Changes

Sousa et al. (2016)<ref>Catalano de Sousa, M. R., Franco, A. M., & Palmer, M. I. (2016). Potential climate change impacts on green infrastructure vegetation. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 20, 128–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.08.014

Sousa et al. (2016)<ref>Catalano de Sousa, M. R., Franco, A. M., & Palmer, M. I. (2016). Potential climate change impacts on green infrastructure vegetation. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 20, 128–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.08.014

</ref> tested how two plant species commonly used in northeastern United States green-infrastructure installations, [https://www.wildflower.org/plants/result.php?id_plant=CALU5 ''Carex lurida'' (sallow sedge)] and [https://plants.ces.ncsu.edu/plants/liriope-muscari/ ''Liriope muscari'' (lilyturf)], respond to repeated drought and flood conditions expected under climate change. Both species tolerated flooding well, but drought caused more stress, reduced stomatal conductance, and significantly lowered biomass, especially for ''Carex lurida''. Overall, both species survived repeated stress cycles, suggesting they remain viable for future GI installations, though drought posed the greater risk to performance. However, STEP does not recommend ''Liriope muscari'' for use in LID projects in Ontario, as it is not native and can exhibit invasive tendencies.

</ref> tested how two [[Plant lists|plant]] species commonly used in northeastern United States green-infrastructure installations, [https://www.wildflower.org/plants/result.php?id_plant=CALU5 ''Carex lurida'' (sallow sedge)] and [https://plants.ces.ncsu.edu/plants/liriope-muscari/ ''Liriope muscari'' (lilyturf)], respond to repeated drought and flood conditions expected under climate change. Both species tolerated flooding well, but drought caused more stress, reduced stomatal conductance, and significantly lowered biomass, especially for ''Carex lurida''. Overall, both species survived repeated stress cycles, suggesting they remain viable for future GI installations, though drought posed the greater risk to performance. However, STEP does not recommend ''Liriope muscari'' for use in LID projects in Ontario, as it is not native and can exhibit invasive tendencies.

{{Clickable button|[[File:Screenshot 2025-11-17 120928.png|250 px|link=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/climate/articles/10.3389/fclim.2023.1115595/full]]}}

{{Clickable button|[[File:Screenshot 2025-11-17 120928.png|250 px|link=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/climate/articles/10.3389/fclim.2023.1115595/full]]}}

Knappe et al. (2023) <ref>Knappe, S., van Afferden, M., & Friesen, J. (2023). GR2L: A robust dual-layer green roof water balance model to assess multifunctionality aspects under climate variability. Frontiers in Climate, 5, Article 1115595. https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2023.1115595</ref> modelled dual-layer (upper vegetated substrate layer and a lower retention layer separated by a distribution fleece) roof designs to investigate water balance outcomes (storage, outflow, evapotranspiration) under wet and dry climactic extremes. During extreme climate years in Germany, the roof with the largest retention volume was estimated to provide more evaporative cooling and retention of heavy rainfall events without outflow in summer, demonstrating potential for a more climate-resilient design.

Knappe et al. (2023) <ref>Knappe, S., van Afferden, M., & Friesen, J. (2023). GR2L: A robust dual-layer [[green roof]] water balance model to assess multifunctionality aspects under climate variability. Frontiers in Climate, 5, Article 1115595. https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2023.1115595</ref> modelled dual-layer (upper vegetated substrate layer and a lower retention layer separated by a distribution fleece) roof designs to investigate water balance outcomes (storage, outflow, evapotranspiration) under wet and dry climactic extremes. During extreme climate years in Germany, the roof with the largest retention volume was estimated to provide more evaporative cooling and retention of heavy rainfall events without outflow in summer, demonstrating potential for a more climate-resilient design.

{{Clickable button|[[File:Screenshot 2025-11-17 162210.png|250 px|link=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/climate/articles/10.3389/fclim.2023.1115595/full]]}}

{{Clickable button|[[File:Screenshot 2025-11-17 162210.png|250 px|link=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/climate/articles/10.3389/fclim.2023.1115595/full]]}}

Bioretention cell performance was simulated by Tirpak et al. (2021) <ref> Tirpak, R. A., Hathaway, J. M., Khojandi, A., Weathers, M., & Epps, T. H. (2021). Building resiliency to climate change uncertainty through bioretention design modifications. Journal of Environmental Management, 287, 112300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112300</ref> using the USEPA Storm Water Management Model to evaluate how design modifications could enhance system resilience under future climate conditions projected for Knoxville, Tennessee. Results show that expanding the bioretention surface area relative to the contributing catchment yields the strongest performance benefits under future climate conditions, especially in areas with low native soil infiltration rate.

[[Bioretention]] cell performance was simulated by Tirpak et al. (2021) <ref> Tirpak, R. A., Hathaway, J. M., Khojandi, A., Weathers, M., & Epps, T. H. (2021). Building resiliency to climate change uncertainty through bioretention design modifications. Journal of Environmental Management, 287, 112300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112300</ref> using the USEPA Storm Water Management Model to evaluate how design modifications could enhance system resilience under future climate conditions projected for Knoxville, Tennessee. Results show that expanding the bioretention surface area relative to the contributing catchment yields the strongest performance benefits under future climate conditions, especially in areas with low native soil infiltration rate.

==Climate planning at different scales==

==Climate planning at different scales==