Emerging Landscapes

Using Ecological Theory to Guide Urban Planting Design:

An adaptation strategy for climate change
MaryCarol Hunter

ABSTRACT Global climate change threatens the structure and persist any farther north than southern Ohio / northern
function of ecological communities in urban areas, including Kentucky in 1990 can now manage the winter cold of
public and private gardens. An adaptation strategy was devel-
oped to accommodate the challenges of urban greenspace de- southern Michigan. Beyond effects on individual spe-
sign under a changing climate. The strategy offers a protocol for cies, differential responses to climate change among
planting design that focuses on adding resilience to plantings organisms can disrupt networks of community interac-
rather than matching specific plant species to specific predic-
tions such as predation and pollination, critical compo-
tions of climate change. The adaptation strategy begins by rating
locally appropriate plant species on ecological criteria for plas- nents of ecosystem health (Brooker et al. 2007; Gilman
ticity, functional redundancy, response diversity, and structural et al. 2010).
diversity. The plant palette is then developed within the confines The capacity of ecosystems to deliver services de-
set by ecological value and aesthetic goals, plus cultural and fi-
nancial considerations. Collective application of the strategy at fines their “health” from the perspective of human need
smaller scales across the urban landscape has the potential to (Rapport 1998). Healthy ecosystem function depends on
protect and expand nature corridors that are resilient to climate interactions among species and their abiotic environ-
change and to provide a low cost version of assisted migration.
Examples of how to apply the adaptation strategy demonstrate ment that may be compromised by the unpredictable
that the approach is not specific to place or scale, and does not impacts of climate change (Parmesan 2006). Conse-
require extensive training or bring added expense. The benefits quently, there has been a call for the development of
and manageable challenges of the strategy are discussed in rela-
adaptation strategies to buffer ecosystems against un-
tion to biodiversity conservation, social impact, the opportunity
for “designed” experiments that examine urban ecosystem pro- certainty (Blanco et al. 2009; Pielke 1998). Adaptation
cesses, and existing model forecasts for climate change. in this sense refers to “adjustments in individual, group,
KEYWORDS climate change adaptation, urban garden design, and institutional behavior in order to reduce society’s
biodiversity conservation, ecological resilience, translational vulnerabilities to climate change, and thus reduce its
research, habitat connectivity, ecological urbanism, urban green
impacts” (Pielke 1998, 159).
space, adaptive design, landscape architecture
Increasingly, researchers and professional practi-
tioners in urban planning and design are identifying and
INTRODUCTION applying methods to better protect urban ecosystem
services (Baschak and Brown 1995; Botequilha-Leitão
© 2011 by the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System

Ecosystem-level consequences of climate change are

and Ahern 2002; Colding 2007; Li et al. 2005; Lovell and
now well documented. Measureable effects within cities
Johnston 2009; Musacchio 2009; Tratalos et al. 2007;
include warmer average temperatures and greater ex-
Zhang et al. 2007). Gardens and managed greenspace
tremes in temperature and precipitation, both of which
offer the chance to create urban habitats that provide
contribute to changes in the timing of seasons (Hamlet
and enhance urban ecosystem structure, function,
Landscape Journal 30:2–11 ISSN 0277-2426

et al. 2007; IPCC 2007). Beyond the urban environment,

and services. Planting design plays a significant role in
climate change has been associated with shifts in plant
stormwater management, biodiversity conservation,
and animal phenology (Parmesan and Yohe 2003; Visser
and human health (Horwitz, Lindsay, and O’Connor
and Both 2005; Wilson et al. 2007) and in the geographic
2001). Planting design for green space at any scale, from
distribution of plants and animals (Iverson and Prasad
front yards to city parks, supports human well being, re-
1998; Parmesan 2006; Walther et al. 2009). The real-
duces heat island effects, offers refuge for wildlife, and
ized impact is evident when comparing the geographic
provides the spatial habitat linkage that is needed for
position of US plant cold hardiness zones in 1990 and
the long term viability of plants, animals, and beneficial
2006 (Figure 1). For example, minimum winter lows in
microbes (Pickett and Cadenasso 2008).
southeastern Michigan have increased by 5.5°C chang-
In urban environments, planting designers and
ing its hardiness designation from Zone 5b to 6a over a
horticulturalists have begun to realize that protocols
15-year period. This means that plants that could not
for plant selection must be modified to accommodate
global warming and increasingly unpredictable weather siter 1996, aka MCR Hunter). As plasticity increases,
(Dehnen-Schmutz et al. 2010; Marris 2007; Primack and plant species can persist under a greater diversity of en-
Miller-Rushing 2009; Wolfe et al. 2004). However, most vironmental conditions and are better able to manage
adaptation strategies are focused on urban planning environmental fluctuations (Charmantier et al. 2008;
solutions for sea level rise, heat island effects, health Chown et al. 2007). Plasticity is expressed on multiple
impacts, and water treatment (Blanco et al. 2009). axes including temperature, soil moisture, tolerance of
Guidance on adaptation of urban plant communities urban pollution, flood and drought, etc. For example,
to global climate change remains limited. Most efforts both American mountain ash (Sorbus americana) and
have focused on methods to assist migration of tree Pin Cherry (Prunus pennsylvanica) are small trees that
species in forested landscapes (Aitken et al. 2008). For are architecturally striking and offer beautiful colored
urban plant communities, Hunter (2008) proposed berries that are a good food source for birds. However,
an adaptive strategy for managing aesthetic aspects American mountain ash has a geographic range that
of plant selection to safeguard sense of place within a includes plant hardiness zones 2 through 9 while Pin
changing ecological context. This paper builds on those Cherry has a much narrower and more northerly range,
ideas and offers methods and examples of an adap- confined to hardiness zones 2 through 6. Mountain Ash
tive strategy to buffer urban plant communities from is capable of thriving under a much wider range of cli-
the impacts of climate change. The strategy focuses matic conditions including very warm and very cold
on planting designs for urban gardens, the dominant winters. Hence, it has more overwinter temperature plas-
green infrastructure of cities, but can be extrapolated ticity than does Pin Cherry. Plant hardiness zone is also a
to programs for larger scale landscape restoration and proxy for capacity to fare well under lengthened periods
assisted plant migration. The adaptive strategy trans- of warm weather given its correlation with latitude.
lates aspects of ecological theory to practical guidelines
for planting design. Because the guidelines promote Ecological Resilience
greater biodiversity and ecosystem resilience, they also Ecological resilience is the ability of an ecosystem to
offer a general roadmap for ecological planting design. maintain function in the face of environmental dis-
turbance (Elmqvist et al. 2003). Ecosystem resilience
depends on the way that biodiversity is partitioned
ECOLOGICAL, AESTHETIC, AND CULTURAL
relative to ecosystem function and emerges both from
COMPONENTS OF AN ADAPTIVE STRATEGY FOR
functional redundancy—the number of species con-
URBAN PLANTING DESIGN
tributing to an ecosystem function (Lawton and Brown
Two ecological concepts are fundamental to the adap- 1993) and response diversity—the range of reaction
tation strategy proposed here: plasticity and resilience. to environmental change among species contribut-
A third concept, structural diversity, is also a corner- ing to the same ecosystem function (Elmqvist et al.
stone of good ecological design, whether or not it is in 2003). The combination of functional redundancy and
response to climate change. response diversity acts as an insurance policy in the
face of uncertainty (Yachi and Loreau 1999) and both
Plasticity are essential when designing for adaptation to cli-
Plasticity describes how well species perform across a mate change.
range of environmental conditions. Although beyond For example, consider a planting design with goals
the scope of the current discussion, plasticity emerges that include support for generalist pollinators. It is not
from interactions between genetic variation within spe- enough to simply select a set of plant species that of-
cies and the phenotypic plasticity of individuals (Ros- fer nectar—the timing of nectar flow must provide re-

174 Landscape Journal 30:2–11

sources throughout the pollinator season (Hunter and being in part owing to its role in the construction of
Hunter 2008). To achieve functional redundancy, the place identity (Hull, Lam, and Vigo 1994). Some plant
plant palette must include species with overlapping species become signatures of place such as palm trees
bloom times to ensure that there are multiple pollina- in warm coastal areas or heather in the Scottish high-
tor resources at any given time. For response diversity, lands. After identifying signature species, alternative
plants providing pollinator resources must collectively species with broader ecological tolerance but similar
bring broad competence in the face of environmental aesthetic presence can be added to planting designs as
variation. For example, at a single point in the season, an adaptation to climate change (Hunter 2008). For ex-
there must be both drought tolerant and flood tolerant ample, American Basswood is a native tree commonly
plant species providing nectar rewards. The plant pal- found in urban areas of SE Michigan. This species is
ette shown in Figure 2 provides multiple flowering spe- likely to disappear from southeastern Michigan under
cies in each month of summer (functional redundancy several scenarios of climate change (Iverson and Prasad
for pollinator support). Within a functional group (for 1998). Its loss will change the sense of place and remove
example, pollinator resources in July), there is compe- its functional contribution to local urban ecosystem
tence for handling variation in soil moisture (response processes. An aesthetic and ecological substitute exists
diversity). If climate change favors some plant species in White Basswood, a congeneric and more southerly
at the expense of others, there will still be nectar pro- member of the same Central Hardwood forest com-
vided in each month throughout the pollinator season. munity. An adaptive planting design would call for use
of both species to maintain sense of place and support
Structural Diversity local ecosystem function throughout the transition
Structural diversity describes the spatial complexity brought on by climate change.
offered by plant form and is generally applied to a col- Finally, any discussion of ecological design in the
lection of plants, rather than an individual. Diversity urban environment must consider the use of non-
of physical or architectural form within a collection of native species in planting designs, a subject of conten-
plants produces structural diversity. Although struc- tion among designers and ecologists for practical and
tural diversity is not a direct casualty of climate change, ecological reasons (Gould 1997; Warren 2007). Com-
it ranks high in importance for healthy ecosystem struc- pelling arguments for the use of native species center
ture. The physical form of trees, shrubs, and ground- on the reliance of co-evolved community members for
covers, some deciduous, some evergreen, determines healthy ecosystem function (Tallamy 2009). The bias
the availability of shelter and space for organisms to favoring introduced ornamental species in garden de-
nest, forage and reproduce throughout the year (God- sign has a longstanding tradition in cultures worldwide
dard, Dougill, and Benton 2010). As plants are chosen and is related to place identity (for migrant peoples) and
to increase plasticity, ensure functional redundancy, the human desire for novelty (Horwitz, Lindsay, and
and provide response diversity, they must also provide O’Connor 2001; Jarvis 1973; Kendle and Rose 2000).
diversity in architectural form because structural com- Non-native species that become invasive can have
plexity supports biodiversity (Hansen et al. 1991). clear negative impacts on ecosystem structure and
In the design fields, there are considerations be- function (Alberti 2005). However, current research on
yond ecological function that demand adaptation strat- the utility and harm of using non-native species in ur-
egies for climate change. Chief among these, aesthetic ban settings illustrates the complexity of prescribing a
matching of signature species aims to protect sense of balance between cultural and ecological goals (Bergerot
place under circumstances of change (Hunter 2008). et al. 2010; Bjerknes et al. 2007; Burghardt, Tallamy, and
The urban plant community supports human well Shriver 2009; Calkins 2005; Daniels and Kirkpatrick 2006;

Hunter 175
Heneghan and Hunter 2004; McKinney 2006; Tallamy (USDA-NRCS 2011) was especially useful for data on
and Shropshire 2009), particularly in light of climate plant water requirements. Since adaptation strategies
change (Bardsley and Edwards-Jones 2007; Hahs et al. for climate change must be tailored to local character-
2009). An adaptation strategy for climate change using istics (Blanco et al. 2009), the best information on phe-
the ecological characteristics described above empha- nology often came from local or regional sources (for
sizes the use of native plants, but allows incorporation example, Boland, Coit, and Hart 2002; Shaw et al. 2007)
of popular non-invasive, non-native ornamental spe- and the Missouri Botanical Garden (2011). When these
cies to achieve ecological goals and acknowledge socio- sources failed, I drew a consensus from data published
cultural sensibilities. by multiple sources including commercial horticulture
companies (for example, Monrovia 2011).

METHODS
Coding plasticity characteristics. In addition to hor-
Assembly of a Plant Database to Enable Adaptive
ticultural traits typically used by ecological plant de-
Design
signers, I added plasticity characteristics. The plasticity
In brief, the adaptation strategy proposed here for the traits summarize the capacity of plant species to ac-
design of urban plantings that are resilient to climate commodate variation in temperature, light, soil type,
change includes exploiting plasticity in the ecological soil moisture conditions, and bloom period (Table 1).
traits of plants, in concert with structurally diverse de- Based on the number of hardiness zones a species can
sign that exhibits functional redundancy and response occupy, the temperature plasticity trait addresses the
diversity. Implementation requires a catalogue of horti- ability of a species to withstand a range of temperatures
cultural and plasticity traits for commercially available and seasonality. Values range from 1 to 8 where higher
plants that are appropriate for the region of interest. values indicate greater plasticity. The soil moisture plas-
Cataloging species in this way provides a structurally di- ticity trait is the sum of acceptable moisture categories
verse palette for choosing plants to meet ecological, aes- (dry, moist, and wet) for a given species; values range
thetic, cultural, and financial parameters of a project. from 1 to 3. Higher values indicate greater likelihood
that a species will persist under increased amplitude of
Coding species characteristics. To apply the adap- rainfall typical of climate change.
tive strategy for planting design, I compiled a list of Several other plasticity traits were included in the
plants suitable for urban areas in southeastern Michi- database to reflect challenges faced in urban planting
gan. The majority of species were native to the region. design, in addition to those of climate change. For each
Some locally popular non-native species that are not trait defined below, higher values indicate greater ca-
considered invasive (Brooklyn Botanic Garden 2006; pacity for managing unpredictable variation in condi-
USDA-NISC 2010) and were readily available from tions of the urban landscape. Light plasticity is the sum
nurseries were included for reasons of practicality of acceptable light conditions for a species (full sun =
and cost. Coding for each species involved character- 6 or more hours of direct sunlight, partial shade = 2 – 6
ization of aesthetic features, life history, and ecologi- hours, full shade = less than 2 hours); values range from
cal traits based on data corroborated across multiple 1 to 3. Light plasticity is valuable where climate change
sources (Table 1). Data came from reference books impacts cloud cover and in settings where maturing
including Aniski (2008) for perennials, Dirr (1998) for shade trees and development alter light availability. The
woody plants, Shaw et al. (2007) for stormwater man- number of major soil types (clay, loam, and sand) ac-
agement plants, and Darke (2007) for ornamental ceptable to a plant species defines soil plasticity; values
grasses. The US Department of Agriculture’s website range from 1 to 3. The relevance of soil plasticity comes

176 Landscape Journal 30:2–11

Table 1. List of plant traits for each species entry with efficient coding conventions; emergent plasticity traits are preceded
by an asterisk.

Plant Type: 1 = tree, 2 = shrub, 3 = flowering herbaceous perennial, 4 = grass/rush/sedge, 5 = fern, 6 = vine, 7 = groundcover,
8 = annual
Botanical Name
Common Name
Persistence: 1 = deciduous, 2 = evergreen, 3 = facultative evergreen ( = semi-evergreen)
Nativity: 0 = not native to US, 1 = US native, 2 = Great Lakes native
Hardiness: USDA (1990) overwintering hardiness zone range; e.g., 4–9 or 4b-9a
*Temperature Plasticity: count number of overwintering hardiness zones
Light Type: F = full sun, PSh = partial shade, Sh = shade
*Light Plasticity: count number of acceptable light types; range = 1–3, least to most plastic
Light preference: notes; e.g., greater blooms in full sun; avoid afternoon sun
Soil Type (if known, preferred condition first): C = clay, L = loam, S = sand, SL = sandy-loam, SCL = sandy-clay-loam
*Soils Plasticity: count number of acceptable soil types; range = 1–3, least to most plastic
Soil pH: AC = acidic (<6.8); ALK = alkaline soil (>7.2); N = neutral (6.8–7.2); sl = slightly
Soil Moisture (if known, preferred condition first): D = dry, DM = dry to moist, MD = moist to dry, M = moist, MW = moist to wet,
WM = wet to moist, W = wet, WMD = plant do well under all conditions
*Soil Moisture Plasticity: count number of acceptable soil moisture conditions; range = 1–3, least to most plastic
Details on soil moisture needs: preferences, e.g., can handle standing water
Drought Tolerance: 0 = no drought tolerance; 4 = yes; and 1 = low tolerance; 2 = medium tolerance, 3 = high tolerance
Salt Tolerance: ST = salt tolerant; SS = salt sensitive; undocumented for many species
Heat Tolerance: HT = heat tolerant; HS = heat sensitive; undocumented for many species
Typical Height: height range (feet)
Typical Height in bloom: height range (feet)
Typical Width: width range at widest point (feet)
Plant Form: C = columnar, CL = clumped, E = erect, H = horizontal, I = irregular, M = mounded, O = oval, P = prostrate,
Py = pyramidal, R = rounded, S = spreading
Plant Texture: F = fine, M = medium, C = coarse
Foliage Color: B = brown, BG = blue-green, Cr = cream, DG = dark green, G = bright green, Gr = Gray, GrG = Gray Green,
MG = medium green, O = olive, P = purple, PG = pale green, R = red, Si = silver , V = variegated, Y = yellow, YG = yellow-green
Fall Color: B = brown, Cr = cream, DG = dull green, G = green, M = maroon, O = orange, OG = olive, P = purple, R = red,
Sc = Scarlet, Y = yellow, YB = yellow-brown, YG = yellow-green
Bloom Time: Jn = January, F = February, Mr = March, A = April, My = May, Jn = June, Jl = July, Ag = August, S = September,
O = October, N = November, D = December
*Bloom Time Plasticity: count number of months when blooming occurs
Bloom Color: B = blue, Br = brown, Cr = Cream, i = inconspicuous, G = green, L = lavender, O = orange, p = pale, P = pink,
Pr = purple, R = red, Ro = rose, S = silver, W = white, Y = yellow
Fruit/Edible Type: C = cone, B = berry, F = fruit, S = seed
Fruit/Edible Type Color: B = blue, Br = brown, Cr = Cream, G = green, L = lavender, O = orange, P = pink, Pr = purple, R = red,
Ro = rose, S = silver, W = white, Y = yellow
Winter Form: A = architectural (e.g., interesting branching patterns), B = bark of interest, F = fruit thru winter, S = seed head
Wildlife Value: B = bee, Bd = bird, Bf = butterfly, D = deer, Ma = Mammal, Mi = mice, Sq = squirrel
Ecosystem Restorative Value: BT = bioremediation ability, EC = erosion control, NF = nitrogen fixer
Human Health Restorative Value: F = food, HM = herbal medicine, give details

from the reality that soil type is often unknown or the selfing reproduction) and its capacity to accommodate
planting beds are amended with commercial garden soil unpredictable timing of pollinators and other fauna
mixes that be may unable to ameliorate poor drainage that use its floral resources.
or mitigate adverse effects of deeper soil layers. Conse-
quently, a high value for soil plasticity indicates greater Development of Two Case Demonstrations of Urban
likelihood that a plant species will accommodate urban Planting Designs Illustrating Use of Climate Change
soil. Bloom period plasticity is the sum of months dur- Adaptation Strategy
ing which a species can produce flowers; values range Two urban planting design case demonstrations illus-
from 1 to 5. Bloom period is a plasticity trait because it trate use of the database (see Hunter 2009) in develop-
describes the plant’s opportunity for outcrossing (non- ing climate change adaptation strategies. The two case

Hunter 177
demonstrations illustrate the consideration of ecologi- RESULTS
cal goals within the context of other cultural and aes-
The following discussions evaluate the two case dem-
thetic design goals. Not every design can include all
onstrations using the criteria of temperature plasticity,
components of the adaptation strategy but even lim-
functional redundancy, response diversity, and struc-
ited application is a good starting point and valuable in
tural diversity.
the context of a collective effort across neighborhoods
and cities. Temperature Plasticity
The demonstrations described here involve a type
Plants chosen for both designs exhibit high tempera-
of space familiar to residents of American cities—the
ture plasticity with overwintering hardiness spanning a
easement area, the strip of land in front of a house, bor-
minimum of 5 zones and an average of 6.7 zones. For all
dered by the street on one side and the sidewalk on the
species but one, the most southerly acceptable growing
other. In addition to the adaptive ecological strategy,
area is Florida—zones 9 to 10 (Table 2). Use of plants
there are additional design criteria typically established
with this type of plasticity serves as an adaptation strat-
by the client, local government, and designer. In the fol-
egy for climate change because each species can per-
lowing example, developed for southeastern Michigan,
sist under temperatures typical of the recent past and
the accompanying criteria fall into several groups:
under the warmer temperatures predicted in Michigan
1. Aesthetic: generate a landscape form that is visually under climate change.
engaging year round.
Functional Redundancy
2. Cultural: select species for low-input management
that do not occupy space between about 1 and 2 m In both designs, biodiversity is supported by the simul-
from the ground to ensure a safety vision zone for taneous flowering of multiple plant species that pro-
motorists. vide butterfly resources (nectar, pollen, and habitat)
3. Ecological: select species that are drought and salt throughout the summer (Figure 5). For Design A, the
tolerant to accommodate lack of irrigation and period of functional redundancy lasts from July (three
winter road salting practices, and that offer food and species flower in unison) through August (three spe-
shelter for butterflies and birds. cies) and September (three species). By contrast, Design
B expresses greater functional redundancy beginning
Selected species must also meet soil type and soil in June (four species flower in unison) followed by July
pH conditions. Over the short term, it is unlikely that (eight species), August (nine species), and Septem-
soil pH would experience rapid shift from climate ber (eight species). Greater functional redundancy for
change (see Brinkman and Sombroek 1996). bird resources exists in Design B compared to Design
Presented below are two designs, which both ad- A, based on availability of food and year round habitat
dress all design criteria. Design A (Figure 3) includes six from multiple sources (see “totals” for each design in
plant species, is easier to install and maintain but does Figure 5).
not implement adaptation strategies and biodiversity
goals as fully as Design B (Figure 4). Design B includes Response Diversity
15 plant species—six from Design A plus nine new ones The occurrence of abnormally high rainfall over several
(Table 2; complete trait data for these species in supple- consecutive years is a likely outcome of climate change,
mental Table S1). A comparison of aesthetic presence and it serves to illustrate the capacity of response diver-
and the spatial location of resources also illustrated for sity to protect ecosystem function under a typical out-
summer (Figure S1) and winter (Figure S2). come of climate change. Design B is better equipped to

178 Landscape Journal 30:2–11

Table 2. Plant list for Designs A and B with traits used for plasticity, functional redundancy, and response diversity; ID = iden-
tity in Figures 3 & 4.
*Soil
Design *Temp Soil Moisture Bloom
Design Plan ID Common Name Botanical Name Hardiness Plasticity Moisture plasticity Time
A+B CB Coral Bells Heuchera americana 4–9 6 MD 2 Jn–Ag
‘Ring of Fire’
A+B GF Gayfeather Liatris spicata ‘Alba’ 3–8 6 MD 2 Jl–Ag
A+B PC Purple Coneflower Echinacea purpurea 3–10 8 DMW 3 Jl–S
A+B RJ Grey Owl Red Juniper Juniperus virginiana 3–9 7 DM 2 Mr
‘Grey Owl’
A+B SU Gro-Low Fragrant Rhus aromatica 3–9 7 MD 2 A–My
Sumac ‘Gro Low’
A+B WO White Oak Quercus alba 3–9 7 DMW 3 My
B BS Black Eyed Susan Rudbeckia hirta 3–7 5 MD 2 Jn–S
‘Indian Summer’
B BW Butterfly Weed Asclepias tuberosa 3–9 7 DM 2 Jn–Ag
B IB Indian Blanket Gaillardia aristata 3–10 8 DM 2 Jl–S
B IBB Indian Blanket-Bijou Gaillardia aristata ‘Bijou’ 3–8 6 DM 2 Jl–S
B MG Pink Muhly Grass Sporobolus capillaris / 5–9 5 DMW 3 Jl–S
Muhlenbergia
capillaris
B SA Stokes Aster Stokesia laevis 5–9 5 MD 2 Jn–S
‘Blue Danube’
B SG Switchgrass Panicum virgatum 3–9 7 DMW 3 Ag–S
‘Shenandoah’
B TC Threadleaf coreopsis Coreopsis verticillata 3–9 7 MD 2 Jn–S
‘Moonbeam’
B WC White Coneflower Echinacea purpurea 3–10 8 DMW 3 Jl–S

Figure 1. Shift in plant cold-hardiness

zones between 1990 and 2006. Color
coding relates minimum winter tem-
peratures in increments of 12.2°C
where minimum winter temperature for
Zone 5 = –23.4°C to –26.1°C and Zone
9 = –1.2°C to –3.8°C. (Reprinted from
National Arbor Day Foundation 2006;
updating based on data from 5,000
National Climatic Data Center coopera-
tive stations across the continental
United States)

provide pollinator and bird resources despite wet con- months, is able to grow in wet soils, and fulfills other
ditions (see “totals” for each design in Figure 6). How- criteria for height, drought, and salt tolerance. For ex-
ever, neither design will reliably provide resources for ample, Showy Evening Primrose (Oenothera speciosa)
pollinators from April through June. The iterative de- fulfills these criteria during June. A general rule of thumb
sign process would proceed to add at least one pollina- for providing response diversity is to choose species at
tor resource species that flowers in each of these early the outset with the greatest soil moisture plasticity.

Hunter 179
 retrofits of existing gardens. The adaptation strategy
can be used at many scales—from larger scale projects
such as planting plans for a regional park system or a
citywide pollinator support program, to smaller scale
designs for subdivisions, urban pocket parks, and small
Figure 2. Graphical representations of functional redundancy and re- residential gardens.
sponse diversity for pollinator resources throughout the growing season
with greatest insurance of nectar in July. Bars indicate blooming period. Benefits and Challenges of the Proposed Strategy
Moisture requirements range from D = dry, to M = moist to W = wet soils.
Application of this strategy brings distinct benefits and
some manageable challenges described below:
Structural Diversity
Both designs fulfill criteria for structural diversity by in- Ecosystem health. Resilience in, or restoration of, even
cluding the architectural form and collective complexity one ecosystem service, like pollinator habitat, can have
of a tree, several shrubs, and herbaceous perennials. The multiplicative effects on ecosystem health owing to the
spatial complexity persists year round for both designs, high degree of dependencies among ecosystem mem-
although Design B offers greater structural diversity bers. The adaptation strategy for climate change serves
in winter with five species compared to Design A with equally well as a prescription for ecological restoration
three species. In summer, Design B has more structural because it supports diversity and buffers urban ecosys-
diversity owing to a greater range of architectural form tems from the effects of disturbance. Creating many
provided by seven additional flowering perennial spe- small gardens provides the benefit of enhancing biodi-
cies. Because all species fulfill criteria for temperature versity and ecosystem function citywide or regionally
plasticity, the reliability of each architectural contribu- (Goddard, Dougill, and Benton 2010; Kendal, Williams,
tion to habitat complexity is greater. and Williams 2010). With application of the adaptation
strategy to a collective of small spaces, there is poten-
tial to safeguard and enhance a network of urban linked
DISCUSSION green space. Greening of cities creates links across
Implementation of an adaptation strategy that focuses otherwise impermeable barriers to plant and animal
on flexibility rather than accommodation of a specific dispersal, thereby supporting both local and regional
predicted outcome of climate change is more likely to environmental health (Angold et al. 2006; Arendt 2004;
be successful (Hallegatte 2009). The adaptive strategy Hunter and Hunter 2008; Oprea et al. 2009; Snep et al.
for climate change presented here provides an approach 2006; Van Rossum and Triest 2010).
to planting design for building resilience of urban eco- Collective application of the adaptation strategy
systems in the face of climate change and other distur- to many small gardens across a metropolis also has the
bance, whether natural or anthropogenic. The strategy capacity to provide a low cost version of assisted migra-
emphasizes the creation of planting designs that pro- tion. Assisted migration involves the manual relocation
vide functional redundancy, response diversity, and of species by humans to portions of their expected,
structural diversity. It also emphasizes the inclusion expanded geographic range as predicted by climate
of plant species that exhibit plasticity, particularly in change models. The intervention is valuable because
response to temperature and rainfall variation. The natural dispersal may not occur with sufficient speed or
ecological framework for planting design can be ap- frequency to keep organisms in suitable habitat. Argu-
plied equally well to new development or to “adaptive” ments against assisted migration, based on interference
with natural plant communities (McLachlan, Hellmann,

180 Landscape Journal 30:2–11

Figure 3. Design A for support of birds and butterflies using 5 plant species. The illustrative plan view conveys the aesthetic intent and the dia-
grammatic plan view gives species identity (key to abbreviations in Table 2) and the number of individuals that occupy each delineated space. The
planting strip is approximately 30 m × 3 m.

and Schwartz 2007), may not be as relevant in urban response diversity by differing in their capacities to
settings where ecosystem processes are already modi- withstand climate extremes. Program goals of a design
fied. For example, horticultural introduction of species project can also result in lower biodiversity. For ex-
that can sustain urban conditions typically bypasses or ample, site conditions required that all plants for De-
enhances their natural dispersal capacity. Horticultural signs A and B are drought and salt tolerant. This caused
plantings in urban areas have already assisted plant a significant reduction in the list of potential plant spe-
migration to more northerly reaches (Van der Veken cies to meet ecological and aesthetic goals. Compet-
et al. 2008; Woodall et al. 2010). Therefore, urban areas ing demands call for pragmatism, greater creativity to
may be suitable locations to assess the value of assisted meet aesthetic goals, and ongoing expansion of the
migration using the adaptation strategy for planting plant database.
design. Implementation would require help from the
horticulture industry (Dehnen-Schmutz et al. 2010) and Aesthetic consideration. It is important to keep aes-
cooperation from local nursery suppliers. thetic goals in sharp focus if an ecological planting
design is to be culturally accepted and supported (in
Biodiversity constraints. The extensive use of highly other words, sustainable) over the long term (Hunter
plastic species can inadvertently result in lower biodi- 2006; Nassauer 1995; Parsons and Daniel 2002). The
versity in several ways. First, as requirements for plas- adaptive strategy presented here allows aesthetic and
ticity on multiple traits increases, the list of potential ecological considerations to remain on equal footing.
plant species drops. Second, as the use of highly plastic The approach does not require a modification of the
species increases, there is a drop in the number of spe- creative design process, leaving a designer free to create
cies available to maintain ecosystem function across a spatial form, color and texture palettes, and a tempo-
wide range of environmental variation. Consequently, ral sequence of sensory experience. However, the de-
biodiversity is best served by choosing plant species signer must be willing to put more consideration into
for a given ecosystem function that include a mixture the choice of plant species in order to fulfill ecologi-
of highly plastic species and those that contribute to cal criteria.

Hunter 181
Figure 4. Design B for support of birds and butterflies using 15 plant species including 2 cultivars of same species. The illustrative plan view con-
veys the aesthetic intent and the diagrammatic plan view gives species identity (key to abbreviations in Table 2) and the number of individuals that
occupy each delineated space. The planting strip is approximately 30 m × 3 m.

Long term management. Unlike buildings, plants understanding of urban ecosystem processes and per-
grow. Consequently, a planting design should include formance. Implementation of the strategy will pro-
a management plan to guide future form and function duce experimental plots in the form of garden spaces
(Koningen 2004). The potential of climate change to to test hypotheses about urban landscape ecological
adjust plant performance makes the provision of man- processes at multiple spatial scales. Collaboration be-
agement more critical. Written documentation should tween designers and ecologists would constitute an
include directives on how to replace a plant species that example of “designed experiments” (Felson and Pick-
does poorly, how to control a plant that begins to out- ett 2005), wherein designers create a product that bal-
compete companion species, and how to add new plant ances ecological, aesthetic, and urban functional goals
species as the needs of other ecosystem members (for and is amenable to criteria for hypothesis testing as set
example, pollinators, people) become known. forth by scientists. “Designed experiments” aim to bal-
ance realistic complexity with experimental control.
Research Collaboration between Designers and This is an ideal approach for evaluating the ability of
Ecologists the adaptation strategy presented here to support resil-
The work presented here is an example of translational ience of ecosystems impacted by climate change. Post-
research, wherein solutions for complex environmen- occupancy evaluation, a method used by designers and
tal problems come from connecting scientific theory, permitting agencies to evaluate the success of installed
concepts, and principles to the design and planning designs, could be used to evaluate the effectiveness of
of the built environment (Musacchio 2008; Hunter implementing the climate change adapted planting
and Hunter 2008). The adaptation strategy for plant- design strategy. Collection of scientific data will enable
ing design under climate change offers a foundation evaluation of hypotheses about the success of the adap-
for collaborative work with ecologists to expand our tation strategy relative to ecological and management

182 Landscape Journal 30:2–11

Figure 5. Seasonal resource and
aesthetic presence chart for species
in Designs A and B. Bloom time and
flower color are shown for butterfly
resources; flower and fruit / seed color
and availability are shown for bird
resources. Totals indicate the number
of species / varieties contributing to
functional redundancy in resource
provisioning by month (pollinators) or
season (birds).

goals, the success of biodiversity enhancement in sup- these models exhibit greater uncertainty as variables
port of ecosystem functions (like pollination), the ca- related to soil moisture, such as precipitation, cloud
pacity of small linked gardens to serve as vital corridors cover, and wind are included (Crimmins et al. 2011;
for the natural community, etc. Collaborative effort will Troccoli 2010) and as the geographic scale for predic-
reduce the burden of data collection. Adaptive collab- tion becomes finer (Praskievicz and Chang 2009).
orative landscape management (Duff et al. 2009) and One approach for understanding the nature of fu-
citizen science (Bonney et al. 2009) offer approaches for ture climates at finer geographic scales (like a state or
engaging other user groups and the public at large in city) is to find a climate analog, a present day geographic
scientific data collection. location whose weather matches that of the projected
weather patterns in the place of interest. For example,
Prescribing Adaptation Strategies for Uncertain climate projections were used to identify climate ana-
Climate Projections logs for the states of Michigan and Illinois (Hayhoe et al.
Models that predict the impact of climate change on 2010). The results show that under a low greenhouse gas
global weather patterns provide an enormously useful emissions scenario, weather in southeastern Michigan
premise for mitigation and adaptation planning (Kling will be like that of present-day southern Ohio in the
et al. 2005; Wilby et al. 2009). However, predictions from near future (2010 to 2039), like that of West Virginia by

Hunter 183
 Figure 6. Evaluation of response diver-
sity in Designs A and B for year(s) of ab-
normally high rainfall. Shaded squares
indicate the species able to provide
ecosystem services owing to their
ability to sustain themselves through
extended periods with wet soil. Empty
boxes indicate lost ecosystem function
for species that cannot function when
soils remain wet. Soil moisture capacity
for D = dry, M = moist, W = wet soils.

mid-century, and like that of Tennessee by the end of be able to customize plant lists based on projected cli-
the century. Under a high emissions scenario, the cli- mate scenarios and knowledge of current microclimatic
mate analogs are even further south and west. These relationships with the land. Third, as forecasting models
predictions provide additional criteria for creating are improved and predictions modified, the constitu-
adaptive plant palettes. For example, a climate adapta- tion of the protective plant palette must be reevaluated.
tion plant list for southeastern Michigan could include While the reliability and local specificity of forecasting
native species that are currently successful in urban models improve, planting designers and city planners
areas of southern Ohio. need immediate guidance in how to plan for ecosystem
This approach to adaptation while promising has resilience in the face of uncertainty about the local im-
several limitations. First, the application of model pre- pact of climate change. For these reasons, it is efficient
dictions can be used only where downscaled climate to use plant overwinter hardiness as the starting point
projections are available. Second, the simulation mod- for selecting an adaptive plant palette. Hardiness data
els, even with downscaling, are insensitive to the impact is universally available and easy to interpret by both ex-
of topography and land cover on microclimate at any pert and layman.
given location (Praskievicz and Chang 2009). Since skill- Despite the perils of using climate predictions
ful planting designers always account for microclimate to develop adaptation strategies, countries and com-
during plant choice, it is conceivable that designers will munities are developing place-specific strategies. For

184 Landscape Journal 30:2–11

Figure S1. Summer comparison of aesthetic presence and spatial location of butterfly and bird resources between Design A (above) and Design B
(below).

example, policy makers and citizens from the City of Projections emerged from coupled atmosphere-ocean
Chicago developed an elegant climate change action general circulation models (AOGCM) to which statis-
plan based on feasibility and cost / benefit ratio over the tical downscaling was applied to capture the nuances
short and long term (Coffee et al. 2010). At least a half of regional-scale change. Descriptions of a few of their
dozen of the adaptation actions require careful choice of results show how climate change projections might be
plant species if they are to be successful. These include used in the development of plant palettes that offer
city tree planting, development of a performance-based protection for urban ecosystems in southeast Michigan.
landscape ordinance and a single-lot storm ordinance, For the near future (2010 to 2039), simulation models
green alley design, updating of a recommended plant predict that average winter and summer temperatures
list, and urban forest and wetland management plans. in southeastern Michigan will be 2°C warmer com-
The adaptation strategy for plant selection presented in pared to average temperatures from 1961 to 1990. Over
this paper offers guidance to help meet these goals. this time frame, precipitation is projected to increase 5
Such visioning still leaves the problem of what fu- to 10 percent (spring) and 0 to 5 percent (summer). In
ture to design for. For the Great Lakes region there are combination with warmer temperatures, the net effect
climate projections at three future time periods and will be drier summer weather.
under two emissions scenarios (Hayhoe et al. 2010).

Hunter 185
Figure S2. Winter comparison of aesthetic presence and spatial location of butterfly and bird resources between Design A (above) and Design B
(below).

These specific predictions suggest that an adaptive futures (for example, increased summer flooding),
plant palette for southeast Michigan should be biased plant selection can be adjusted accordingly within the
toward species that have greater capacity for spring framework of local predictions and in light of the gen-
flooding yet higher drought tolerance. Demonstrations eral goals of the adaptation strategy.
of how to apply the urban planting adaptation strategy As an antidote to the imprecision of climate change
presented earlier show how to plan for this forecast. The projections, adaptation strategies should be designed
selected plant palette shown in Table 2 will produce a with built-in flexibility features for managed ecosys-
garden able to handle drier summer weather (owing to tems that combine multiple options for enhancing eco-
the criterion for drought resistant species) and wetter system resistance, resilience, and response capacity to
springs (owing to high plasticity for moisture availabil- changing conditions (Millar, Stephenson, and Stephens
ity). Moreover, species plasticity will buffer the garden 2007). The adaptation strategy for urban planting de-
from greater year round extreme temperature and rain- sign embraces all of these goals. Resistance (forestall-
fall events, the types of fluctuation that accompany the ing the undesired effects of change) is facilitated by
more gradual shift in average climate parameters (CCSP designing gardens with season-long diversity in polli-
2008). For geographic areas with different projected nator resources with the collective capacity to protect

186 Landscape Journal 30:2–11

Table S1. Complete trait data for plants used on Designs A and B in spreadsheet format, ready for sorting

*Soil Moisture plasticity

Details on soil moisture

*Drought tolerance
*Temp Plasticity

Light preference
Botanical Name

*Light Plasticity
Common Name

*Soils Plasticity

*Salt tolerance
Soil Moisture
Persistence
Plant type

Light Type
Hardiness

Soil Type
Nativity

Soil pH

needs
3 Butterfly Asclepias 1 2 3–9 7 F–PSh 2 L,S,C 3 AC DM 2 Does well 4 ST
Weed tuberosa in poor,
dry soils
3 Threadleaf Coreopsis 1 1 3–9 7 F 1 full sun S,L 2 AC MD 2 Thrives in 4 ST
coreopsis verticillata poor soil
‘Moonbeam’ w/ good
drainage
3 Purple Echinacea 1 2 3–10 8 F 1 best in L,S 2 ALK DMW 3 Tolerates 4 ST
Coneflower purpurea full sun poor soil
3 Indian Gaillardia 1 1 3–10 8 F 1 full sun S,L 2 AC DM 2 Prefers 4 ST
Blanket aristata well-
drained
soils
3 Indian Gaillardia 1 1 3–8 6 F 1 full sun S,L 2 AC DM 2 Prefers 4 ST
Blanket- aristata well-
Bijou ‘Bijou’ drained
soils
3 Rock Heuchera 1 2 4–9 6 F–PSh 2 prefers L,S 2 Neutral MD 2 medium 4 ST
Geranium americana afternoon moisture,
‘Ring of Fire’ shade well-
drained
2 Grey Owl Juniperus 2 2 3–9 7 F–PSh 2 L,S,C 3 sl DM 2 Intolerant 4 ST
Red Juniper virginiana AC- ALK of wet
‘Grey Owl’ soils
3 Blazing Star Liatris 1 2 3–8 6 F 1 L 1 Neutral MD 2 Intolerant 4 ST
spicata ‘Alba’ of wet
soils in
winter
4 Switchgrass Panicum 1 2 5–9 5 F 1 slumps L,S,C 3 Neutral DMW 3 Flops in 2 ST
virgatum in shade rich soils,
‘Shenandoah’ prefers
moist
1 White Oak Quercus alba 1 2 3–9 7 F–PSh 2 full sun L,S,C 3 AC DMW 3 Prefers 4 ST
moist,
acidic soil
2 Gro-Low Rhus 1 2 3–9 7 F–PSh 2 L,S,C 3 sl AC- MD 2 Not 4 ST
Fragrant aromatica Neutral tolerant
Sumac ‘Gro Low’ of poor
drainage
3 Black Eyed Rudbeckia 1 2 3–7 5 F 1 L,S 2 Neutral MD 2 Best in 2 ST
Susan hirta ‘Indian moist but
Summer’ not wet
soils
4 Pink Muhly Sporobolus 1 1 5–9 5 F 1 L,S,C 3 Neutral- DMW 3 Tolerates 4 ST
Grass capillaris / ALK poorly
Muhlenbergia drained
capillaris soils
3 Stokes Stokesia 1 1 5–9 5 F–PSh 2 S,L 2 AC MD 2 Prefers 4 ST
Aster laevis ‘Blue well-
Danube’ drained
soils

Hunter 187
Table S1 (cont .). Complete trait data for plants used on Designs A and B in spreadsheet format, ready for sorting

* Bloom Plasticity
*Heat tolerance
Common Name

Typical Height

Wildlife Value
Typical Width

Plant Texture

Foliage Color

Winter Form
Bloom Color
Bloom Time
Plant Form

Fruit Color
Fruit Type
Fall Color

Notes
Butterfly 1–2.5′ 1–1.5′ E M, C MG Jn–Ag 3 Y, O G Bf architectural
Weed pods in fall
Threadleaf HT 1.5–2′ 1.5–2′ M F MG Jn–S 4 Y Bf adundant pale
coreopsis yellow flowers,
needle-like
foliage
Purple 2–5′ 1.5–2′ E M DG Jl–S 3 P-Pr S Bd, Bf many cultivars
Coneflower with great
petal-cone color
combos
Indian HT 2–3′ 2′ E–CL M GrG Jl–S 3 R B, Bd, forms dense
Blanket Bf clumps; bright
red petals with
yellow tips
Indian HT 1′ 1′ E–CL M GrG Jl–S 3 R+O B, Bd, forms dense
Blanket- Bf clumps; dwarf;
Bijou orange-red
petals with
yellow tips
Rock 1–2′ 1′ E–CL M BG–Si Jn–Ag 3 pP Bf pale pink bloom
Geranium on airy stems;
silvery leaf
-bright coral
edge in fall
Grey Owl 2–3′ 4–6′ S M GrG–Si Mr 1 i F B-G A Bd, Ma silvery green,
Red Juniper fragrant foliage
gives texture,
showy bark
Blazing Star HT 2–4′ 2′ E F MG Jl–Ag 2 W Bd, Bf flowers as
feathery
spikes, grass-
like foliage on
upright stems
Switchgrass 3–6′ 2–3′ E–CL F MG–P O, R, Y Ag–S 2 P A, Bd, Ma lovely winter
S form
White Oak 50–80′ 50–80′ Py C BG R My 1 i S Br A, Bd, Ma handsome
B brown acorns,
architectural
form
Gro-Low 1.5–2′ 6–8′ R, S M MG O, R A–My 2 i F R F Bd, Bf
Fragrant
Sumac
Black Eyed 2–3′ 1–3′ E M MG, Jn–S 4 Y S B, Bd,
Susan DG Bf
Pink Muhly HT 2–3′ 2–3′ E–CL F MG O, B Jl–S 3 P A, Bd, Ma
Grass S
Stokes HT 1–2′ 1.5–2′ M F DG Jn–S 4 B Bf
Aster

188 Landscape Journal 30:2–11

ecosystem function. Resilience (supporting the ability effectiveness. Climate change is not waiting, so neither
of an urban ecosystem to return to a desired state after should we.
disturbance) is facilitated by using plants that exhibit
high phenotypic plasticity and can withstand fluctua- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
tions in temperature and moisture. Response capacity
Research was supported with a grant from the US Forest Service
(accommodating rather than resisting change thereby and University of Michigan’s School of Natural Resources and
supporting the ecosystem in its transition to new con- Environment. Sara Turner, Allison Krueger, Cara Kappler, Brooke
ditions) is facilitated by populating gardens with native Nanna, and Miranda Mumford assisted with database devel-
species that also do well in warmer climates, based on opment. Lauren De Silva illustrated the planting designs.
winter hardiness ratings.
The adaptation strategy for planting design pro- REFERENCES
duces several opportunities for climate change miti- Aitken, Sally N., Sam Yeaman, Jason A. Holliday, Tongli Wang,
gation. As planting strategy implementation increases Sierra Curtis-McLane. 2008. Adaptation, migration or ex-
across a city, the likelihood of producing functional ur- tirpation: climate change outcomes for tree populations.
ban habitat corridors increases because the repetition Evolutionary Applications 1 (1): 95–111
Alberti, Marina. 2005. The effects of urban patterns on ecosystem
of appropriately composed gardens across an urban
function. International Regional Science Review 28 (2):
area better supports the migration of plants and ani-
168–192.
mals (Doody et al. 2010; Goddard, Dougill, and Benton Angold, Penny, Jon P. Sadler, Mark O. Hill, Andrew Pullin, Ste-
2010). Planting designs that substitute trees and flower- ven Rushton, K. Austin, Emma Small, B. Wood, Richard
ing shrubs in lieu of herbaceous perennials will increase Wadsworth, Roy Sanderson, and Ken Thompson. 2006.
carbon sequestration, and the transformation of lawns Biodiversity in urban habitat patches. Science of the Total
to low-input native species gardens will reduce green- Environment 360 (1–3): 196–204.
house gas-emissions. Finally, the adaptation strategy Aniski, Tomasz. 2008. When Perennials Bloom: An Almanac for
Planning and Planting. Portland, OR: Timber Press.
for urban planting design is in line with “no regret” op-
Arendt, Randall. 2004. Linked landscapes: Creating greenway cor-
tions, adaptation tactics that deliver benefits greater ridors through conservation subdivision design strategies
than their costs, regardless of the extent of future cli- in the northeastern and central United States. Landscape
mate change (Heltberg, Siegel, and Jorgensen 2009). and Urban Planning 68 (2–3): 241–269.
Bardsley, Douglas, and Gareth Edwards-Jones. 2007. Invasive spe-
cies policy and climate change: social perceptions of en-
CONCLUDING REMARKS vironmental change in the Mediterranean. Environmental
Science and Policy 10 (3): 230–242.
Adaptive strategies for climate change that include re-
Baschak, Lawrence A., and Robert D. Brown. 1995. An ecological
sistance, resilience, and facilitation actions offer a pro-
framework for the planning, design, and management of
ductive method to protect biodiversity during climate urban river greenways. Landscape and Urban Planning 33
change (Galatowitsch, Frelich, and Phillips-Mao 2009). (1–3): 211–225.
The strategy delineated here directly addresses two of Bergerot, Benjamin, Benoit Fontaine, Mathilde Renard, Antoine
these three recommendations. Resistance is indirectly Cadi, and Romain Julliard. 2010. Preferences for exotic
addressed because this type of ecological planting de- flowers do not promote urban life in butterflies. Landscape
sign is a proxy for ecological restoration. The adapta- and Urban Planning 96 (2): 98–107.
Bjerknes, Anne-Line, Ørjan Totland, Stein Joar Hegland, and An-
tion strategy is also practical, for it requires no policy
ders Nielsen. 2007. Do alien plant invasions really affect
change, no bureaucratic support, is relatively inexpen-
pollination success in native plant species? Biological Con-
sive, and affords a low-cost approach to research on its servation 138 (1–2): 1–12.

Hunter 189
Blanco, Hilda, Marina Alberti, Ann Forsyth, Kevin Krizek, Dan- Charmantier, Anne, Robin McCleery, Lional R. Cole, Chris Per-
iel A. Rodriguez, Emily Talen, and Cliff Ellis. 2009. Hot, rins, Loeske E. B. Kruuk, and Ben C. Sheldon. 2008. Adap-
congested, crowded, and diverse: Emerging research agen- tive phenotypic plasticity in response to climate change in
das in planning. Progress in Planning 71 (4): 153–205. a wild bird population. Science 320 (5877): 800–803.
Boland, Timothy, Laura Coit, and Marty Hart. 2002. Michigan Chown, Steven, Sarette Slabber, Melodie A. McGeoch, Charlene
Gardener’s Guide, 2nd ed. Nashville, TN: Cool Springs Janion, and Hans Petter Leinaas. 2007. Phenotypic plastic-
Press. ity mediates climate change responses among invasive
Bonney, Rick, Caren Cooper, Janis Dickinson, Steve Kelling, Tina and indigenous arthropods. Proceedings of the Royal Soci-
Phillips, Kenneth V. Rosenberg, and Jennifer Shirk. 2009. ety B: Biological Sciences 274 (1625): 2531–537.
Citizen science: A developing tool for expanding sci- Coffee, Joyce E., Julia Parzen, Mark Wagstaff, and Richard S.
ence knowledge and scientific literacy. Bioscience 59 (11): Lewis. 2010. Preparing for a changing climate: The Chi-
977–984. cago climate action plan’s adaptation strategy. Journal of
Botequilha-Leitão, André, and Jack Ahern. 2002. Applying land- Great Lakes Research 36 (Supplement 2, Special Issue SI):
scape ecological concepts and metrics in sustainable 115–117.
landscape planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 59 Colding, Johan. 2007. Ecological land-use complementation for
(2): 65–93. building resilience in urban ecosystems. Landscape and
Brinkman, Robert, and Wim Sombroek. 1996. The effects of Urban Planning 81 (1–2): 46–55.
global change on soil conditions in relation to plant Crimmins, Shawn M., Solomon Z. Dobrowski, Jonathan A. Green-
growth and food production. In Global Climate Change berg, John T. Abatzoglou, and Alison R. Mynsberge. 2011.
and Agricultural Production: Direct and Indirect Effects of Changes in climatic water balance drive downhill shifts
Changing Hydrological, Pedological, and Plant Physiologi- in plant species’ optimum elevations. Science 331 (6015):
cal Processes, ed. Fakhri Bazzaz and Wim Sombroek, 49–64. 324–327.
New York: John Wiley and Sons and The Food and Agricul- Daniels, Grant, and Jamie Kirkpatrick. 2006. Does variation in
ture Organization of the United Nations. garden characteristics influence the conservation of birds
Brooker, Rob W., Justin M. J. Travis, Ewen J. Clark, and Calvin in suburbia? Biological Conservation 133 (3): 326–335.
Dytham. 2007. Modelling species’ range shifts in a chang- Darke, Richard. 2007. Encyclopedia of Ornamental Grasses for Liv-
ing climate: The impacts of biotic interactions, dispersal able Landscapes. Portland, OR: Timber Press.
distance, and the rate of climate change. Journal of Theo- Dehnen-Schmutz, Katharina, Ottmar Holdenrieder, Michael
retical Biology 245 (1): 59–65. Jeger, and Marco Pautasso. 2010. Structural change in the
Brooklyn Botanic Garden. 2006. Native Alternatives to Invasive international horticultural industry: Some implications for
Plants, Handbook #185. New York: Brooklyn Botanic plant health. Scientia Horticulturae 125 (1): 1–15.
Garden. Dirr, Michael. 1998. Manual of Woody Landscape Plants: Their
Burghardt, Karin, Douglas Tallamy, and W. Gregory Shriver. 2009. Identification, Ornamental Characteristics, Culture, Propa-
Impact of native plants on bird and butterfly biodiversity gation, and Uses, 5th ed. Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing.
in suburban landscapes. Conservation Biology 23 (1): Doody, Brendan J., Jon J. Sullivan, Colin D. Meurk, Glenn H.
219–224. Stewart, and Harvey C. Perkins. 2010. Urban realities: the
Calkins, Meg. 2005. Strategy use and challenges of ecological contribution of residential gardens to the conservation of
design in landscape architecture. Landscape and Urban urban forest remnants. Biodiversity and Conservation 19
Planning 73 (1): 29–48. (5): 1385–1400.
CCSP. 2008. Weather and Climate Extremes in a Changing Cli- Duff, Gordon, David Garnett, Peter Jacklyn, Jill Landsberg, John
mate. Regions of Focus: North America, Hawaii, Carib- Ludwig, Joe Morrison, Paul Novelly, Dan Walker, and Peter
bean, and U.S. Pacific Islands. A Report by the U.S. Climate Whitehead. 2009. A collaborative design to adaptively
Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global manage for landscape sustainability in north Australia:
Change Research, ed. Thomas R. Karl, Gerald A. Meehl, Lessons from a decade of cooperative research. Landscape
Christopher Miller, Susan J. Hassol, Anne M. Waple and Ecology 24 (8): 1135–1143.
William L. Murray. Washington DC: US Department of
Commerce, NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center.

190 Landscape Journal 30:2–11

Elmqvist, Thomas, Carl Folke, Magnus Nystrom, Garry Peterson, Heltberg, Rasmus, Paul B. Siegel, and Steen L. Jorgensen. 2009.
Jan Bengtsson, Brian Walker, and Jon Norberg. 2003. Re- Addressing human vulnerability to climate change: Toward
sponse diversity, ecosystem change, and resilience. Fron- a ‘no-regrets’ approach. Global Environmental Change-
tiers in Ecology and the Environment 1 (9): 488–494. Human and Policy Dimensions 19 (1): 89–99.
Felson, Alex J., and Steward T.A. Pickett. 2005. Designed experi- Heneghan, Liam, and Mary Carol Hunter. 2004. Biodiversity. In
ments: New approaches to studying urban ecosystems. Landscaping with Native Plants: Exploring the Environ-
Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 3 (10): 549–556. mental, Social, and Economic Benefits Conference. Chicago,
Galatowitsch, Susan, Lee Frelich, and Laura Phillips-Mao. 2009. IL. http: // [Link] / greenacres / conf12_04 / conf_
Regional climate change adaptation strategies for biodi- [Link] [August 2010].
versity conservation in a midcontinental region of North Horwitz, Pierre, Michael Lindsay, and Moira O’Connor. 2001.
America. Biological Conservation 142 (10): 2012–2022. Biodiversity, endemism, sense of place, and public health:
Gilman, Sarah E., Mark C. Urban, Joshua Tewksbury, George W. Inter-relationships for Australian inland aquatic systems.
Gilchrist, and Robert D. Holt. 2010. A framework for com- Ecosystem Health 7 (4): 253–265.
munity interactions under climate change. Trends in Ecol- Hull, R. Bruce, Mark Lam, and Gabriela Vigo. 1994. Place identity:
ogy and Evolution 25 (6): 325–331. Symbols of self and the urban fabric. Landscape and Ur-
Goddard, Mark A., Andrew J. Dougill, and Tim G. Benton. 2010. ban Planning 28 (2–3): 109–120.
Scaling up from gardens: Biodiversity conservation in ur- Hunter, MaryCarol R. 2008. Managing Sense of Place in Transi-
ban environments. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25 (2): tion: Coping with Climate Change. Places 20 (2): 20–25.
90–98. Hunter, MaryCarol R., and Mark D. Hunter. 2008. Designing for
Gould, Stephen Jay. 1997. An evolutionary perspective on conservation of insects in the built environment. Insect
strengths, fallacies, and confusions in the concept of na- Conservation and Diversity 1 (4): 189–196.
tive plants. In Nature and Ideology: Nature and Garden Hunter, MaryCarol. 2006. Ecological Community Restoration In
Design in the Twentieth Century, ed. Joachim Wolschke- Landscape Architectural Graphics Standards; Professional
Bulmahn, 11–19. Washington DC: Dumbarton Oaks. Edition, ed. L. J. Hopper, 792–798. New York: John Wiley
Hahs, Amy K., Mark J. McDonnell, Michael A. McCarthy, Peter and Sons.
A. Vesk, Richard T. Corlett, Briony A. Norton, Steven E. Hunter, MaryCarol. 2009. Nature for Cities. http:// natureforcities
Clemants, Richard P. Duncan, Ken Thompson, Mark W. .[Link] / nature-in-the-city / urban-biodiversity-in
Schwartz, and Nicholas S. G. Williams. 2009. A global syn- -your-yard / [August 2010].
thesis of plant extinction rates in urban areas. Ecology Let- IPCC. 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.
ters 12 (11): 1165–1173. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment
Hallegatte, Stèphane. 2009. Strategies to adapt to an uncertain Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
climate change. Global Environmental Change-Human New York: Cambridge University Press.
and Policy Dimensions 19 (2): 240–247. Iverson, Louis R., and Anantha M. Prasad. 1998. Predicting abun-
Hamlet, Alan F., Philip W. Mote, Martyn P. Clark, and Dennis P. dance of 80 tree species following climate change in the East-
Lettenmaier. 2007. Twentieth-century trends in runoff, ern United States. Ecological Monographs 68 (4): 465–485.
evapotranspiration, and soil moisture in the Western Jarvis, Peter J. 1973. North American plants and horticultural in-
United States. Journal of Climate 20 (8): 1468–1486. novation in England, 1550–1700. Geographical Review 63
Hansen, Andrew J., Thomas A. Spies, Frederick J. Swanson, and (4): 477–499.
Janet L. Ohmann. 1991. Conserving biodiversity in man- Kendal, David, Nicholas S. G. Williams, and Kathryn J. H. Wil-
aged forests—Lessons from natural forests. Bioscience 41 liams. 2010. Harnessing diversity in gardens through indi-
(6): 382–92. vidual decision makers. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25
Hayhoe, Katharine, Jeff VanDorn, Thomas Croley II, Nicole Schle- (4): 201–202.
gal, and Donald Wuebbles. 2010. Regional climate change Kendle, Anthony D., and Juliet E. Rose. 2000. The aliens have
projections for Chicago and the US Great Lakes. Journal landed! What are the justifications for ‘native only’ policies
of Great Lakes Research 36 (Supplement 2, Special Issue in landscape plantings? Landscape and Urban Planning 47
SI): 7–21. (1–2): 19–31.

Hunter 191
Kling, George W, Katharine Hayhoe, Lucinda B. Johnson, John Musacchio, Laura R. 2009. The scientific basis for the design of
Magnuson, Stephen Polasky, Scott K. Robinson, Brian landscape sustainability: A conceptual framework for
Shuter, Michelle M. Wander, Donald Wuebbles, and translational landscape research and practice of designed
Donald R. Zak. 2005. Confronting Climate Change in the landscapes and the six Es of landscape sustainability.
Great Lakes Region: Impacts on Our Communities and Landscape Ecology 24 (8): 993–1013.
Ecosystems, Executive Summary. Cambridge, MA: UCS Nassauer, Joan. 1995. Messy ecosystems, orderly frames. Land-
Publications, The Union of Concerned Scientists, and The scape Journal 14 (2): 161–170.
Ecological Society of America. Oprea, Monik, Poliona Mendes, Thiago B. Vieira, and Albert D.
Koningen, Hein 2004. Creative Management. In The dynamic Ditchfield. 2009. Do wooded streets provide connectivity
landscape: naturalistic planting in an urban context, ed. for bats in an urban landscape? Biodiversity and Conserva-
Nigel Dunnett and James D. Hitchmough, 368–415. New tion 18 (9): 2361–2371.
York: Taylor and Francis. Parmesan, Camille. 2006. Ecological and evolutionary responses
Lawton, John H., and Valerie K. Brown. 1993. Redundancy in to recent climate change. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolu-
ecosystems. In Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function, ed. tion, and Systematics 37 (1): 637–669.
Eernst-Detlef Schulze and Harold A. Mooney, 255–270. Parmesan, Camille, and Gary Yohe. 2003. A globally coherent
New York: Springer. fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural sys-
Li, Feng, Rusong S. Wang, Juergen Paulussen, and Xusheng S. Liu. tems. Nature 421 (6918): 37–42.
2005. Comprehensive concept planning of urban green- Parsons, Russ, and Terry C. Daniel. 2002. Good looking: In de-
ing based on ecological principles: A case study in Beijing, fense of scenic landscape aesthetics. Landscape and Urban
China. Landscape and Urban Planning 72 (4): 325–336. Planning 60 (1): 43–56.
Lovell, Sarah T., and Douglas M. Johnston. 2009. Designing land- Pickett, Steward T. A., and Mary L. Cadenasso. 2008. Linking
scapes for performance based on emerging principles in ecological and built components of urban mosaics: An
landscape ecology. Ecology and Society 14 (1): 1–24. open cycle of ecological design. Journal of Ecology
Marris, Emma. 2007. A garden for all climates. Nature 450 (13): 96 (1): 8–12.
937–939. Pielke, Roger A. 1998. Rethinking the role of adaptation in climate
McKinney, Michael L. 2006. Urbanization as a major cause of policy. Global Environmental Change 8 (2): 159–170.
biotic homogenization. Biological Conservation 127 (3): Praskievicz, Sarah, and Heejun J. Chang. 2009. A review of hydro-
247–260. logical modeling of basin-scale climate change and urban
McLachlan, Jason S., Jessica J. Hellmann, and Mark W. Schwartz. development impacts. Progress in Physical Geography 33
2007. A framework for debate of assisted migration in (5): 650–671.
an era of climate change. Conservation Biology 21 (2): Primack, Richard B., and Abraham J. Miller-Rushing. 2009. The
297–302. role of botanical gardens in climate change research. New
Millar, Constance I., Nathan L. Stephenson, and Scott L. Ste- Phytologist 182 (2): 303–313.
phens. 2007. Climate change and forests of the future: Rapport, David J. 1998. Biodiversity and saving the earth. Envi-
Managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecological Applica- ronmental Monitoring and Assessment 49 (2–3): 169–175.
tions 17 (8): 2145–2151. Rossiter, MaryCarol. 1996. The incidence and consequences of
Missouri Botanical Garden. 2011. Kemper Center Plant Finder. inherited environmental effects. Annual Review of Ecology
St. Louis, MO: Missouri Botanical Garden. http: // www and Systematics 27: 451–476.
.[Link] / gardeninghelp / plantfinder / [Link] Shaw, Daniel, Rusty Schmidt, Brian Ashman, Hugh Johnson, and
[April 16, 2011]. Tony Randazzo. 2007. Plants for Stormwater Design: Spe-
Monrovia. 2011. Plant Catalog. Azusa, CA: Monrovia. http: // www cies Selection for the Upper Midwest, vol. 2. St. Paul, MN:
.[Link] / plant-catalog / [16 April 2011]. Great River Greening.
Musacchio, Laura R. 2008. Using Translational Research to In- Snep, Robbert, Paul Opdam, Johannes Baveco, Michiel Wallis-
crease Sustainability, Resilience, and Regeneration. Land- DeVries, Wim Timmermans, R. G. M. Kwak, and Vincent
scape Journal 27 (1): 1–8. Kuypers. 2006. How peri-urban areas can strengthen
animal populations within cities: A modeling approach.
Biological Conservation 127 (3): 345–355.

192 Landscape Journal 30:2–11

Tallamy, Douglas W., and Kimberley J. Shropshire. 2009. Ranking Wilby, Robert L., J. Troni, Yvan Biot, Lennard Tedd, Bruce C.
Lepidopteran use of native versus introduced plants. Con- Hewitson, Doug M. Smith, and Rowan T. Sutton. 2009. A
servation Biology 23 (4): 941–947. review of climate risk information for adaptation and de-
Tallamy, Douglas W. 2009. Bringing Nature Home: How You Can velopment planning. International Journal of Climatology
Sustain Wildlife with Native Plants. Portland, OR: Timber 29 (9): 1193–1215.
Press. Wilson, Robert J., David Gutierrez, Javier Gutierrez, and Victor J.
Tratalos, Jamie, Richard A. Fuller, Philip H. Warren, Richard G. Monserrat. 2007. An elevational shift in butterfly species
Davies, and Kevin J. Gaston. 2007. Urban form, biodiver- richness and composition accompanying recent climate
sity potential, and ecosystem services. Landscape and Ur- change. Global Change Biology 13 (9): 1873–1887.
ban Planning 83 (4): 308–317. Wolfe, David W.; Mark D. Schwartz, Alan N. Lakso, Yuka Otsuki,
Troccoli, Alberto 2010. Seasonal climate forecasting. Meteorologi- Robert M. Pool and Nelson J. Shaulis. 2004. Climate
cal Applications 17 (3): 251–268. change and shifts in spring phenology of three horticul-
USDA-NRCS. 2011. The PLANTS Database. Baton Rouge, LA: Na- tural woody perennials in northeastern USA. International
tional Plant Data Center. http: // [Link] [16 April Journal of Biometerology 49 (5): 303–309.
2011]. Woodall, Christopher W., David Nowak, Greg C. Liknes, and Jim
USDA-NISC. 2010. National Invasive Species Information Center. Westfall. 2010. Assessing the potential for urban trees to
Beltsville, MD: National Agricultural Library. http: // www facilitate forest tree migration in the eastern United States.
.[Link] / plants / [Link] [August 2010]. Forest Ecology and Management 259 (8): 1447–1454.
Van der Veken, Sebastiaan, Martin Hermy, Mark Vellend, Anne Yachi, Shigeo, and Michel Loreau. 1999. Biodiversity and ecosys-
Knapen, and Kris Verheyen. 2008. Garden plants get a head tem productivity in a fluctuating environment: The insur-
start on climate change. Frontiers in Ecology and the Envi- ance hypothesis. Proceedings of the National Academy of
ronment 6 (4): 212–216. Sciences of the United States of America 96 (4): 1463–1468.
Van Rossum, Fabienne, and Ludwig Triest. 2010. Pollen dispersal Zhang, Lingxian, Quing Liu, Nigel Hall, and Zetian Fu. 2007. An
in an insect-pollinated wet meadow herb along an urban environmental accounting framework applied to green
river. Landscape and Urban Planning 95 (4): 201-208. space ecosystem planning for small towns in China as a
Visser, Marcel E., and Christiaan Both. 2005. Shifts in phenology case study. Ecological Economics 60 (3): 533–542.
due to global climate change: The need for a yardstick.
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 272 AUTHOR MaryCarol Hunter is a licensed landscape architect and
(1581): 2561–2569. research ecologist. She has an MLA from the University of Geor-
Walther, Gian-Reto, Alain Roques, Philip E. Hulme, Martin T. gia and a PhD in Ecology from SUNY Stony Brook. She worked in
Sykes, Petr Pysek, Ingolf Kuhn, Martin Zobel, Sven Bacher, the academy as an ecologist for 15 years and for several years
Zoltan Botta-Dukat, Harald Bugmann, Bálint Czucz, Jens at the University of Georgia as landscape architect faculty. Since
Dauber, Thomas Hickler, Vojtech Jarosik, Marc Kenis, Ste- 2006, she has been a member of the landscape architecture
fan Klotz, Dan Minchin, Mari Moora, Wolfgang Nentwig, faculty at the University of Michigan. Current research concerns
Jürgen Ott, Vadim E. Panov, Björn Reineking, Christelle design strategies to support the ecological integrity of metropoli-
tan areas, the role of urban nature on wellbeing, and the role of
Robinet, Vitaliy Semenchenko, Wojciech Solarz, Wilfried
residential vegetation on energy costs.
Thuiller, Montserrat Vila, Katrin Vohland, and Josef Settele.
2009. Alien species in a warmer world: risks and opportu-
nities. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 24 (12): 686–693.
Warren, Charles R. 2007. Perspectives on the ‘alien’ versus ‘native’
species debate: a critique of concepts, language, and prac-
tice. Progress in Human Geography 31 (4): 427–446.

Hunter 193