized in design practice and urban
ecological planning, yet not typically configured as a com-
prehensive scope of services for climate adaptation. Such
a framework for climate-adaptive design in non-coastal
locations could have practical applications for landscape
architects.
© 2016 by the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System
KEYWORDS Studio pedagogy, climate change, climate
adaptation, urban ecological design
Landscape Journal 35:1 ISSN 0277-2426
INTRODUCTION
The science of climate change has developed substan-
tially, and the anticipated impacts of climate change on
urban infrastructure are becoming clearer. However,
the design community is just beginning to address the
need to confront the impacts of climate change in a
comprehensive manner. Climate change is projected
to have broad and far-reaching impacts on multiple
aspects of public health, safety, and welfare. While
addressing coastal climate change impacts is a criti-
cal climate-adaptive response for many cities, climate
change also presents a broad array of inland urban
impacts to which landscape architects should respond
as well. In fact, many site planning and design prac-
tices already possess climate-adaptive potential, but
they are not yet configured as a comprehensive scope
of services for climate adaptation.
Landscape architecture can further enhance its
design impact by leveraging ecological processes in
cities (Pickett and Cadenasso 2008). Urban ecosystems
can provide important benefits for cities in the form of
ecosystem services (Mooney and Brown 2013). There is
increasing interest in intentionally incorporating urban
ecosystems and biodiversity into project planning and
design (see for example Colls, Ash and Ikkala 2009,
Müller and Werner 2010, Secretariat of the Conven-
tion on Biological Diversity 2012). Recognition of the
value of ecological processes and ecosystem services
as agents for climate mitigation and climate adapta-
tion is also increasing (see for example Secretariat of
the Convention on Biodiversity 2009, Douglas 2011,
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity
2012). Urban ecological design and green infrastruc-
ture techniques can guide these processes for climate
adaptation benefits (Steiner 2014, US EPA 2014a).
Climate change affects all urban areas, and cities
will experience dramatic climate-change-associated
extremes in temperature and precipitation, with seri-
ous impacts on human and natural systems. Depending
on location, these impacts may include flooding, heat
waves, drought, excessive energy demands, shifting
plant communities, and other impacts that threaten
city infrastructure and public health, safety, and wel-
fare (Melillo, Richmond, and Yohe 2014). A more com-
prehensive approach to climate-adaptive design could
provide an expanded scope of services that combines
existing capabilities in landscape architecture with
emerging capabilities in urban ecological planning
and design to address the multiple impacts of climate
change.
In the interests of exploring the potential for com-
prehensive approaches to climate-adaptive design, we
developed a studio course sequence titled the “Urban
Resilience + Ecosystem Services Design Laboratory.”
The intent of this sequence is to engage the studio
design process as a resource for investigating the fol-
lowing research questions:
• Considering the many impacts of climate
change, how might we generate a more
comprehensive climate-adaptive approach in a
studio environment?
• How might such a response be organized into
a practical framework for conducting climate-
adaptive design in inland locations?
In the fi rst two years, this studio model was run at
both the undergraduate and graduate levels. The fi rst
was a second-year graduate studio design investigation
of a park and mixed-use area along Cascadilla Creek
in Ithaca, New York in spring 2013. The second was a
fourth-year undergraduate studio design investigation
of several potential urban redevelopment areas along
Onondaga Creek in downtown Syracuse, New York in
fall 2014. The results of this work form the basis for
this article.
The fi rst section of this article is pedagogical: it
summarizes a methodological approach for incorpo-
rating the best available climate science into a design
studio environment so that climate change projections
and their many impacts can be understood, synthe-
sized, and incorporated into the design process. After
sharing the studio case studies, the second portion of
the article describes a framework for climate-adaptive
design in inland locations that emerged from these
38 Landscape Journal 35:1
studio experiences. It proposes a set of design strate-
gies that together seek to address multiple climate
change impacts at the site level in a comprehensive and
inclusive way. The article closes with reflections on
development of this investigation in an academic stu-
dio environment, and ongoing work to further expand
the depth and breadth of this framework to enhance its
future pedagogical and practical potential.
APPROACH
Climate change is complex and systemic. Its many
impacts on individual human and natural systems, as
well as the interactive impacts between these systems,
require significant amounts of technical learning and
comprehension to develop the critical design perspec-
tive necessary for approaching climate adaptation
comprehensively. While principles of climate change
and climate adaptation are sometimes offered as a
separate course, within the context of a design studio
time is of the essence, and students must rapidly absorb
and digest this material. Students therefore worked
in teams on the technical “content learning” and site
analysis work, and then pooled this information by
presenting conclusions to the entire class and creating
studio “artifacts” with key reference content. Project
design was also conducted in teams to improve the
depth and breadth of design development. Aspects of
this team approach could be compared to the phasing,
workflow, and coordination strategies used in inter-
disciplinary practice environments for larger projects
impacting multiple systems.
Approaches to climate adaptation policy and
planning are well-represented in the literature (see
for example Jones 2001, Carter et al. 2003, Lim et al.
2005, Lynch et al. 2008). Adaptation planning is
similar to other planning processes in that it identifies
potential problems and options for addressing them,
develops priorities for adaptation, and makes choices
for implementation (National Research Council (U.S.)
Committee on America’s Climate Choices 2010).
Post-implementation monitoring and evaluation is also
a key component of an adaptive approach (National
Research Council (U.S.) Committee on America’s
Climate Choices 2010). We adapted a related approach
by making key modifications to: (a) accommodate an
academic studio setting; (b) pursue our primary goal of
exploring a range of possible climate-adaptive design
interventions for landscape architects; and (c) focus
explicitly on site-based climate adaptation. Each studio
pursued the following four objectives: (a) to understand
climate change projections and assess climate impacts;
(b) to identify climate-adaptive design options; (c) to
conduct site and systems-based analyses; and (d) to
design and evaluate climate-adaptive design proposals.
Understanding Climate Change Projections and
Assessing Climate Change Impacts
In 2000, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) released an updated set of possible
scenarios for future greenhouse gas emissions that
are described in the IPCC Special Report on Emis-
sions Scenarios (SRES) (IPCC 2000). Each scenario or
“storyline” reflects the outcome of a different com-
bination of possible demographic, social, economic,
technological, and environmental development drivers
that may influence global future greenhouse gas emis-
sions (IPCC 2000). These “new scenarios provide . . .
input for evaluating the climatic and environmental
consequences of greenhouse emissions and for assess-
ing alternative mitigation and adaptation strategies”
(IPCC 2000, v). Climate change assessments often use
these scenarios for climate change analysis, modeling,
and assessment of climate impacts and/or adaptation.
In the United States, some state-level climate
change assessments are available. Where state-level
assessments are not available, a national-level assess-
ment has been developed by the National Climate
Assessment and Development Advisory Committee
(NCADAC Report) (Melillo, Richmond, and Yohe
2014). The NCADAC Report used two SRES emis-
sions scenarios to develop possible future impacts of
future greenhouse gas emissions (NCADAC 2015).
The “A2 scenario” would result in higher emissions
and high levels of climate change. The “B1 scenario”
would result in lower rates of emissions and lower lev-
els of climate change (NCADAC 2015). The NCADAC
report was available as a draft in 2013, and a fi nal-
ized document in 2014 (Melillo, Richmond, and Yohe
2014). The studio design teams reviewed the most cur-
rent draft of this report.
Climate change projections, impacts, and climate
adaptation options are also particularly well docu-
mented in New York State. The ClimAID Integrated
Assessment for Effective Climate Change Adapta-
tion Technical and Synthesis reports (ClimAID
Reports) describe climate change projections and
climate impacts on key topical areas (including water
resources, coastal zones, ecosystems, agriculture,
energy, transportation, telecommunications, and
public health) for each of seven regions of the state
(Rosenzweig et al. 2011a, Rosenzweig et al. 2011b,
Cornell Cooperative Extension 2011). The models used
are based on the same IPCC A2 and B1 scenarios used
in the NCADAC report, and also use the IPCC A1B
scenario as a mid-range future emission and climate
change impact scenario between the A2 and B1 sce-
narios (Rosenzweig 2011a). The studio design teams
used the ClimAID Reports and their updated projec-
tions, released in 2014 (Horton et al. 2014), as their
primary references for understanding the most current
climate projections for the region of the state in which
their project site was located. The reports also helped
teams identify which impacts may have the greatest
effect on land uses in the overall inland region of their
project site location.
Teams shared their fi ndings in presentation board
format with another team that had studied the same
content. This “peer symposium” approach facilitated
discussion of the similarities and differences in the
fi ndings and conclusions amongst the teams. This
approach enhanced students' critical thinking by ask-
ing them to identify and extract the most valuable
information related to climate change projections and
their impacts on key topical areas. It improved student
comprehension of knowledge by asking them to share
their fi ndings in graphic, written, and verbal formats
and then engage in peer conversation related to their
fi ndings. It encouraged students to think graphically
about climate topics by capturing complex informa-
tion in diagrams and vignettes. Finally, this approach
improved the likelihood that critical information
would be carried forward into the studio investigation.
Identifying Climate-Adaptive Design Options
In considering how design might respond to projected
climate change impacts, studio teams documented
adaptation options identified in the ClimAID Reports;
other state-level recommendations (for example,
recommendations of the New York State (NYS) 2100
Commission 2013); the NCADAC Report; selected
journal articles (such as Hunter 2011, and Beer 2010);
municipal climate action planning and policy docu-
ments when available (such as City of Ithaca 2006,
City of Ithaca 2012, and Onondaga County 2012); and
Cerra 39
precedent studies (beginning with those in compendi-
ums such as Landscape Institute 2008, Shaw, Colley
and Connell 2007, and Kazmierczak and Carter 2010).
Case studies that addressed an issue related to climate
change, though perhaps not originally introduced to
address climate change per se (for example, resolving
existing flooding issues or urban heat island concerns),
were also considered. Cognizant of the interconnect-
edness of both human and natural systems in cities,
the students particularly sought adaptation options
that provided compound benefits to both the built and
natural environments.
These climate adaptation measures were orga-
nized into general categories and entered into a
spreadsheet. Entries contained descriptive content
for each adaptation measure, including the climate
change impact addressed, adaptation benefits pro-
vided, possible metrics to evaluate the effectiveness of
the intervention, an example precedent when available,
secondary adaptation benefits, and source information.
The result was an organized studio reference library
of climate adaptation options for use during the design
development process.
Conduct Systems-based and Site-based Analyses
Climate change will impact project site locations, but
its overall impacts will be systemic and spread over
a broad spatial extent, necessitating investigation of
a project at multiple scales during the inventory and
analysis phase. Climate-adaptive design proposals
must also be both compatible with current conditions
and future plans for a project area. Student teams
therefore examined comprehensive land use plans and
related municipal policy documents to evaluate how
climate change impacts will affect future planning
goals for the proposed project location and vicin-
ity. They also examined available state, regional,
and/or local climate action plans to position their
climate-adaptive design strategies within a broader
policy strategy for climate adaptation.
Using an extensive GIS and CAD dataset devel-
oped prior to the studio, student teams examined
systems-scale transportation and movement networks,
urban watershed and hydrologic contexts, landscape
ecological and urban ecological conditions, climate
and physiography, and urban planning and social con-
texts. They speculated on how these systems catego-
ries may be impacted by climate change as well as the
40 Landscape Journal 35:1
types of adaptation measures that might best address
these landscape-scale impacts. At the project site-scale,
design teams examined topics in urban hydrology and
hydraulics (stormwater catchment analysis, catch basin
mapping, local flood elevation profi les), urban ecosys-
tems (existing plant communities, vegetative struc-
ture, wildlife data), structures and features (building
inventories, occupancy, site circulation), and experi-
ence (sequenced views analysis, local amenities). The
climate-based focus of the studio guided the emphasis
and specificity of how topics were explored. Each team
presented their work for discussion and documented
their conclusions for use during design development.
Design and Evaluate Proposals
The design process continued through site synthe-
sis, concept development, site planning, and design
development. Several strategies were used to maintain
a focus on climate-adaptive design thinking amidst
other, sometimes competing, project themes. The fi rst
was design team selection. While all students had a
working knowledge of informational content generated
in the studio and access to studio reference mate-
rials, students developed specific types of “expertise”
depending on which topics they had researched during
earlier phases. In an attempt to promote more inclusive
design approaches covering a wider range of adapta-
tion types, team composition was reshuffled for the
design phase to mix the various types of topical exper-
tise among the two students within a design team.
The second strategy was early goal setting for cli-
mate adaptation and development of a project concept
around these goals. In developing goals for project
concepts, the design teams diagrammed key site and
systems processes, examining both their susceptibil-
ity to climate change impacts and the potential for
adaptive response to these impacts. This combined
synthesis and early concept diagramming guided the
transition from climate-based site analysis to develop-
ment of adaptive design strategies for the project site.
Students subsequently created a concise concept state-
ment. Teams were periodically encouraged to revisit
this statement and accompanying diagrams as a type of
design “touchstone” when advancing their proposals.
The third strategy was use of site-level metrics
and systems-level “project proofs” to evaluate project
effectiveness. Student teams developed a set of measur-
able criteria to periodically evaluate the effectiveness
Figure 1
Context map of Thompson
Triangle Park project area, Ithaca,
NY. Triangle Park is in the center
of the image. A creek divides the
Northside and Fall Creek residential
neighborhoods, which surround
the park. The commercial/mixed
use area on the east side of Cayuga
street is also within the project area
boundary. (Image by Qiuwei Liu,
Cornell Landscape Architecture.)
of their project in meeting climate adaptation goals.
They were also asked to develop “project proofs”
in the form of plan or axonometric diagrams show-
ing how their designed site would perform at the
systems level to address climate adaptation needs.
These methods maintained climate adaptation objec-
tives as top priorities as projects advanced and helped
student teams “tune” and refi ne their project during
design development for improved climate-adaptive
performance.
STUDIO CASE STUDY LOCATIONS
The studios took place at two inland site locations in
central New York State to generate, test, and refi ne
the proposed climate-adaptive design framework.
While given considerable flexibility in terms of project
program, students needed to produce design propos-
als that were: (a) compatible with future municipal
planning and policy goals; and (b) adaptive to future
climate change impacts. Different land use contexts
were selected for the studios to generate a set of design
strategies having potential application across a range
of land use types.
Thompson Triangle Park Area, Ithaca New York
Development and testing of the climate-adaptive
design framework began in a Spring 2013 second-year
graduate design studio. The studio was situated on a
site that had experienced a series of extreme regional
precipitation events resulting in locally elevated
stream levels in Ithaca between 2011 and 2013. One
of these events coincided with extensive inland flood-
ing throughout other parts of Central New York State
due to Hurricane Irene in 2011. Located in Ithaca,
New York, Thompson Triangle Park is a 1.2 acre open
space composed primarily of turf with isolated clusters
of trees and shrubs (Figure 1). The park is bounded
by Cascadilla Creek, the mainstem of a relatively
small watershed draining north to Cayuga Lake. The
creek is heavily channelized within a concrete channel
along its entire length through the city, where it also
receives stormwater from outfalls draining impervious
urban surfaces in the watershed. It is subject to flood-
ing downstream in areas where residential proper-
ties are located in the 100-year Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) floodplain. Bounding
the eastern edge of the park, Cayuga Street is a major
north-south artery serving multiple bus lines. A com-
bination of commercial and mixed-use buildings exists
across the street from the park. Surrounding neigh-
borhoods contain a mixture of densely-packed, single
family and multifamily housing.
Downtown Armory Square Area, Syracuse, New York
The second studio investigation occurred in a Fall 2014
undergraduate fourth-year urban design studio. In
addition to undergraduate students in landscape archi-
tecture, enrollment in this studio included four senior
Cerra 41
 Figure 2
Context map of Downtown Armory
Square Area, Syracuse, NY. The
Clinton Site project area is the
southernmost of the three project
areas. The site is separated from the
Armory Square area by an above-
grade railroad support structure.
The middle project area contains an
open parking lot on the west side of
Onondaga Creek and a small park
and Creekwalk trail connection on
the east side. The northern project
area straddles the creek where the
Creekwalk trail re-enters the creek
corridor. (Image by Qiuwei Liu,
Cornell Landscape Architecture.)

Table 1. Climate Change Projections for Regions of New York State

Duration of heat
Change in Change in Days Number waves
precipitation (%) Temperature (°F) over 90°F of heat waves (in days)
Change from Change from Change from Change from Change from
baseline period baseline period baseline period baseline period baseline period
ClimAID Region 2050’s 2080’s 2050’s 2080’s 2050’s 2080’s 2050’s 2080’s 2050’s 2080’s
Region 1 +4 to +10 +4 to +13 +4.3 to +6.3 +5.7 to +9.6 22 to 34 27 to 57 3 to 4 3 to 8 4 to 5 5 to 6
(Syracuse Site) (8) (8) (.7) (.7) (4) (4)
Region 3 +4 to +10 +6 to +14 +4.4 to +6.3 +5.7 to +9.9 26 to 41 33 to 67 3 to 6 4 to 9 5 to 5 5 to 6
(Ithaca Site) (10) (10) (1) (1) (4) (4)

References time period is from baseline to 2050.

Source: Horton et al., 2014. Middle Range estimates (25th percentile to 75th percentile) are shown. “Baseline data (shown in parenthesis)
are for the 1971 to 2000 base period and are from the NOAA National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)” (Horton et al. 2014, 13).
“Heat waves are defined as three or more consecutive days with maximum temperatures at or above 90 °F” (Horton et al. 2014, 13).

42 Landscape Journal 35:1

urban and regional planning students who participated
for full credit. Studio “consultants,” including an ecol-
ogist and aquatic chemist, two engineers, an architect,
and four practicing landscape architects, periodically
participated in desk critiques and reviews.
Considered one of the more successful recent
urban revitalization efforts in the Northern Tier
region of upstate New York, the downtown area of
Syracuse near Armory Square served as the setting
for the studio (Figure 2). The area contains a grow-
ing entertainment and alternative commercial district
that is anchored by nearby public agencies, utilities,
and Syracuse University buildings. Within this setting,
the studio focused on three site locations along the
heavily channelized and degraded Onondaga Creek
Corridor, which runs through the central business
district and drains into Onondaga Lake. All three of
the project areas are composed primarily of parking
surfaces adjacent to Onondaga Creek. Under the aegis
of its Save the Rain program, an initiative to improve
the water quality of the lake and its tributaries (www.
savetherain.us), the City of Syracuse is rehabilitating
this corridor via both green infrastructure and engi-
neered “gray infrastructure” efforts. Primary goals
of the program are to reduce stormwater runoff into
the combined sewer system from impervious surfaces
in the city—including in the central business district,
which has a relatively high proportion of impervi-
ousness—and to reduce combined sewer overflows
(CSOs) into the creek. One example of this “gray
infrastructure” is a large underground stormwater
storage facility deep below the surface of the ‘Clinton
Site’ project area, which has been engineered to sup-
port eventual above-ground improvements including
buildings. At the same time, the city’s urban core is
undergoing economic revitalization consistent with
the Syracuse Draft Land Use & Development Plan
2040 and Draft Future Land Use Map (City of Syra-
cuse 2011). In addition, a state-funded Waterfront
Revitalization Strategy that profi led Onondaga Creek
and the Creekwalk trail initiative further set the stage
for enhancing access to open space to improve the
environment and quality of life for city residents (City
of Syracuse 2013).
A CLIMATE-ADAPTIVE DESIGN FRAMEWORK
The 2013 Ithaca project location is located within
the ClimAID Region 3—Southern Tier, and the 2014
Syracuse project is within ClimAID Region 1—
Western New York Great Lakes Plain (Rosenzweig
et al. 2011b, Horton et al. 2014). Mid-range climate
change projections for the two regions are similar
(Table 1). Annual precipitation is projected to mod-
erately increase for both regions. However, larger
increases in the frequency, intensity, and duration of
extreme precipitation events are projected (Rosenz-
weig et al. 2011b, Horton et al. 2014). Average annual
temperatures are also projected to increase, accom-
panied by more days over 90°F and greater frequency
and duration of heat waves (Rosenzweig et al. 2011b,
Horton et al. 2014).
Each studio assessed possible climate change
impacts and vulnerabilities by comparing projected
impacts described in the ClimAID reports against
project site conditions. Many of the proposed key
climate change impacts and vulnerabilities were
similar for both project study areas. They included:
(a) increased stormwater runoff; (b) increased risk
of flooding; (c) shifts in local plant communities and
suitability of certain landscape plants for local use
due to changing climate variables; (d) climate vulner-
ability and additional stresses on certain ecosystems
and wildlife species; (e) amplified species dispersal and
connectivity risks; (f) risk of heat waves and increased
urban heat island effect; and (g) potential continued
dependence on carbon-based fuels. While certainly not
the only projected climate change impacts and vulner-
abilities for the project regions, these seven became the
primary drivers for climate adaptation in each stu-
dio. Design teams compared them against the studio
adaptation measures reference library to determine
potential climate-adaptive solutions in consideration
of their proposed site program requirements. Six core
climate-adaptive design strategies emerged: (a) flood-
plain storage; (b) low impact development; (c) resilient
planting design/ecological resilience (combined);
(d) landscape connectivity; (e) urban heat island miti-
gation; and (f) multi-modal mobility. Each of these
strategies fits within one of three general framework
headings—water systems support, ecosystem support,
and built environment support. These climate adap-
tation strategies were incorporated into the project
design and development process. Table 2 illustrates
how climate change projections and impacts cor-
relate with the climate-adaptive response strategies
within the framework, and includes possible metrics
Cerra 43
Table 2. Climate-adaptive Design Framework
Climate Change
Projection or Hazard
Increases in annual
precipitation and frequency
of extreme precipitation
events
Increases in annual
precipitation and frequency
of extreme precipitation
events
Multiple climate
change hazards and
impacts associated with
extremes in temperature,
precipitation, and other
factors
Multiple climate change
hazards and impacts
Increased average
temperatures, number of
hot days
*Carbon-based fuels
contribute to climate
change
* Not a climate change projection or impact, per se, but a contributor to severity of climate change.
44 Landscape Journal 35:1
Climate Impact, Risk, or
Area of Vulnerability
Increased risk of flooding
resulting from high
volumes of in-channel
flows
Increased risk of flooding
exacerbated by increased
stormwater runoff into
streams due to increased
extreme precipitation
events
Vulnerability and stresses
on ecosystems and
species, shifting plant
communities and local
plant suitability
Shifts in communities
and species range and
distribution, amplified
species dispersal and
connectivity risks
Built Environment Support
Heat waves, summer
heat stress, increased
severity of urban heat
island effect
*Potential continued
dependence on carbon-
based fuels
Adaptation Response
Water Systems Support
Floodplain Storage
Low Impact Development
Ecosystem Support
Resilient Planting Design
Landscape Connectivity
Urban Heat Island
Mitigation
Multimodal Mobility
Example Design
Interventions
Excavation of floodplain,
creation of floodplain plant
communities or other
periodically floodable open
spaces
Use of vegetated swales,
bioswales, infiltration
planters, pervious
pavement
Improved functional
redundancy and response
diversity of plant palettes
Creation and preservation
of corridors and stepping
stones
Use of vegetation, shading
of impervious surfaces
and buildings, use of green
roofs, cool roofs, cool
pavements
Smart growth and nodal
development strategies,
provision for alternative
transportation options and
improved walkability
Studio Performance
Metrics
Design flood storage
volume
Areal reduction of
untreated impervious
area, volume of water
treated
Extent of functional
redundancy and response
diversity of plant palette
Degree of corridor
continuity, distance gaps
between stepping stones,
distance between patches
along corridor, corridor
width
Areal change in vegetative
cover, impervious surface
shading, proportion of
cool roof, pavement,
impervious surface
reduction
Proximity to mass transit,
connectivity to trails,
inclusion of alternative
transportation assets,
reduced single vehicle
parking spaces
Figure 3a
The upper right diagram illustrates a climate-adaptive design concept integrating floodplain storage at
the Clinton Site, Syracuse, NY. As water elevation increases in the channel, water overflows into different
parts of the site in sequence. The diverse hydrology provided by this strategy supports different plant
communities based on their inundation tolerance, represented in the bottom right illustrative section.
(Adapted from images by Johanna Sputh and Gavin Taves, Cornell LA 4010 Fall 2014 studio.)

Figure 3b
Illustration of a climate-adaptive design concept integrating floodplain storage in Thompson Triangle
Park, Ithaca, NY. The proposed design provides storage for 50- and 100-year design flood elevations.
When void of floodwaters, the park provides opportunities for multiple recreational activities for park
users. (Adapted from images by Xiaoyu Bai and Sha Huang, Cornell LA 6020 Spring 2013 studio.)

Cerra 45
for estimating the effectiveness of proposed designs in
meeting climate adaptation goals.
Floodplain Storage
High rates of impervious surface areas and efficient
stormwater conveyance infrastructure in cities already
generate higher runoff volumes and velocities enter-
ing many urban streams (Arnold and Gibbons 1996).
This can result in higher peak flows within an urban-
ized watershed (Paul and Meyer 2001). With greater
likelihood of extreme precipitation events in New
York State, elevated risks of flooding also increase
(Rosenweig et al. 2011b). Increasing the size of the
floodplain to temporarily store greater volumes of
floodwater may help reduce flood risks either onsite
or downstream of a site. Citing initiatives in the
Netherlands, the UK, France, Belgium, and the US,
Kreibich et al. (2015) review adaptive flood manage-
ment measures while considering the increased flood
risk projected with climate change. They highlight
growing interest in increasing floodable area avail-
able to rivers as a strategy to reduce peak flow water
levels in river systems. The Netherlands “Room for
the River” program is particularly notable for its
integrated approach of combining water management,
spatial planning, and ecological goals to provide loca-
tions for river discharge and storage by creating flood
by-passes, excavating floodplains, increasing water
storage and relocating dikes (Hooijer et al. 2004, Rijke
et al. 2012).
These types of local adaptation solutions may not
be suitable for every watershed basin or site location,
and are best applied as part of a comprehensive flood
risk management strategy integrated with other river
basin management objectives while also meeting local
requirements (Hooijer et al. 2004). To understand
the nature of flood inundation at a certain location,
watershed flood models (for example HEC- RAS) or
flood frequency analyses (where stream gauge data
are available) can provide designers with informa-
tion on design flood elevations. These key elevations
(for example for a 25-year design flood event, 50-year
design flood event, etc.) can then be cross-referenced
with topographic data to determine project oppor-
tunities to create floodplain storage adjacent to a
stream channel via excavation. Design of such stor-
age facilities requires technical assistance in the form
of engineering, fluvial geomorphology and/or other
46 Landscape Journal 35:1
qualified expertise. Storage benefits can be calculated
using cut-fi ll calculations of flood storage volumes (for
example cubic yards or acre-feet) for specific design
floods. Depending on the degree of grading relative
to the water table and flood elevations, newly created
hydrologic conditions may also facilitate creation of
locally desired plant communities in the designed
floodplain area including lowland forests, flood-
plain wetland communities, and other community
types. Figure 3a illustrates a studio design example
of floodplain storage that proposes to enhance plant
community diversity. Figure 3b illustrates a second
concept showing the potential for floodplain storage
areas to provide other park amenities when they are
not inundated.
Low Impact Development
As described above, climate change will bring
extreme precipitation to the study regions, contrib-
uting to flooding in susceptible areas. Many storm
sewers drain into urban streams that may be at risk of
flooding. In addition to providing floodplain storage
once high volumes have reached the stream channel,
a complementary strategy for mitigating flood risk is
to limit the volume and/or rate of stormwater actually
entering into the stream channel itself. Low impact
development (LID) techniques can reduce or delay
delivery of stormwater to systems during periods of
precipitation associated with climate change and/or
climate-associated flood risk (Gill et al. 2007, Green
Infrastructure Collaborative 2014, US EPA 2014a,
FEMA 2015). Sites can be retrofitted for stormwater
detention and/or infi ltration by mapping stormwater
catchments within the project limits and identifying
and implementing suitable low impact development
solutions. Designers may need to adjust calculations
when sizing facilities to limit overflows due to pro-
jected changes in precipitation characteristics associ-
ated with climate change (Gill et al. 2007, Hathaway
et al. 2014). Landscape performance metrics for
evaluating the effectiveness of proposed LID inter-
ventions are diverse, and can be measured (areal
reduction of impervious area), calculated (water qual-
ity volume treated by the design), or determined using
models or calculators (the EPA Stormwater Manage-
ment Model or EPA National Stormwater Calculator,
US EPA 2014b). In Figure 4, a studio team developed a
design concept for the Thompson Triangle Park
Figure 4
Design concept for reducing runoff for the Ithaca, NY project area. Stormwater treatment areas outside
the park treat and/or infiltrate catchment runoff by retrofitting raingardens, infiltration planters, or other
facilities from extra parking space. Swales inside the park accept and infiltrate catchment stormwater,
with any overflow draining into additional swales. Remaining overflow from these swales feeds into a
central stormwater feature, discharging into the creek only when needed. (Adapted from images by
Nicolas Azel and Andrea Haynes, Cornell LA 6020 Spring 2013 studio.)

Cerra 47

site where catchment analysis, impervious surface
reduction, and low impact development approaches
reduce and/or delay stormwater inputs into the
creek while integrating green infrastructure as func-
tional and aesthetic features in the park and mixed-
use areas.
Resilient Planting Design/Ecological Resilience
Climate change will significantly stress plant com-
munities and certain plant species (Rosenzweig et al.
2011). Hunter (2011) proposed a method for resilient
planting design that selects a palette of plant species
that, taken together, possesses degrees of plasticity or
range of tolerance with respect to hardiness, heat,
soil moisture, and/or other environmental factors.
Hunter suggests that by selecting a plant palette
that collectively exhibits functional redundancy and
response diversity with respect to key environmental
factors, designers can improve the likelihood that
project installations will persist in the current land-
scape as well as in future climate change scenarios
(Hunter 2011).
A design approach that intentionally incorporates
specific response diversity and functional redundancy
48 Landscape Journal 35:1
Figure 5
Site and design analysis diagrams for
the Ithaca, NY project area. The top
diagram depicts hardiness zone and soil
moisture tolerance ranges of existing
tree species. The bottom diagram
compares bloom periods of species in
an existing and a proposed plant palette.
The proposed palette introduces
functional redundancy of available
pollinator resources across a broader
range of the pollination season relative
to the existing palette. (Adapted from
images by Rachel Sohmer, Kim Rosado,
and Bim Krumhansl, Cornell LA 6020
Spring 2013 studio.)
criteria during planting design may improve ecologi-
cal resilience by maintaining ecological function with
the onset of environmental disturbances (Hunter
2011). For example, a planting design palette that is
composed of multiple plant species that bloom con-
currently when pollinators need pollen and nectar
resources (functional redundancy), and these plant
species exhibit a range of tolerances to possible plant
stresses associated with climate change (response
diversity) can improve the persistence of these pol-
linator resources in the landscape, thereby improving
ecological resilience (Hunter 2011). This is particularly
important considering the many species that rely on
pollinators for critical ecosystem services such as plant
reproduction and agricultural productivity (Mader
et al. 2011). Performance measures for this strategy
can be derived from the functional redundancy and
response diversity criteria and evaluation methods
described by Hunter (2011). Figure 5 compares toler-
ance ranges of existing tree species for certain criteria
to assess potential response diversity to changing
environmental factors for consideration during design.
It also provides an example of functional redundancy
with respect to seasonal availability of nectar resources
Figure 6
Identification of potential
locations to create wetland
habitat “stepping stones” to
reduce wetland isolation and
provide other benefits along
Onondaga Creek, Syracuse,
NY. The right diagram
centers on the Clinton Site to
identify parking lot parcels
for further investigation
as potential wetland sites.
Wetland creation within
each of the dashed circles
could provide a network
of associated wetlands.
(Adapted from images by
Forrest Crawford and Zoe
Shively, Cornell LA 4010 Fall
2014 studio.)

for a proposed plant palette to be added to an existing
plant palette.
Landscape Connectivity
Expected shifts in plant species composition in New
York State (Rosenweig et al. 2011b) will produce
alteration of animal species ranges and distribution
(Groves et al. 2012, Groffman et al. 2014). Habitat
fragmentation over time has significantly reduced the
permeability of the matrix and connectivity of habi-
tats in the landscape (Rosenweig et al. 2011b). This is
particularly true in cities.
Habitat corridors and stepping stones can support
urban ecosystem networks by improving connectiv-
ity and therefore facilitating species movement and
dispersal (Opdam and Steingrover 2008). Improving
landscape connectivity between patches of habitat can
also be part of a climate adaptation–oriented conser-
vation planning strategy (Groves et al. 2012, Nunez
et al. 2013, Stein et al. 2013). Within the constraints of
site location and overall design objectives, designs that
improve landscape connectivity have the potential to
support current ecosystems while facilitating shifts in
species distribution and range anticipated with climate
change, thus improving the resilience of ecosystems in
the face of climate change disturbance regimes (Groves
et al. 2012). Models for species movement and dis-
persal support can be complex, but relatively simple
measures of connectivity include degree of corridor
continuity, distance gaps between stepping stones,
distance between patches along a corridor, and cor-
ridor width. In Figure 6, a studio team investigates
the potential for decreasing wetland isolation along
Onondaga Creek in Syracuse by replacing streamside
impervious parking surfaces with a series of wetland
stepping stones along the urban riparian corridor.
Such actions could enhance creek-associated habitat,
improve recreational amenity, and reduce impervious
surface runoff consistent with city planning interests,
while potentially also increasing flood storage depend-
ing on target site conditions and locations.
Urban Heat Island Mitigation
The frequency and duration of heat waves and days
over 90 degrees are expected to increase in New York
State (Rosenweig et al. 2011b). Urban areas expe-
riencing the urban heat island effect, where air and
surface temperatures in cities are higher than nearby

Cerra 49
 Figure 7
“Project proof” showing energy savings and other benefits of trees for a design concept for the Ithaca,
NY project area, calculated using i-Tree Design. The left diagram indicates which existing trees provide
high energy savings, carbon sequestration, stormwater interception, and/or dollar value. Additional
energy use savings and other benefits of proposed trees are also summarized. (Adapted from images by
Rania Mirabueno and Bim Krumansel, Cornell LA 6020 Spring 2013 studio.)

Figure 8
Design concept for a transit-oriented, mixed-use development at the Clinton Site, Syracuse, NY. The
diagram on the left highlights site access to transportation amenities. The passenger rail station area
in the center of the left diagram is detailed in the right diagram. The station incorporates multi-modal
benefits with other climate-adaptive design and site amenity features. (Adapted from images by
Mujahid Powell and Levi Strauss, LA 4010 Fall 2014 studio.)

50 Landscape Journal 35:1

non-urban areas, may encounter even higher tempera-
tures with the onset of climate change (Nowak 2010).
Urban heat islands already can contribute to higher
cooling costs, air pollution, and heat-related illness
(Nowak 2010).
Through strategic placement of trees, other veg-
etation and green infrastructure features (Gill et al.
2007, Douglas 2011), climate-adaptive design projects
can respond to intensifying urban heat island effects
due to climate change. Greening and vegetation in
the landscape can moderate temperatures, at least at
the local scale (Bowler 2010, Nowak 2010), by shad-
ing impervious surfaces from solar gain, cooling air
through transpiration, and blocking winds (Nowak
2010). Shade analyses reveal strategic planting loca-
tions where canopy cover can shade impervious
surfaces such as parking lots to reduce solar gain in
summer, particularly in locations south and south-
west of these surfaces in the northern hemisphere
(Brown 2010). Siting the right tree species in the
right location relative to a building can reduce cool-
ing and heating demands, resulting in energy savings
(McPherson and Simpson 1999). Use of green roofs,
cool roofs, cool pavements, and other hard infrastruc-
ture strategies can also off set urban heat island effects
(US EPA 2013). Possible evaluation metrics include
areal changes in vegetative cover, impervious sur-
face shading, proportion of cool roof/pavement, and
impervious surface reduction. Evaluation tools such as
i-Tree (www.itreetools.org) can also estimate changes
in building energy use and costs. Figure 7 depicts
analysis results of a proposed design concept using
i-Tree Design. It shows which existing trees provide
a relatively high degree of energy savings and the
additional energy use savings resulting from proposed
trees in the concept.
Multi-modal Mobility
Transportation activities contributed 27% of US
greenhouse gas emissions in 2013 (US EPA 2015). As
reviewed by Walters and Ewing (2009), design strate-
gies that promote alternative modes of transportation
can reduce vehicle trips and associated emissions.
Nodal development, which concentrates daily needs
of citizens into a compact, mixed-use location, is an
urban design strategy for reducing vehicle trips that
contribute greenhouse gas emissions into the atmo-
sphere (Smart Growth BC n.d., US EPA 2013). While
not a climate adaptation measure, per se, (reduction
of emissions is actually a climate mitigation mea-
sure, or an effort that seeks to limit the amount of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere), urban design
strategies that facilitate pedestrian-oriented and
transit-oriented experiences can be part of a compre-
hensive, climate-sensitive design approach. Ways to
measure landscape performance benefits include mea-
suring project proximity to bus or other mass transit
stops, number of connections to bicycle and pedestrian
paths, or changes in walkability indices to amenities.
Metrics could also be derived from Sites v2 Credit 6.9:
Encourage Fuel Efficient and Multi-modal Transpor-
tation design criteria, which specify alternative trans-
portation amenities such as bike parking, bus shelters,
car-share facilities, or reduced numbers of single ve-
hicle parking spaces (Sustainable Sites Initiative 2014).
Figure 8 illustrates a project concept that among other
goals proposes a new downtown living and commercial
district with local access to typical user destinations
and alternative transportation options. In addition to
bike, pedestrian, and bus transportation options, the
design team proposed reestablishing passenger rail
service as development and dwelling density increase in
downtown Syracuse.
DISCUSSION
The proposed climate-adaptive design framework
describes a set of design strategies that, taken together,
can provide a more comprehensive approach to reduc-
ing climate change impacts in inland locations. While
precedent examples of each of these design strategies
may exist individually, the integration of multiple
strategies with the explicit intent of addressing mul-
tiple climate change impacts is infrequent. Many of
these strategies borrow from existing design prac-
tices that possess climate-adaptive potential, yet
they are not configured and calibrated to provide
a more comprehensive response to climate change.
The proposed framework serves as a foundation for
researchers, educators, and practitioners to build upon
by adapting it to different geographic contexts and
locations, and expanding it into new adaptation areas
as climate change impacts are better understood and
climate-based design innovation continues to advance.
From a studio development standpoint, there
are several observations. First, while carefully orga-
nized in terms of approach, structure, and goals, the
Cerra 51
design program as described proved ambitious for a
four-month studio semester. Significant preparation
was necessary prior to actual conduct of the studio
to collect data and documentation so that students
could move directly into the studio design sequence.
Even so, teams typically selected three or at most four
climate-adaptive design strategies to focus on so that
they could reasonably reach the level of design develop-
ment prescribed for the studio.
Secondly, a subtle difference between the conduct
of the two studios is notable. Leveraging the partici-
pation of multiple interdisciplinary “consultants”
and embedding several urban and regional planning
students in the undergraduate studio occurring in
Syracuse “charged” the design process by increasing
student interest and expanding the breadth and depth
of studio design proposals. Prior degrees and experi-
ences of graduate students may partially offset access
to this expertise, but the graduate studio would likely
have also benefitted from greater interdisciplinary
participation by visiting studio experts. Climate adap-
tation is truly a multi-system, interdisciplinary issue,
and exposure to perspectives from different professions
is important for any student considering professional
practice.
Finally, strong potential for further develop-
ment of this topic exists. In the interests of tuning and
expanding the approach and framework, additional
climate-adaptive design studios are being conducted
from 2015 to 2017. Recent changes to the departmental
curriculum now require that graduate students take a
field-based environmental analysis course the semester
prior to taking this studio. While this prerequisite is
clearly not necessary for the teaching model, students
who have taken this course are familiar with environ-
mental and climate change issues when they arrive in
the studio. Sequencing a course focusing on key eco-
logical, hydrological, cultural, and climate-based back-
ground material prior to the studio “design laboratory”
will likely allow the studio to delve more deeply into
climate-adaptive strategies and design development.
Near-term goals for the studio include refi ning and
expanding the climate-adaptive design techniques and
evaluation methods, enhancing the studio module for
establishing adaptation priorities, and expanding the
impact of the studio by working directly with munici-
palities that are confronting climate change concerns
in their own communities.
52 Landscape Journal 35:1
CONCLUSION
Climate change is a reality that our students will face
during their design careers. A more comprehensive
approach to climate adaptation is becoming increas-
ingly necessary as landscape architects (and their
clients) prepare for a changing future. New design
innovations that reorient existing practices while
reinforcing urban ecosystems can in turn result in
improved project resilience and sustainable outcomes.
While the focus of this design investigation was to
address key climate issues for inland urban locations,
the overall framework concept can also be applied
to coastal locations. The climate-adaptive design
framework shared here provides a platform for both
educators and practitioners to tune and expand their
own project frameworks based on site location and
program, emerging climate policy, and design innova-
tion. As more comprehensive climate-adaptive design
services continue to mature, they offer a compel-
ling value proposition to project clients and society.
Executed within the context of good design practice,
climate-adaptive design can “stack” human and natu-
ral systems benefits into confi ned urban spaces while
balancing performance with the site programs and
aesthetics of many project types. Landscape architects
are uniquely equipped to simultaneously grasp big-
picture climate concerns, while providing detailed,
climate-adaptive design responses. By acting now, the
profession can position itself as a leader in this impor-
tant and growing area of design.
REFERENCES
Arnold Jr., Chester L., and C. James Gibbons. 1996. Impervious
surface coverage—The emergence of a key environmental
indicator. Journal of the American Planning Association 62(2):
243–258.
Bowler, Diane E., Lisette Buyung-Ali, Teri M. Knight, and Andrew S.
Pullin. 2010. Urban greening to cool towns and cities: A
systematic review of the empirical evidence. Landscape and
Urban Planning 97(3): 147–155.
Beer, Anne R. 2010. Greenspaces, green structure, and green
infrastructure planning. In Agronomy Monograph 55, Urban
Ecosystem Ecology, ed. Jacqueline Aitkenhead-Peterson and
Astrid Volder, 431–438. American Society of Agronomy,
Crop Science Society of America, Soil Science Society of
America, Madison, WI.
Brown, Robert. 2010. Design with Microclimate: The Secret to
Comfortable Outdoor Spaces. Washington: Island Press.
Carter, Timothy, Martin Parry, Shuzo Nisioko, Hideo Harasawa,
R. Christ, P. Epstein, N.S. Jodha, E. Stakhiv, J.Scheraga.
undated. IPCC Technical Guidelines for Assessing
Climate Change Impacts and Adaptations. United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change. http://www
.ipcc-wg2.gov/publications/SAR/SAR_Chapter%2026.pdf
[September 12, 2016].
City of Ithaca. 2006. Local Action Plan: to Reduce Greenhouse
Gas Emissions for City of Ithaca Government Operations.
City of Ithaca, New York. http://www.cityofithaca.org/
DocumentCenter/View/1652 [April 11, 2016].
City of Ithaca. 2012. Energy Action Plan 2012: Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Inventory (2010) and Update to the Local Action
Plan. City of Ithaca, New York. http://www.cityofithaca
.org/DocumentCenter/View/1653 [April 11, 2016].
City of Syracuse. 2011. Syracuse Land Use and Development Plan
2040 and Future Land Use Map. http://www.syracuse.ny.us/
Draft_Land_Use_Plan_and_Map.aspx [April 11, 2015].
City of Syracuse. 2013. City of Syracuse Waterfront Revitalization
Strategy. http://www.syracuse.ny.us/planning_and
_sustainability.aspx [April 11, 2015].
Colls, A., Neville Ash, and Ninni Ikkala Nyman. 2009. Ecosystem-
based Adaptation: A Natural Response to Climate Change.
International Union for Conservation of Nature and
Natural Resources. http://iucn.org/news_homepage/
events/unfccc2/events/2011_durban/publications/
?uPubsID=3944 [September 21, 2014].
Douglas, Ian. 2011. The role of green infrastructure in adapting
cities to climate change. In Handbook of Urban Ecology, ed.
Ian Douglas, David Goode, Michael C. Houck and Rusong
Wang, 583–588. Florence, KY: Routledge.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2015.
Climate Resilient Mitigation Activities: Green Infrastructure
Methods. http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/
1444152957165-55ae6240e5a1949661cfe8cade95ec35/
GI_FactSheet_Sept2015_508.pdf [November 21, 2015].
Gill, Susannah, John Handley, A. Roland Ennos, and Stephan
Pauleit. 2007. Adapting cities for climate change: the role of
the green infrastructure. Built Environ. 30(1): 97–115.
Green Infrastructure Collaborative. 2014. Federal Agency
Support for the Green Infrastructure Collaborative. July 16,
2014 Press release. http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/
greeninfrastructure/upload/Federal-Support-for-Green-
Infrastructure-Collaborative_508.pdf [July 23, 2014].
Groffman, Peter M., Peter Kareiva, Shawn Carter, Nancy B.
Grimm, Josh Lawler, Michelle Mack, Virginia Matzek,
and Heather Tallis. 2014. Ecosystems, biodiversity, and
ecosystem services. In Climate Change Impacts in the United
States: The Third National Climate Assessment, ed. Jerry M.
Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and Gary W. Yohe, 195–219.
U.S. Global Change Research Program.
Groves, Craig R., Edward T. Game, Mark G. Anderson, Molly
Cross, Carolyn Enquist, Zach Ferdana, Evan Girvetz,
Anne Gondor, Kimberly Hall, Jonathan Higgins, Rob
Marshall, Ken Popper, Steve Schill, and Sarah Shafer. 2012.
Incorporating climate change into systematic conservation
planning. Biodiversity and Conservation 21(7): 1651–1671.
Hathaway, John M., Robert A. Brown, Joshua S. Fu, and William F.
Hunt. 2014. Bioretention function under climate change
scenarios in North Carolina, USA. Journal of Hydrology, 519,
503–511.
Hooijer, Aljosja, Frans Klign, G. Bas M. Pedroli, and Ad G. van Os.
2004. Towards sustainable flood risk management in the
Rhine and Meuse river basins: Synopsis of the findings
of IRMA-SPONGE. River Research and Applications 20(3):
343–357.
Horton, Radley M., Daniel A. Bader, Cynthia Rozenzweig, Arthur T.
DeGaetano, and William Solecki. 2014. Climate Change in New
York State. Updating the 2011 ClimAID Climate Risk Information.
New York State Energy Research and Development Authority
(NYSERDA), Albany, New York. http://www.nyserda.ny.gov/
Publications/Research-and-Development/Environmental/
EMEP-Publications/Response-to-Climate-Change-in-New
-York.aspx [February 10, 2015].
Hunter, Mary Carol. 2011. Using ecological theory to guide urban
planting design: an adaptation strategy for climate change.
Landscape Journal 30(2): 173–193.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2000. IPCC Special
Report: Emissions Scenarios. Summary for Policymakers.
Geneva, Switzerland. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special
-reports/spm/sres-en.pdf [October 29, 2015].
Jones, Roger N. 2001. An Environmental Risk Assessment/
Management Framework for Climate Change Impact
Assessments. Natural Hazards 23: 197–230.
Kazmierczak, Aleksandra, and Jeremy Carter. 2010. Adaptation
to Climate Change Using Green and Blue Infrastructure. http://
www.grabs-eu.org/membersArea/files/ Database_Final
_no_hyperlinks.pdf [November 29, 2015].
Kreibich, Heidi, Philip Bubeck, Mathijs Van Vliet, and Hans De
Moel. 2015. A review of damage-reducing measures to
manage fluvial flood risks in a changing climate. Mitigation
and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 20(6): 967–989.
Landscape Institute. 2008. Landscape Architecture and the Challenge
of Climate Change: Landscape Institute position statement.
http://www.landscapeinstitute.org/PDF/ Contribute/
LIClimateChangePositionStatement.pdf [January 25, 2013].
Lim, Bo, Erica Spanger-Siegfried, Ian Burton, Elizabeth L. Malone,
and Saleemul Huq. 2004. Adaptation Policy Frameworks for
Climate Change: Developing Strategies, Policies and Measures.
http://www.cambridge.org [November 6, 2015].
Lynch, Amanda H., Lee Tryhorn, and Rebecca Abramson. 2008.
Working at the boundary: facilitating interdisciplinarity
in climate change adaptation research. American
Meteorological Society (February): 169–179.
Mader, Eric, Matthew Shepard, Mace Vaughan, Scott Hoffman
Black, and Gretchen LeBuhn. 2011. Attracting Native
Pollinators: Protecting North America’s Bees and Butterflies: the
Xerces Society Guide. North Adams, MA: Storey Publishing.
Cerra 53
McPherson, E. Gregory and James R. Simpson. 1999. Carbon
Dioxide Reduction Through Urban Forestry: Guidelines for
Professional and Volunteer Tree Planters. Gen. Tech. Rep.
PSWGTR-171. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research
Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
http://www
.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/6779 [February 17, 2016].
Melillo, Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and Gary W. Yohe,
Eds. 2014: Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The
Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change
Research Program.
Mooney, Patrick, and Glenn Brown. 2013. Ecosystem services,
natural capital and nature’s benefits in the urban region:
Information for professionals and citizens. Vancouver BC:
School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture,
University of British Columbia.
Müller, Norbert, and Peter Werner. 2010. Urban biodiversity and
the case for implementing the convention on biological
diversity in towns and cities. In Urban Biodiversity and
Design. ed. Norbert Müller, Peter Werner, and John G.
Kelcey, 3–33. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on America’s
Climate Choices. 2010. Adapting to the impacts of climate
change. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
NCADAC, 2013. Federal Advisory Committee Draft Climate
Assessment Report. http://ncadac.globalchange.gov
[January 20, 2013].
NCADAC, 2015. Scenarios for climate assessment and
adaptation. http://scenarios.globalchange.gov/content/
scenarios [October 27, 2015].
Nowak, David J. 2010. Urban biodiversity and climate change.
Urban Biodiversity and Design, 1st Edition. ed. Norbert
Müller, Peter Werner, and John G. Kelcey, 101–117.
Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Nuñez, Tristan A., Joshua J. Lawler, Brad H. McRae, D. John
Pierce, Meade B. Krosby, Darren M. Kavanagh, Peter H.
Singleton, and Joshua J. Tewksbury. 2013. Connectivity
Planning to Address Climate Change. Conservation Biology
27(2): 407–416.
NYS 2100 Commission. 2013. Recommendations to Improve the
Strength and Resilience of the Empire State’s Infrastructure. http://
www.governor.ny.gov/sites/governor.ny.gov/files/archive/
assets/documents/NYS2100.pdf [November 29, 2015].
Onondaga County. 2012. Onondaga Climate Action Plan.
Onondaga County, New York. http://www.ongov.net/
environment/documents/CAP2012.pdf
Opdam, Paul, and Eveliene Steingrover, 2008. Designing
metropolitan landscapes for biodiversity: deriving
guidelines from metapopulation ecology. Landscape Journal
27(1): 69.
Paul, Michael J., and Judy L. Meyer. 2001. Streams in the urban
landscape. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 32:
333–365.
54 Landscape Journal 35:1
Pickett, Stewart, and Mary Cadenasso. 2008. Linking ecological
and built components of urban mosaics: an open cycle of
ecological design. Journal of Ecology 96(1): 8–12.
Rijke, Jeroen, Sebastiaan van Herk, Chris Zevenbergen, and
Richard Ashley. 2012. Room for the River: delivering
integrated river basin management in the Netherlands.
International Journal of River Basin Management 10(4):
369–382.
Rosenzweig, Cynthia, William Solecki, Arthur T. DeGaetano,
Megan O’Grady, Susan Hassol, and Paul Grabhorn (Eds.).
2011a. Responding to Climate Change in New York State: The
ClimAID Integrated Assessment for Effective Climate Change
Adaptation. Technical Report. New York State Energy
Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), Albany,
New York.
Rosenzweig, Cynthia, William Solecki, Arthur T. DeGaetano,
Megan O’Grady, Susan Hassol, and Paul Grabhorn (Eds.).
2011b. Responding to Climate Change in New York State:
The ClimAID Integrated Assessment for Effective Climate
Change Adaptation. Synthesis Report. New York State Energy
Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), Albany,
New York.
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. 2009.
Connecting Biodiversity and Climate Change Mitigation
and Adaptation: Report of the Second Ad Hoc Technical
Expert Group on Biodiversity and Climate Change.
Montreal, Technical Series No. 41, http://www.cbd.int/
doc/publications/cbd-ts-41-en.pdf [April 11, 2016].
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. 2012. Cities
and Biodiversity Outlook. Montreal. http://www.cbd.int/doc/
publications/cbo-booklet-2012-en.pdf [September 21, 2014].
Shaw, Robert, Colley, M., and Connell, R. 2007. Climate Change
Adaptation by Design: a Guide for Sustainable Communities.
http://www.tcpa.org.uk/data/files/bd_cca.pdf
[November 29, 2015].
Smart Growth BC. n.d. Nodal Development: Creating Compact,
Complete, Mixed-use Communities. http://shapingourfuture
.ca/downloads/ Mixed_Use_Centres_Brochure.pdf
[November 29, 2015].
Stein, Bruce A., Amanda Staudt, Molly S. Cross, Natalie S.
Dubois, Carolyn Enquist, Roger Griffis, Lara J. Hansen,
Jessica J. Hellman, Joshua J. Lawler, Erik J Nelsom, and
Amber Pairis. 2013. Preparing for and managing change:
climate adaptation for biodiversity and ecosystems.
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 11(9): 502–510.
Steiner, Frederick. 2014. Frontiers in urban ecological design
and planning research.” Landscape and Urban Planning 125:
304–311.
Sustainable Sites Initiative. 2014. SITES v2 Reference Guide for
Sustainable Land Design and Development. Sustainable Sites
Initiative.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. Reducing Urban Heat
Islands: Compendium of Strategies. http://epa.gov/heatisland/
resources/compendium.htm [September 1, 2014].
US Environmental Protection Agency. 2014a. Green Infrastructure
for Climate Resiliency. http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/
greeninfrastructure/climate_res.cfm [April 13, 2015].
US Environmental Protection Agency. 2014b. EPA National
Stormwater Calculator User’s Guide Version 1.1. http://nepis
.epa.gov/Adobe/PDF/P100HD4J.pdf [April 13, 2015].
US Environmental Protection Agency. 2015. DRAFT Inventory of
U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks:1990–2013. Office
of Transportation and Air Quality. http://www.epa.gov/
climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html
[April 13, 2015].
Walters, Jerry, and Reid Ewing. (2009). Measuring the benefits
of compact development on vehicle miles and climate
change. Environmental Practice 11(September): 196.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author would like to thank
the students and visiting experts who participated in the
exploratory studios upon which this work is based. Thank
you to the editors of Landscape Journal and the anony-
mous reviewers of the manuscript for their constructive
comments and guidance. Also, thank you to attendees
at the 2015 Environmental Design Research Association
conference who provided input following presentation
of a preliminary conference proceedings version of this
paper.
AUTHOR Joshua F. Cerra is an Assistant Profes-
sor and Director of Undergraduate Studies at Cornell
University Department of Landscape Architecture in
Ithaca, New York. Prior to joining Cornell, Cerra prac-
ticed as a designer and an ecologist on projects in
the Pacific Northwest and China. His academic and
professional work addresses relationships between
urban ecosystems, communities and site development
processes, and their implications for urban ecological
design and climate adaptation. He was the recipient of
the Cornell CALS Young Faculty Teaching Excellence
Award in 2014 and the CELA Excellence in Design Stu-
dio Teaching Junior Level Award in 2015.
Cerra 55
Copyright of Landscape Journal is the property of University of Wisconsin Press and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.