RESILIENCE THINKING IN LANDSCAPE : A TRANSDISCIPLINARY FRAMEWORK AND A CASE FOR CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION

CHENG, CHINGWEN School of Natural Resources and Environment, 440 Church Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, University of Michigan, [email protected]

1 ABSTRACT 1.1 Keywords Climate change and have social-ecological systems, resilience, exacerbated environmental hazards and affect transdisciplinary planning framework, climate health, safety, and welfare of society. Resilience change adaptation thinking provides a foundation for landscape planning framework to investigate social-ecological 2 INTRODUCTION drivers and outcomes in the linked social-ecological Climate change has exacerbated climate systems. Transdisciplinary approach includes related disasters (IPCC, 2007) and associated organizational, institutional, and interdisciplinary casualties and damages, particularly in hierarchies and collaborations and plays an already risk-prone areas, not only in low- and important role in redefining issues and building middle-income countries but also in developed consensus for achieving common goals. The countries (Leary, 2008). The interaction and proposed transdisciplinary planning framework reciprocal feedback between social and ecological aims to build adaptive capacity through a revolving systems has augmented complexity in landscape feedback loop. A case study from the Boston Metro planning aiming toward resilience and Area Urban Long-Term Research Area-Exploratory sustainability. The scale of complexity in the project demonstrated the use of the proposed interlinked social-ecological systems involves planning framework. Growth scenarios were cross-institutional and organizational consensus- developed through transdisciplinary panning building as well as interdisciplinary collaboration. process. The study evaluated planning innovations Coping with the dynamics of change therefore in growth strategy (e.g., ) and requires integration of resilience thinking and green infrastructure (e.g., stormwater detention) for transdisciplinary approach in landscape planning climate change adaptation. Climate change- framework. I propose a landscape planning induced flooding risks, served as social-ecological framework integrating transdisciplinary outcomes, were measured through integration of participatory planning process in the interlinked flooding hazard index and social vulnerability index social-ecological systems for research and under multiple climate change and practices to untangle complex issues such as scenarios in the Charles River watershed. The climate change. Applying the framework to the results from empirical study support the role of Boston Metro Area Urban Long Term Research integrating anticipated climate change-induced Project-Exploratory (BMA ULTRA-ex) project, the social and ecological impacts into social-ecological outcomes are presented through decisions to mitigate impacts, minimize exposure of the evaluation of stakeholder-input growth hazards, and increase adaptive capacity. In scenarios and climate change-induced flooding addition, innovations in green infrastructure risks assessment in the Charles River watershed. planning and design serve as climate change The study provides insights in applying the adaptation strategies. Applying the transdisciplinary landscape planning framework for transdisciplinary planning framework, the findings climate change adaptation planning strategies in can be used to inform decision-making and building social-ecological resilience. prioritize climate change adaptation strategies to serve the needs of the socially vulnerable groups. 3 BACKGROUND The study provides an insight of integrating 3.1 Resilience Thinking in Planning transdisciplinary approach in landscape planning Resilience theory is rooted in ecology. for building social-ecological resilience. Ecological resilience refers to non-equilibrium and inter-connected open systems that possess

adaptive capacity to absorb disturbances, 3.2 Transdisciplinary Landscape Plann- reorganize within a threshold level, and re-generate ing in order to cope with change (Holling, 1973; Folke, Landscape planners are facing challenges 2006; Walker and Salt, 2006). Resilience thinking of planning issues that involve multiple dimensions opened a window for a more comprehensive theory in the interlinked social-ecological systems across in connecting ecological, social, and physical multiple disciplines (e.g., ecology, economy, dimensions in the linked social-ecological systems. sociology, archeology, engineering, art, Social-ecological systems emphasize the , , ) and integrated concept of humans-in-nature and multiple institutional hierarchies (e.g., global, interplay between human and natural systems national, regional, local, individual) simultaneously. (Berkes and Folke, 1998). Human activities, socio- The concept of transdisciplinarity, which can be economic drivers, and institutional structures traced back to the education system proposed by across temporal and spatial scales have impacts on Jantsch (1970), promotes an innovation system ecosystems, which then have reciprocal feedback through a multi-level, multi-goal, hierarchical and impacts on human systems (Grimm et al., 2000; system interlinked with interdisciplinary Folke, 2006). Social resilience associated with coordination. Fry (2001) used transdisciplinary livelihood of human systems is therefore linked with approach to address multi-functionality and ecological resilience (Adger, 2000). In addition, interdisciplinarity challenges in landscape research. resilience thinking has been applied to planning in Tress and Tress (2001) applied transdisciplinary building adaptive capacities in governance, approach for landscape research in an interactive institutions, communities, and to cope with people-landscape model with multiple disciplines shocks (e.g., natural disasters, economic from biological, geographical, social, cultural, and depressions, wars), uncertainty and change (e.g., spiritual elements and multiple levels of spatial, climate change) (Adger, 2006; Pendall et al., 2010; temporal, and mental dimensions. Stokols (2006) Beatley, 2009; Wilkinson, 2012). proposed transdisciplinary action research (TDAR) Resilience thinking provides a powerful that involves interactions of organizational scope metaphor and inspiration in landscape planning (inter-sectoral, inter-organizational, intra- research and practices. Resilience research has organizational), analytical scope (biological, provided an insight of linking structure and function psychological, social/environmental, in the non-equilibrium and interlinked social- community/policy), and geographical scale (local ecological systems, which offers an effective group, community, regional, national/global). framework to study integrated ecological and social The TDAR model in particular has gained heterogeneity of patterns and processes in prevalent attention in the field of landscape and landscape and urban systems (Pickett et al., 2004). involving participatory planning as In addition, the concept of adaptive cycle across an effective approach to address issues in complex multiple temporal and spatial scales in resilience social-ecological systems. Schroth et al. (2011) theory has spurred resilience thinking in the employed TDAR framework and landscape development of adaptive planning and design. For visualization tools in multiple case studies involving example, Ahern (2011) suggested learning-by- researchers and community stakeholders in the doing planning strategy with multifunctional, diverse, landscape planning processes as well as redundant modules, multi-scale connectivity, and and policy implementation. In safe-to-fail design to provide opportunities for addition, Antrop and Rogge (2006) evaluated the building resilience capacity. Moreover, social- process of employing TDAR approach involving ecological resilience thinking can serve as a interdisciplinary researchers, program team, and common framework in transdisciplinary research on stakeholders for preserving cultural landscapes. complex and multifaceted issues such as climate Moreover, Thering and Chanse (2011) argued for change adaptation (Deppisch and Hasibovic, 2013). plural design using TDAR framework by addressing Built upon previous research, this paper aims to challenges of using transdisciplinary approach in apply resilience thinking through the lens of building landscape planning processes. Furthermore, adaptive capacity of the social-ecological systems Deppisch and Hasibovic (2013) included to cope with climate change in a transdisciplinary interdisciplinary researchers and practitioners to landscape planning framework. work with stakeholders in the scenario planning process for developing climate change adaptation strategies in the urban region. Combined with resilience thinking in social-ecological systems, transdisciplinary approach provides an effective

common planning framework to include multiple that are formulated through planning actors, stakeholders, and communities, as well as intervention and indicators identified in the interdisciplinary researchers and practitioners at planning process. multiple organizational hierarchies to work in (4) Document and monitor social-ecological tandem to address complex landscape planning outcomes from the plan evaluation and share issues such as climate change adaptation findings and lessons learned with the (Deppisch and Hasibovic, 2013). transdisciplinary participants. (5) Continue the transdisciplinary participatory 4 TRANSDICIPLINARY PLANNING planning process with the new insights from FRAMEWORK IN SOCIAL- social-ecological outcomes and improve plans ECOLOGICAL and/or modify social-ecological drivers as In order to have a comprehensive adaptive planning processes toward resilience understanding of linked systems, it is necessary for and sustainability. a synthesis and integration of several different conceptual frames (Costanza et al., 1993). First, 5 CASE STUDY social-ecological resilience concept is embedded in 5.1 Study Context and Area the planning framework (Deppisch and Hasibovic, Climate change is projected to increase the 2013) to include both social and ecological drivers intensity and frequency of storm events that would and their interactions and outcomes, which then increase flooding hazards in the Northeast region inform planning decisions. Second, a revolving (IPCC, 2007; Rock, et al., 2001). Urbanization learning-by-doing feedback loop in the planning associated with land use and land cover change framework serves as windows of opportunity to has altered hydrological cycles by increasing evolve and adapt. Adaptive planning processes stormwater runoff, reducing baseflow and includes identifying goals and objectives, plan increasing flooding hazards. Combined formulation, plan implementation, plan evaluation, urbanization and climate change impacts on long- and plan monitoring (Kato and Ahern, 2008). Third, term riparian flooding during future growth are likely adopting the TDAR framework, transdisciplinary to affect more socially vulnerable populations. The participatory planning process includes three Boston , consisting of 101 dimensions: vertical (i.e., institutional hierarchy), communities with a population of 3.16 million, is horizontal (i.e., interdisciplinary collaboration), and expected to grow 10% by 2030 (MAPC, 2009). organizational hierarchy. Finally, transdisciplinary Currently, the population is aging, becoming more approach in the planning framework provides diverse in its younger cohort, increasing in opportunities for learning, integration, synthesis, inequality in socio-economic status, and increasing and innovation for sustainable and resilient in needs for support for minority groups and development (Meppem and Gill, 1998). Integrating immigrants. The current demographics and socio- resilience thinking in the interlinked social- economic structure exemplify with some of the key ecological systems and transdisciplinary approach, concepts of social vulnerability. The increased I propose a landscape planning framework in a frequency of extreme storm events in recent feedback loop as following (Figure 1): decades—Superstorm Sandy in 2012, Hurricane Irene in 2011, and serious floods in 2011, 2010, and (1) Initiate a transdisciplinary participatory planning 2005—has coincided with climate change process that involves interdisciplinary projections in the Northeast. The socially vulnerable researchers and practitioners, local authorities, groups are likely to be impacted most. stakeholders, and the general public through a The Charles River watershed combination of various forms of participatory encompasses 778 km2 and is predominately within methods (e.g., preference surveys, small group the Boston Metropolitan Area with minimal coastal discussion, memory mapping) that allow lines. The watershed consists of 35 municipalities, consensus-building toward common goals includes large portions of the of Boston, is the (Innes, 1996) most densely populated, and covers the most (2) Integrate transdisciplinary participatory planning (EJ) populations among nine process that drives plan-making development watersheds in the metropolitan area. The EJ to incorporate planning interventions and populations defined by the Massachusetts Office of decide social-ecological drivers based on the Geographic Information (MassGIS) include non- goals and objectives in the planning agenda. white, low-income, and English-isolated groups, (3) Conduct empirical research in the social- which are corresponding to characteristics of ecological systems for the evaluation of plans socially vulnerable groups (Cutter et al., 2003).

Figure 1. Transdisciplinary Landscape Planning Framework in Social-Ecological Systems. Diagram by the Author

Therefore, Charles River watershed is susceptible the workshops for plan evaluation. Infill to increased social impacts and climate change- redevelopment as a growth strategy focused on induced flooding hazards in the Boston compact form and redevelopment of existing built Metropolitan Area under anticipated urbanization areas in contrast to suburban sprawl that often and climate change. The term “climate change- results in the clearance of agriculture, forest, induced flooding” refers to floods that are wetlands and large open space during the exacerbated by climate change in this study. urbanization process. The four growth scenarios varied in allocating the same amount of projected 5.2 BMA ULTRA-ex Project and Study population through various levels of infill Goals redevelopment between the inner cities and the The BMA ULTRA-ex project aimed to . Current Trends scenario followed a understand the socio-economic (e.g., land use suburban sprawl pattern with the lowest level of infill policy, population change, investment, social redevelopment. MetroFuture scenario aligned with capital) and bio-physical (e.g., climate change) policies set forth by the Metropolitan Planning Area drivers that influence social-ecological processes Council (MAPC) for the region and focused on (e.g., land use and land cover change, urban developing lands along transportation corridors and greening development, environmental ) public transit cores with moderate level of infill that interact within ecosystems and their impacts on redevelopment. Green Equity scenario emphasized social-ecological outcomes (e.g., , allocating urban green infrastructure (e.g., trees, water quality, stormwater management, natural stormwater best management practices) for hazards, public health, social equity) (BMA-ULTRA, underserved neighborhoods (e.g., low-income, 2011). The project team engaged with stakeholders minority) with slightly less infill redevelopment than in two workshops and developed four growth MetroFuture in order to provide more space for scenarios in a transdisciplinary scenario planning urban greening in the inner cities. A separate study process (Ryan et al., 2013). has demonstrated Green Equity scenario Growth strategies and green infrastructure encompassed the most equitable distribution of were two planning interventions identified during urban tree canopy comparing to other scenarios in relation to low-income neighborhoods in the City of

Boston (Danford et al., 2014). Finally, Compact ±20%, precipitation variation change 0, ±10, ±20%) Core scenario explored the highest level of possible (Cheng, 2013). Among positive impacts on the infill redevelopment in the inner cities. increased flooding hazards, a total of 36 climate Applying the transdisciplinary landscape combinations—mean temperature 0, 1, 2 or 3˚C planning framework, the study goals were (1) to increase, mean precipitation at 0%, 10% or 20% understand the social-ecological dynamic increase, and precipitation variation at 0%, 10% or interaction through an integrated flooding risk 20% increase—were tested further for the assessment that combines climate change-induced evaluation of stormwater detention (Cheng, Brabec, flooding hazards and their exposure to socially Yang, & Ryan, 2013). Finally, three climate change vulnerable groups, and (2) to evaluate the effects of scenarios that closely matched the general planning interventions (infill redevelopment and circulation models (GCMs) projection for the stormwater detention) in mitigating climate change- Northeast were selected. Low Impact, Medium induced flooding and associated social impacts. Impact, and High Impact climate change scenarios were composed of 3°C, 2°C, and 1°C increase in 5.3 Study Design in the Planning mean temperature, 10%, 10%, and 20% increase Framework in mean precipitation, and 0%, 10%, and 20% Applying the proposed transdisciplinary increase in precipitation variation respectively landscape planning framework, climate change and (Cheng, 2013). population change were considered as social- The social-ecological outcomes play an ecological drivers and growth strategies and green important role in closing the feedback loop of the infrastructures were the planning interventions planning framework and informing planning identified in the BMA ULTRA-ex project (Figure 2). decisions through continued revolving Flooding risks served as a medium for studying the transdisciplinary participatory planning processes. interactions between social and ecological systems. Additionally, the planning interventions serve as Population change shaped land cover through land both climate change mitigation (e.g., reducing use change derived from growth scenarios. A carbon emissions, minimizing impervious surfaces, flooding hazard index (HI) was defined as the reducing urban heat island effects) and climate probability of number of days in a period of 45 years change adaptation strategies (e.g., enhancing when the stream outflow would exceed the baseline resilience to climate change-induced flooding risks). bankfull discharge volume under current climate. HI was constructed through a hydrological 5.4 Social-ecological Outcomes modelSoil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) The climate change-induced flooding risk (Arnold et al., 1998). A Social Vulnerability Index index (RI) derived from the integration of climate (SoVI) (Cutter et al., 2003) was constructed based change-induced flooding hazard index and Social on 30 demographic and socio-economic Vulnerability Index represented social-ecological characteristic variables from the U.S. Census 2010 outcomes of this study. Figure 3 illustrated the through statistical methods. Subsequently, a flooding risk index in Current Trends scenario climate change-induced flooding risk index (RI) among the climate change impact scenarios. (Cheng, 2013) was constructed through multiplying Across scenarios, higher flooding risks were the flooding hazard index and SoVI. located at the lower basin of the watershed. In High Planning intervention evaluations were Impact scenario, a significant increase of flooding conducted through inputs of land use and climate risk index presented throughout the entire variables and pot hole function in SWAT modeling. watershed. Among the growth scenarios, flooding Four growth scenarios were converted into land use risk held similar patterns across scenarios with the change (Cheng et al., 2013). A total of 3% of the higher flooding risks located at the lower basin of Charles River watershed land areas associated the watershed. However, little variance was shown with public open space were modeled for for the effects of growth strategy and associated stormwater detention function (Cheng et al., 2013). land use and land cover change on the increased A climate sensitivity study testing firstly was flooding risks (RI between 0 and 1.2%) (Figure 4) in conducted to include 150 climate conditions contrast to the significant effects of climate change (combinations of mean temperature change of 0, +1, impacts on flooding risks (RI increased up to 3%) +2, +3, +4, +5°C, mean precipitation change 0, ±10, shown in Figure 3.

Figure 2. BMA ULTRA-ex Case Study Applied to the Transdisciplinary Landscape Planning Framework. Diagram by the Author

Social impacts corresponding to climate change hazards were significant within flooding risk hot impacts varied greatly among growth scenarios by spots in all climate change scenarios. Figure 6 the variance of the amount of projected population illustrated the difference in flooding risk index (RI) who were likely to be exposed to areas with high values between stormwater detention treatment flooding risks (hot spots) (Figure 5). The flooding and no treatment. The negative values (shown in risk hot spots were generated through spatial green and blue areas) represented positive effects statistics in geogrphic information systems (GIS) of in mitigating climate change-induced floods. In RI value with the standard deviation of z score general, stormwater detention was effective greater than 1.65. Current Trends scenario throughout the entire basin except in some upper distributed the largest percentage of projected stream areas (shown in positive values and in population growth (4.5%) with 2877 more people yellow, orange and red areas) in all climate change allocated to flooding risk hot spots than that of the scenarios. Even in High Impact scenario, the small Compact Core scenario (3%). amount of the detention area (3% of land area The effects of using stormwater detention applied in this study) remained having positive on mitigating climate change-induced flooding effects in mitigating climate change-induced floods.

Legend

Charles River Tributary RI 0-0.2% 0.2-0.4% 0.4-0.6% 0.6-0.8% 0.8-1% 1-1.2%

1.2-1.4% 1.4-1.6% 1.6-1.8% 1.8-2% 2-2.2% 2.2-2.4% 2.4-2.6% 2.6-2.8% 2.8-3%

Miles ´ 0 1 2 4 6 8 Figure 3. Maps of the Long-Term Climate Change-Induced Risk Index (RI) in Current Trends Scenario among Climate Change Impact Scenarios. Diagram by the Author

Current Trends MetroFuture

Legend

Charles River Tributary RI 0-0.2%

0.2-0.4% 0.4-0.6%

0.6-0.8%

0.8-1% Green Equity Compact Core 1-1.2%

Miles ´ 0 1 2 4 6 8 Figure 4. Maps of Climate Change-induced Flooding Risk Index (RI) under Current Climate Conditions among Growth Scenarios. Diagram by the Author

Total projected population increase in 2030 distributed in areas of flooding risk hot spots (Z score >1.65 Std. Dev. in all redish census tracts)

Current Trends: 13,188

MetroFuture: 11,060

Current Trends MetroFuture Legend Population Increase 1 Dot = 10 people RI HotSpot GiZScore < -2.58 Std. Dev. -2.58 - -1.96 Std. Dev. -1.96 - -1.65 Std. Dev. -1.65 - 1.65 Std. Dev. 1.65 - 1.96 Std. Dev. 1.96 - 2.58 Std. Dev. > 2.58 Std. Dev.

Miles Green Equity Compact Core ´ 0 1 2 4 6 8 Figure 5. Maps of Allocation of Projected Increased Population in Growth Scenarios Overlaid with Current Climate Conditions of Long-Term Flooding Risk Index (RI) Hot Spots. Diagram by the Author

Figure 6. Positive Effects of Applying Stormwater Detention Function on Mitigating Climate Change- induced Floods in Climate Change Impact Scenarios; Particularly Effective within the Flooding Risk Index (RI) Hot Spots in Current Climate Conditions. Diagram by the Author

6 DISCUSSION social-ecological outcomes shown in Figure 5 to 6.1 Resilience Thinking and Planning refine the and land use plans Implications by accounting for projected climate change-induced This study has demonstrated the effects of flooding hazards and socially vulnerable groups. To planning interventions in mitigating social- enhance social-ecological resilience, communities ecological impacts from climate change and serving could consider (1) mitigate climate change impacts, as adaptation strategies. The root cause of social (2) minimize exposures to hazards, and (3) vulnerability resides in social systems created by increase adaptive capacity. In light of uncertainty in society and is inherent in the process of planning exacerbated by climate change, place- urbanization under social, political, economic, and based assessment plays a critical role in providing cultural context (Beck, 1992). In addition, social parameters of climate change impacts and vulnerability is place-specific (Cutter, Boruff, and assisting in setting policy frames for building social- Shirley, 2003), particularly associated with natural ecological resilience. Furthermore, this study disasters and environmental justice (Colten, 2006; demonstrated the positive effects of using Walker and Burningham, 2011). Therefore, spatial stormwater detentions in mitigating climate change- planning for the allocation of projected population induced floods, which in turn enhancing safety and should take anticipated environmental hazards and livelihood of the communities. Therefore, green associated health and safety impacts into infrastructure also serves as climate change considerations. In this case, planning agencies adaptation strategy. Growth strategy and green (e.g., MAPC) and local municipalities could use the infrastructure are planning interventions connected through land use/landscape planning and site

design. Innovations in adaptive land use in the and knowledge gained for building innovations in interconnected green infrastructure system network landscape planning and design practices. The across rural to urban transect (Cheng, 2013) can planning framework can be applied in landscape help to restore and enhance ecosystem functions and urban planning processes involving dynamics (e.g., stormwater detention, biodiversity, carbon of social and ecological factors and processes in sequestration, micro climate moderation) and the interlinked social-ecological systems and to eventually strengthen social-ecological resilience. address complex issues such as climate change. Plan evaluations through empirical studies on 6.2 Closing the Loop landscape performance and social-ecological The social-ecological outcomes from this outcomes could inform policy-makers and study were presented to the interdisciplinary practitioners for setting climate change parameters research teams that consist of multiple institutions and seeking innovations in landscape planning and disciplines (e.g., , policies and practices. This knowledge is critical for , conservation biology, ecology, the integration of , environmental public policy, , hydrologic engineering, justice, and climate change mitigation and and environmental psychology). The other research adaptation in landscape planning. The proposed teams have used growth scenarios developed from transdisciplinary planning framework allows the transdisciplinary participatory planning process continuous feedback loop at multiple scales across to explore other social-ecological drivers and organizational hierarchies, interdisciplinary outcomes. For example, one team is investigating coordination, and institutional hierarchies. The water conservation policies and people’s transdisciplinary approach is particularly important perceptions on green infrastructure in relation to for building mutual understanding and consensus water quality and accessibility. Another team is towards common goals and for setting priorities in exploring carbon sequestration in the Charles River allocating resources and planning strategies to watershed based on land cover change associated enhance people’s livelihoods and ecosystem with various growth scenarios. Furthermore, our services for building resilient and sustainable team has evaluated the effects of using landscape communities. preference and scenarios as visualization tools in the transdisciplinary process during the stakeholder 8 REFERENCES workshop for deliberating common goals in Adger, W. N. (2000). Social and ecological sustainability. Currently, the BMA ULTRA-ex resilience: are they related? Progress in research teams are working on assembling Human Geography 24(3), 347-364. interdisciplinary social-ecological outcomes for Adger, W. N. (2006). Vulnerability. Global sharing with stakeholders and closing the loop of Environmental Change-Human and Policy the planning framework. This study serves as a Dimensions 16(3), 268-281. seed project in the exploratory efforts for the social- Ahern, J. (2011). From fail-safe to safe-to-fail: ecological long-term research in Boston Metro Sustainability and resilience in the new Area. The ultimate goal is to apply the urban world. Landscape and Urban transdisciplinary planning framework in a Planning 100(4), 341-343. continuous feedback loop that allow plans to be Antrop, M., & Rogge, E. (2006). Evaluation of the adopted and evolved overtime with new insights process of integration in a transdisciplinary from the empirical social-ecological outcomes. landscape study in the Pajottenland Subsequently, plans can be adaptive in coping with (Flanders, Belgium). Landscape and Urban climate change and uncertainties in planning, which Planning 77(4), 382-392. eventually build social-ecological resilience at Arnold, J. G., Srinivasan, R., Muttiah, R. S., & multiple scales. Therefore, it is critical to close the Williams, J. R. (1998). Large area loop gap and secure resources for long-term hydrologic modeling and assessment - Part transdisciplinary participatory process in the I: model development. Water Resources proposed landscape planning framework. Bulletin 34(1), 73. Beatley, T. (2009). Planning for Coastal Resilience: 7 CONCLUSIONS Best Practices for Calamitous Times. Climate change and urbanization impacts Washington DC, Island Press. on associated disasters have increasingly become Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: Towards A New an eminent threat to cities. This paper has Modernity. London; Newbury Park, Calif.: contributed to theoretical framing of landscape Sage Publications. planning research issues, empirical case studies,

Berkes, F., & Folke, C. (Ed.). (1998). Linking Social climate-change adaptation. Natural and Ecological Systems: Management Hazards 67(1), 117-127. Practices and Social Mechanisms for Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a Building Resilience. Cambridge, U.K., perspective for social-ecological systems Cambridge University Press. analyses. Global Environmental Change- BMA-ULTRA. (2011). Boston Metro Ecological Human and Policy Dimensions 16(3), 253- Research. Retrieved March 24, 2012 from: 267. www.umass.edu/urbaneco. Fry, G. L. A. (2001). Multifunctional landscapes— Cheng, C. (2013). Social vulnerability, green towards transdisciplinary research. infrastructure, urbanization and climate Landscape and Urban Planning 57(3-4), change-induced flooding: A risk 159-168. assessment for the Charles River Grimm, N. B., Grove, J., Pickett, S. T. A., & watershed, Massachusetts, USA. Open Redman, C. L. (2000). Integrated Access Dissertations Paper 781. approaches to long-term studies of urban Cheng, C., Brabec, E. A., Ryan, R. L., Yang, Y.-C. ecological systems: Urban ecological E., Nicolson, C., & Warren, P. S. (2013). systems present multiple challenges to Future flooding risk assessment under ecologists—pervasive human impact and growth scenarios and climate change extreme heterogeneity of cities, and the impacts for the Charles River Watershed in need to integrate social and ecological the Boston Metropolitan Area. In Joint approaches, concepts, and theory. Association of European Schools of Bioscience 50(7), 571-584. Planning and The Association of Collegiate Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of Schools of Planning Annual Congress, ecological systems. Annual Review of Dublin, Ireland. Ecology & Systematics 4, 1-23. Cheng, C., Brabec, E. A., Yang, Y.-C. E., & Ryan, Innes, J. E. (1996). Planning through consensus R. L. (2013). Rethinking stormwater in a building: A new view of the comprehensive changing world: Effects of detention for planning ideal. Journal of American flooding hazard mitigation under climate Planning Association 62(4), 460-472. change scenarios in the Charles River IPCC. (2007). Mitigation of climate change Climate Watershed. In Landscape Record: Change 2007, Contribution of Working Proceedings of the Council of Educators in Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report Landscape Architecture Conference: of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Place, Time, Space, Duration, p.214-228. Change. Cambridge; New York: Colten, C. E. (2006). Vulnerability and place: Flat Cambridge University Press. land and uneven risk in New Orleans. Jantsch, E. (1970). Inter- and transdisciplinary [Article]. American Anthropologist 108(4), university: A systems approach to 731-734. education and innovation. Policy Sciences Costanza, R., Wainger, L., Folke, C., & Maler, K. G. 1(4), 403-428. (1993). Modeling complex ecological Kato, S., & Ahern, J. (2008). 'Learning by doing': economic systems: Toward an adaptive planning as a strategy to address evolutionary, dynamic understanding of uncertainty in planning. Journal of people and nature. Bioscience 43(8), 545- & Management 555. 51(4). Cutter, S. L., Boruff, B. J., & Shirley, W. (2003). Leary, N. (2008). Climate change and vulnerability. Social vulnerability to environmental London; Sterling, VA: Earthscan. hazards. Quarterly 84(2), MAPC. (2009). From Plan to Action: A MetroFuture 242-261. Summary. Metropolitan Area Planning Danford, R., Cheng, C., Strohbach, M. W., Ryan, R. Council. L., Nicolson, C., & Warren, P. S. (2014). Meppem, T., & Gill, R. (1998). Planning for What does it take to achieve equitable sustainability as a learning concept. urban tree canopy distribution? A Boston Ecological Economics 26(2), 121-137. case study. Cities and the Environment Pendall, R., Foster, K. A., & Cowell, M. (2010). 7(1), 1-20. Resilience and regions: Building Deppisch, S., & Hasibovic, S. (2013). Social- understanding of the metaphor. Cambridge ecological resilience thinking as a bridging Journal of Regions, Economy and Society concept in transdisciplinary research on 3(1), 71-84.

Pickett, S. T. A., Cadenasso, M. L., & Grove, J. M. (2004). Resilient cities: Meaning, models, and metaphor for integrating the ecological, socio-economic, and planning realms. Landscape and Urban Planning 69(4), 369- 384. Rock, B. N., Carter, L., Walker, H., Bradbury, J., Dingman, S. L., & Federer, C. A. (2001). Climate Impacts on Regional Water. University of New Hampshire. Ryan, R. L., Warren, P. S., Nicolson, C., Cheng, C., Danford, R. & Strohbach, M. S. (2013). Scenario planning for the Boston Metropolitan Region: Exploring environmental and social implications of alternative futures. Fábos Conference on Landscape and Planning 2013. University of Massachusetts Amherst. April 12-13, Amherst, MA. Stokols, D. (2006). Toward a science of transdisciplinary action research. American Journal of Community Psychology 38(1-2), 1-2. Thering, S., & Chanse, V. (2011). The scholarship of transdisciplinary action Research: Toward a New Paradigm for the Planning and Design Professions. Landscape Journal 30(1), 6. Tress, B., & Tress, G. (2001). Bridging human and natural sciences in landscape research. Landscape and Urban Planning 57(3-4), 137-141. Walker, B. H., & Salt, D. (2006). Resilience thinking: Sustaining ecosystems and people in a changing world. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Walker, G., & Burningham, K. (2011). Flood risk, vulnerability and environmental justice: Evidence and evaluation of inequality in a UK context. Critical Social Policy 31(2), 216-240. Wilkinson, C. (2012). Social-ecological resilience: Insights and issues for planning theory. Planning Theory 11(2), 148-169.