R E S I L I E N T D E S I G N EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES Current and Emerging Curricula in Colleges and Universities

Abstract

This report evaluates the state of disaster resilient design education in the United States, to include an assessment of architecture, landscape architecture, engineering and land use planning programs. Based on this assessment, we offer specific recommendations. These include: improve institutional commitment, develop new curricula models and organizational structures, build interdisciplinary teams, emphasize field and studio-based projects, create flexible and responsive curricula, and meet and exceed the needs of stakeholders.

Full text

RESILIENT DESIGN
EDUCATION
IN THE UNITED STATES
October 08, 2018
Current and Emerging Curricula in Colleges and Universities
Gavin Smith, Ph.D., AICP
Mai Thi Nguyen, Ph.D.
Colleen Durfee, MCRP
Darien Williams, MCRP
Ashton Rohmer, MCRP
Nora Schwaller, M.Arch

This report is funded by the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security Science and Technology Directorate’s Offi ce of
University Programs, the Coastal Resilience Center of Excellence,
and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s Department
of City & Regional Planning. We would like to thank our review
committee and the experts we interviewed for this study, all
of whom provided invaluable insights. We also appreciate
research assistance from graduate students Amanda Martin
and Abigail Moore in the early stages of this research and
Nora Schwaller for her design expertise.
The views and conclusions contained in this document are those
of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily
representing the offi cial policies, either express or implied, of
the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
THANK YOU!
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This report is dedicated to David R. Godschalk, whose life’s
work in planning, natural hazards, and design has inspired
multiple generations of scholars and practitioners. His role as
an extraordinary educator, mentor, and friend has instilled in us
an unwavering desire to create more resilient communities.
DEDICATION

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
An Organizing Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Case Study 1: North Carolina State University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Case Study 2: Louisiana State University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Case Study 3: Cal Poly San Luis Obispo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Case Study 4: Texas A&M University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Case Study 5: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Goals and Aspirations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43
Appendix A: Colleges and Universities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46
Appendix B: Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Appendix C: Review Committee Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1
Two thousand and seventeen marks the costliest
year on record for disasters in the United States.
The damage toll for the sixteen disaster events that
year totaled more than $309 billion (NOAA 2018).
The rising cost of disasters and the human suffering
that occur in the aftermath have made the call to
design communities resiliently more important than
at any other time in history.
Resilient design not only involves mitigating
damage and allowing communities to absorb,
adapt, and return to a steady state of equilibrium
more rapidly post-disaster, but also reduces the
likelihood of disasters occurring in the fi rst place if
there are proactive applications of sound resilient
design approaches. Furthermore, should a disaster
occur, resilient design facilitates a return to a new
normal in which communities are defi ned by a more
equitable and socially cohesive condition, local
economies are diversifi ed and robust, physical and
social vulnerabilities are reduced, and the natural
environment is protected and restored.
Although resilient design is an important and emerging
fi eld of inquiry, we have scant knowledge about how
colleges and universities in the United States teach
and train students who go on to become scholars
and practitioners in this fi eld. The methods used in
this research involved an extensive internet search of
resilient design curricula, key informant interviews with
experts, consultation with a review committee, and
case studies of resilient design education programs.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Our study fi nds that resilient design, as a fi eld, is a
small but rapidly growing area of study. There is
an increasing number of individual courses taught
as well as the creation of university degree, minor,
and certifi cate programs focused on resilient
design. The emerging focus on natural hazards,
disasters, and resilient design in college and
university curricula, while promising, remains highly
varied. Resilient design courses and programs are
frequently siloed in particular disciplines rather
than serving as a venue to apply interdisciplinary
systems thinking. Similarly, the majority of courses
are developed in isolation rather than as part of
degree, minor, or certifi cate programs.
Beyond curricula within academic units, research centers,
institutes, and extension programs offer students
project-based and experiential learning opportunities.
These are spaces in which inter- and multi-disciplinary
collaborations between faculty, students, and
practitioners can take place through funded research
or applied resilient design projects.
We studied fi ve design-based disciplines, including
architecture, building sciences, engineering,
landscape architecture, and planning. The experts
we interviewed, as well as those serving on our
review committee, agreed that to design resiliently
requires interdisciplinary, systems-based, and multi-
scalar thinking because of the interdependencies
embedded within and between the ecological,
physical, and social environments.
Executive Summary
Photo Credit: George Desipris

2
IMPROVE INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT
DEVELOP NEW CURRICULA MODELS AND ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES
BUILD INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAMS
EMPHASIZE FIELD AND STUDIO-BASED PROJECTS
CREATE FLEXIBLE AND RESPONSIVE CURRICULA
MEET [AND EXCEED] THE NEEDS OF STAKEHOLDERS
To enhance and improve upon the delivery of resilient design curricula in U.S. colleges and universities, we
identify the following goals and aspirations:
Colleges and universities must support individual commitments to resilient design education
by scholars with a larger institutional commitment to resilient design education that spans
multiple disciplines and associated departments.
There are few universities that incorporate interdisciplinary, systems-based, and multi-scalar
elements of resilient design education to provide educational, research, and engagement
opportunities. Universities must develop new curricula models and organizational structures
that support this type of educational offering.
Resilient design is an inherently applied and interdisciplinary fi eld. Therefore, colleges and
universities should build interdisciplinary teams that include a mix of faculty, practitioners,
and policymakers to teach and mentor students.
Resilient design curricula benefi t from a learning by doing approach that provides a
platform to be innovative, room to fail, and opportunity to redress problems. Field and
studio-based projects should be a key element of any resilient design curricula because they
provide this platform, enabling students and faculty to explore the multi-faceted nature of
the challenges present in practice.
Post-disaster conditions provide rich learning opportunities. Therefore, colleges and
universities should create resilient design curricula that are responsive to opportunities that
arise, including capitalizing on post-disaster situations.
In order to stay relevant, resilient design curricula should meet and attempt to exceed the
needs of national, state, and local stakeholders. To facilitate this, colleges and universities
should seek out partners external to the college/university that could serve as ongoing
“clients” or sounding boards regarding curriculum content and the quality of products
produced by students and faculty.
GOALS AND ASPIRATIONS
Executive Summary

3
IMPACT
Executive Summary
In the last year, the U.S. has experienced extreme
weather events, including Hurricanes Harvey, Irma,
and Maria, as well as wildfi res in California, and
fl ooding in Oklahoma, Missouri, and Arkansas,
that have devastated homes and communities.
Some places had never experienced such high
levels of fl ooding, wind, and destruction. Others
have experienced these repeat events due to the
combined effects of extreme weather and the
lack of resilient design. Our patterns of growth
and development in the U.S. have placed homes
and communities in the fl oodplain, along sensitive
shorelines, and in other vulnerable and precarious
places. The escalating costs of damage from
disasters and the increasing intensity and frequency
of weather-related events forces us to think about
how we educate and train future design scholars
and practitioners. The organizational and incentive
structures in U.S. colleges and universities pose
many barriers to delivering a high-quality resilient
design education. This report identifi es ways to
eliminate these barriers and facilitate the delivery
of an interdisciplinary, systems-based, multi-scalar
education in resilient design.

4
Two thousand and seventeen marks the costliest
year on record for disasters in the United
States. The damage toll for the sixteen disaster
events that year was highest on record at over
$309 billion (NOAA 2018). The rising cost of
disasters and the human suffering that occur
in the aftermath have made the call to design
communities resiliently more important than at any
other time in history. Resilient design can mitigate
damage and allow communities to absorb, adapt,
and return to a steady state of equilibrium more
rapidly post-disaster. Sound resilient design also
enables communities to envision and implement
measures that address pre-existing conditions that
predispose them to disaster.
Although resilient design is an important and
emerging fi eld of inquiry, we have scant knowledge
about how U.S. colleges and universities teach
and train students who go on to become scholars
and practitioners in this fi eld. Furthermore, there
is a range of design-related disciplines that offer
resilient design curricula, yet there has not been a
systematic inventory of delivery methods, such as
courses, certifi cates, and degree programs being
offered across these disciplines. At a more basic
level, there is not a common defi nition of resilient
design across fi elds and therefore, no consistent
pedagogy around resilient design.
INTRODUCTION
Resilience has become an increasingly important
organizing principle for the design community,
especially when thinking about how and where to
build in relation to natural hazards and disasters.
In addition, there is an expanding body of policy,
research, and educational initiatives surrounding
resilient design. Pre- and post-disaster policy
initiatives that focus on resilient design include
the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, the Post-
Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act,
Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013,
Presidential Policy Directive 8, and related shifts
in grants and other forms of assistance, including
efforts to improve the role of governance.
Additional measures include federal agency
partnerships with foundations, such as the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development’s
one billion-dollar funding of the Rockefeller
Foundation-led Rebuild by Design competition
initiated following Hurricane Sandy, the Federal
Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA)
Community Resilience Innovation Challenge, and
the Rockefeller Foundation-led 100 Resilient Cities
Initiative.
College and university faculty, students, and
researchers have been integral to many of these
initiatives, yet it is unclear what kind of education
or training these teams received to practice
resilient design. This study, funded by the U.S.
Introduction
RISE OF RESILIENCE
Photo Credit: Pok Rie

5
Department of Homeland Security Science and
Technology Directorate’s Offi ce of University
Programs, fi lls the gap in our knowledge of how
resilient design education is being delivered at U.S.
colleges and universities across multiple design-
related disciplines, including architecture, building
sciences, engineering, landscape architecture, and
planning.
This study seeks to understand the current state of
training and education that is focused on resilient
design. We employ mixed-methods, including an
internet search, key informant interviews, case
studies, and guidance and feedback from a
review committee composed of experts across fi ve
disciplinary fi elds.
In this report, we review the concept of resilience as
it relates to design, discuss the methods employed,
and report the fi ndings from our research which
includes promising practices associated with
the delivery of resilient design education. We
conclude with a series of recommendations that
suggest how to promote more robust education
and training in resilient design at U.S. colleges
and universities.
Introduction

6
The concept of resilience, as applied to natural
hazards and disasters, spans a range of
perspectives, including those advanced by social
scientists, engineers, land use planners, and others.
Psychologist Fran Norris and her colleagues (2007)
identifi ed 21 different defi nitions encompassing the
individual and community scales as well as social,
ecological, and physical systems. In perhaps the
most widely cited defi nition of disaster resilience,
the National Academies defi nes resilience as “the
ability to prepare for, absorb, recover from, and
more successfully adapt to adverse events” (2012,
p. 1).
Prior to the adoption of disaster resilience as an
organizing concept, sustainability and disaster risk
reduction (or hazard mitigation) provided primary
conceptual frameworks used by policymakers and
researchers to undergird professional practice
and advance our base of knowledge (Beatley
1998; Burby 1998; Mileti 1999; Smith, Martin,
and Wenger 2017). Sustainability and disaster
risk reduction were used to frame a number
of important international efforts, including
the United Nation’s International Decade for
Natural Disaster Reduction in the 1990s; Agenda
21, adopted during the Rio Summit; and the
1994 Yokohama Strategy for a Safer World.
Attempts to operationalize these broad multi-
national efforts received heavy criticism from
AN ORGANIZING CONCEPT
international development aid programs and
disaster scholars for how the external assistance
provided to the developing world failed to
account for environmental impacts, social and
cultural factors, local needs, locally-based site
designs, and planning-related concerns due to
exposure to natural hazards (World Commission
on Environment and Development 1987; United
Nations 1992; National Science and Technology
Council 1996; Berke and Beatley 1995; Geis and
Kutzmark 1995). In the most widely recognized
defi nition of sustainable development, the
Brundtland Commission referred to sustainable
development as that which “meets the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs” (World
Commission on Environment and Development
1987, p. 8).
During the 1990’s, a Second Assessment of Natural
Hazards knowledge was conducted, adding to
our understanding of the growing fi eld since the
last assessment was completed in 1975. The text,
Disasters and Design, emphasized “sustainable
hazards mitigation,” and applied the lens of
sustainable development to our understanding
of natural hazards and disasters (Mileti 1999).
While the concept of disaster resilience was
noted, it was framed as a subpart of the larger
aim of achieving sustainable development and
disaster risk reduction. Situating disaster resilience
as a subcomponent of sustainable development
LITERATURE REVIEW
An Organizing Concept
Photo Credit: Denniz Futalan

7
has been discussed for some time, including,
in particular, how planning can help to achieve
this aim (Godschalk, Kaiser, and Berke 1998;
Godschalk et al. 1999; Beatley, 2009; Berke and
Smith 2009; Smith, Martin and Wenger 2017 pp.
596-600).
Planning scholars have produced a number
of important strains of thought regarding
resilience, including broader themes of fl exibility,
adaptability, and durability (Beatley 2009, p.
3). David Godschalk encapsulates this in his far-
reaching defi nition of resilience:
This broad defi nition not only spans physical, social,
and environmental dimensions, it also highlights
areas where the design disciplines are uniquely
positioned to offer assistance. This includes the
role of engineers relative to infrastructure and
critical facilities, landscape architects and land use
planners regarding environmental stewardship and
designing in a way that respects nature and natural
processes, architects and building science offi cials
addressing the issues tied to codes and standards,
and the need for all disciplines to engage broad
networks and foster good governance.
The application of disaster resilience began
in earnest in the United States following the
September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Furthermore,
following Hurricanes Katrina, the Rockefeller
Foundation incubated the idea of resilient recovery
through their fi nancial support and long-term
commitment to rebuilding New Orleans through
public/private partnerships, capacity building
efforts, and technical assistance. The Mississippi
Renewal Forum, which involved several hundred
New Urbanists, focused on developing form-based
redevelopment design plans for 12 communities
devastated by Hurricane Katrina. Following
Hurricane Sandy, the lessons learned from
Katrina were used to guide the Rebuild by Design
competition, a collaborative effort between the
Rockefeller Foundation and the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development. The Rebuild
by Design competition involved multi-disciplinary
teams made up of architects, landscape-architects,
engineers, scientists, social scientists, and water
experts, who created proposals emphasizing
innovative resilient design infrastructure projects
(www.rockefellerfoundation.org).
The damage and destruction from disasters over
the last two decades have elevated the call for
more resilient design. Evidence of the demand
for resilient design is refl ected in the growth
Resilient cities are constructed to
be strong and fl exible, rather than brittle
and fragile. Their lifeline systems of
roads, utilities, and other support facilities
are designed to continue functioning
in the face of rising water, high winds,
shaking ground, and terrorist attacks.
Their new development is guided away
from known high hazard areas, and
their vulnerable existing development is
relocated to safe areas. Their buildings
are constructed or retrofi tted to meet
code standards based on hazard threats.
Their natural environmental protective
systems are conserved to maintain valuable
hazard mitigation functions. Finally, their
governmental, nongovernmental, and
private sector organizations are prepared
with up-to-date information about hazard
vulnerability and disaster resources,
are linked with effective communication
networks, and are experienced in working
together.
– David Godschalk (2003, p. 137)
“
.”
An Organizing Concept

8
of curricular offerings within U.S. colleges and
universities, which have also added capacity
through new faculty lines, cluster hires, centers and
institutes, and initiatives focused on resilient design.
It is time to take stock of how we deliver resilient
design education and assess the goals we have
for educating future scholars and practitioners.
Disaster resilience has become a widely accepted
aspirational goal across design professions,
scholars, and educators, yet there has not been an
examination of the type of education and training
that students receive that make them suffi ciently
capable of reaching this goal. Moreover, how
does our education system teach students to
systematically address one of the most pressing
issues of the 21st century, which is how do we design
disaster resilient communities in an era of climate
change, to include the rising costs associated
with disasters? (Westcoat and Khan 2011; Smith
2014). Orr (1992) suggests that a different type
of educational experience is needed in order to
teach students how to address sustainability and
resilience-related challenges in an era of climate
change given their unprecedented complexity,
emphasizing civic engagement and ecological
literacy. As part of a larger systems approach
to leaning, Honwad et al. (2014) suggests that
teaching students about adaptation and building
resilience requires students to learn: (a) how to
make sustainable decisions (Atran, Medin and Ross
2005); (b) how to anticipate problems (Hewson
1992); (c) how to work within informal and
formal environments (Bell et al. 2009); (d) how
to understand and resolve complex issues (Resnick
and Wilensky 1998); (e) how to appreciate
varied cultures (Banks, et al. 2007); (f) how to
resolve problems (Hmelo-Silver, Marathe and
Liu 2007); and (g) how to collaborate with each
HOW TO IMPROVE DESIGN-BASED RESILIENCE
EDUCATION
other (O’Donnell, Hmelo-Silver and Erkens 2013)
to build a sustainable and resilient future.
In order to achieve these and other aims noted
above, how do we assess and operationalize
whether disaster resilient design education and
the implementation of these ideas is making
a difference, both in terms of the number of
appropriately educated students and whether
the concepts, tools, and techniques taught are
leading to more resilient structures, communities,
regions, ecosystems, economies, and the larger
global community? The fi rst step in this process
is to provide an assessment of the state of the
knowledge on resilient design education across
design disciplines, which is the primary purpose
of this report.
An Organizing Concept

9
The primary purpose of this report is to
understand the current delivery of resilient design
education across fi ve design-related disciplines:
architecture, building sciences, engineering,
landscape architecture, and planning. There may
be other disciplines that touch upon the topics of
resilience and design, such as public health and
sociology, but design is not a primary feature of
these disciplines. As such, we limited our study to
the fi ve disciplines that are most engaged with
resilient design in the academy and practice. The
methods used in this research involved an extensive
internet search of resilient design curricula, key
informant interviews, consultation with a review
committee consisting of experts across the fi ve
different disciplines, and case studies of resilient
design educational opportunities.
During the initial phase of researching online
curricula related to resilient education, we did
not limit the search to U.S. college and university
curricula, but instead cast a wide net to better
determine the varied ways in which resilient
design education was being offered. The results
of the U.S. view are shown in Figure 1 and
documented in Appendix A. While we list all
U.S. programs that we found in Appendix A, we
did not evaluate their quality at this stage in the
research process.
Methods
METHODS
This search identifi ed a number of delivery
methods and a growing list of opportunities
outside of the college and university setting that
professionals can use to learn about resilient
design. For example, professionals can engage in
this subject area through courses provided by the
U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency’s
Emergency Management Institute or through
opportunities tied to professional associations,
such as the American Planning Association,
American Institute of Architects, and National
Institute of Building Sciences. Depending on the
delivery method, professionals may be further
incentivized by the option to receive continuing
education credits and certifi cates focused on
resilient design. Further, professionals seeking
resources on resilient design can attend seminars,
conferences, or workshops that are increasingly
providing instructional materials on this topic.
In addition to professional opportunities, there
are a wide number of disciplines that offer
educational opportunities in resilience-thinking,
such as those grounded in the social sciences
and emergency management, that we were not
able to explore at this time because they did
not feature a strong design emphasis. Revisiting
professional opportunities and U.S. college and
university programs operating outside of the
realm of design education would be a worthwhile
endeavor for future research. However, after
INTENT OF STUDY
INTERNET SEARCH
Project Credit: Zixu Qiao, Texas A&M University

10
documenting the results of this initial internet
search, we narrowed the scope of this study to
educational and training opportunities at U.S.
colleges and universities which prioritize design.
Within U.S. colleges and universities, fi ve design
disciplines offer resilient design education through
courses, studios, disciplinary concentrations and
specializations (which are typically a set of
courses), and degree programs. Additionally, a
large number of research centers and institutes
within U.S. colleges and universities offer students
resilient design learning opportunities through
research assistantships, research fellowships,
employment opportunities, internships, summer
learning opportunities, and REUs (research
opportunities for undergraduates). The learning
opportunities at centers and institutes are often
project-based or applied. Extension programs,
which may be independent of academic units
or organized within a department, also offer a
Methods
number of resilient design learning opportunities
through courses and applied research projects.
In the next phase of the research, we conducted
a narrower but deeper examination into the fi ve
design-related fi elds. We searched for resilient
design curricula and educational opportunities
at U.S. four-year colleges and universities using
a nested set of keyword searches. As shown in
Figure 2, we searched across each discipline to
identify institutions that offered resilient design
curricula or educational opportunities. Next,
we searched for the different delivery methods
that these institutions provided, including within
academic units (e.g. courses, studio courses,
concentrations, specializations, certifi cate
programs, and degree programs), in research
centers and institutes, and through extension
programs. Finally, we added keywords related
to different types of hazards to the other search
terms. For example, we added “Hurricane +
Colleges and Universities Professional Associations
Research Centers and
Institutes
• Research Assistantships
• Summer Learning
Opportunities
• Fellowships
• Student Jobs
• Internships
• Research Experiences for
Undergraduates (REUs)
Education and Credentials
• Continuing Education Courses / Credits
• Webinars
• Professional Certifi cates
• Seminar Series
• Conferences
• Workshops
RESILIENT DESIGN EDUCATION
Figure 1 : Resilient Design Education Delivery Methods
Traditional
• Courses
• Studios
• Concentrations
• Specializations
• Certifi cates
• Degree Programs
Extension Programs

11
Center” to determine whether each college
or institution had a hurricane center. Once we
identifi ed resilient design educational offerings,
we cataloged and reviewed them to develop an
understanding of how resilient design education
is delivered.
Using a snowball sample, we identifi ed experts
in each of the fi ve disciplines with whom we
conducted phone and in-person interviews.
Interview participants were initially recruited
via email and asked to participate in a 30-60
minute semi-structured interview. The interview
instrument included two sections – general
questions and discipline-specifi c questions. First,
a series of nineteen “general” queries was used
Methods
to elicit knowledge of resilient design education
generally and as it relates to the interviewee’s
specifi c discipline. This was followed by a set
of queries focused on the prevalence, type, and
quality of resilient design instruction, tailored to
the discipline of the interviewee.
Two interviewers participated in each conversation
with informants, with one person typing up
the verbatim responses. The notes were then
coded deductively and inductively for common
themes pertaining to the defi nition of resilience,
how resilient design education is delivered, and
the challenges associated with teaching and
training resilient design concepts. In total, 18
key informants were interviewed. For a list of
interviewees, see Appendix B.
Figure 2: Keywords Used in internet Search of Resilient Design Education
Drought
Earthquake
KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS
Flood

12
A review committee comprised of 18 scholars and
practitioners who are experts in the fi eld provided
guidance and feedback throughout the research
process. In the early stages, the review committee
identifi ed programs that provide resilient design
education and offered the research team an
interdisciplinary perspective. The review committee
also provided feedback on the initial coding of
interviews, preliminary research fi ndings, and the
fi rst draft of the written report. We convened
the advisory panel twice via Webex, a video
conferencing tool that allows for the sharing of
slides. For a list of review committee members, see
Appendix C.
After conducting the internet search, key informant
interviews, and consulting with the review committee,
we identifi ed innovative examples of programs
or academic units that deliver resilient design
education across the various disciplines included in
this study. We conducted case studies of California
Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo;
Louisiana State University; North Carolina State
University; and Texas A&M University. To develop
these case studies, we reviewed written material
about these programs, interviewed knowledgeable
faculty and staff, and received feedback from
faculty and/or staff on the initial draft of the case
study to ensure that our analysis was accurate.
REVIEW COMMITTEE
CASE STUDIES
Methods

13
Resilient design is a small but rapidly growing
area of study. It is taught at the undergraduate,
Master’s, and PhD levels. Engineering offers
numerous courses in resilient design, but that
is partly due to how engineers defi ne resilient
design – resilience is a standard of design,
construction, and/or development that is guided
by industry performance standards. Thus, it is
argued by many of those in the profession that
all engineering products/structures/systems
are resiliently designed if they meet industry
standards. Whether this is an accurate statement
is subject to debate, particularly as we enter an
era of climate change. These types of industry
standards are also present in the fi eld of building
sciences. Other fi elds, such as architecture,
landscape architecture, and planning, that have
a much broader defi nition of resilient design
have fewer course offerings on the topic.
Further evidence of the nexus between resilience
and design includes the growing number of
individual courses taught as well as the creation
of university degree, minor, and certifi cate
programs. The growing focus on natural hazards,
disasters, and resilient design in college and
university curricula, while promising, remains
highly varied. Resilient design courses and
programs are frequently siloed in particular
disciplines rather than serving as a venue
to apply interdisciplinary systems thinking.
Results
RESULTS
Similarly, the majority of courses are developed
in isolation rather than as part of degree, minor,
or certifi cate program. Although, this appears
to be changing with the advent of new curricula
addressing this shortfall.
Resilient design education curricula are often
driven by the passion and interests of an
individual faculty member who teaches a course
or studio. Studio courses – usually offered in
the architecture and landscape architecture
disciplines, and to a lesser extent in the planning
discipline – involve an applied problem or
project and may be client-based. Studios can
be used to foster inter- and multi-disciplinary
experiences for students and faculty.
Beyond curricula within academic units, including
studio-based examples, research centers,
institutes, and extension programs offer students
project-based or experiential learning about
resilient design. These are spaces in which inter-
and multi-disciplinary collaborations between
faculty, students, and practitioners can take place
through funded research or applied resilient
design projects.
Project Credit: Zixu Qiao, Texas A&M University

14
The internet search revealed a highly varied set
of curricula and university offerings on resilient
design. The subject matter is one that is new, yet
growing very rapidly. Since we began this study
in October 2016, there has been a noticeable
increase in faculty hires and curricula related
to resilient design. For example, The Graduate
School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation
at Columbia University is currently hiring up to
three Associate Research Scholars in Resilient
Design and Planning and recently established a
new Center for Resilient Cities and Landscapes
(CRCL). This center will collaborate with staff
from 100 Resilient Cities and work around
the world with communities to enhance their
resilience. In addition, there are a number of
universities, including the University of Hawaii and
the University of Florida that announced cluster
hires in the area of resilient design. In 2017,
the College of Design, Construction and Planning
(DCP) at the University of Florida announced that
Results
they would be accepting applications for up to
four open-rank tenure-track faculty positions as
part of a major new initiative to build on their
design, construction, and planning expertise in the
area of “Resilient, Smart, Sustainable and Healthy
Built Environments.” Recently, the University of
Delaware announced that they will search for a
cluster of fi ve interdisciplinary faculty in the area
of disaster science and education in the fall of
2018. The disciplines that would be suitable
for this cluster hire include: public health, social
science, environmental risk, crisis informatics, and
civil engineering. Further evidence of this trend is
represented by Clemson University’s new Master’s
degree in resilient design. The fi rst cohort of
students was admitted in the fall of 2018 at
the Charleston, South Carolina campus. These
examples, and the case studies found throughout
this document show that there is increasing interest
in developing curricula at the intersection of
resilience and design.
Figure 3: Word Frequency, Resilient Design Defi nition
INTERNET SEARCH RESULTS

15
In the following section, we analyze the
qualitative key informant data and consult our
review committee to examine differences across
disciplines in how resilient design education is
viewed, but also whether there were common
themes that cut across the fi ve disciplines. Both
the key informants and the review committee are
experts in their respective fi elds. They include
faculty, research scientists, and practitioners.
First, we asked experts across the fi ve disciplines
to defi ne the concept of resilience. Their responses
show that the most frequent words used to defi ne
resilience include buildings, community, systems,
and environmental (Figure 3).
The experts’ defi nitions of resilience were
also indicative of the evolution of the concept.
Interviewees across disciplines agreed that resilient
design is systems-based, multi-scalar, and requires
interdisciplinary thinking. Resilient design requires
a systems-based approach because of the
interdependencies embedded within and between
the ecological, physical, and social environments.
These ideas are illustrated by the following
statement:
Results
It can almost be anything so you
have to defi ne the scope and scale of
what you are looking at. Large riverine
systems and greenways [are] so regional,
but [resilient design] can be all the way
down to a school yard, a very small
urban school that uses the rainwater.
– Andy Fox, Department of Landscape
Architecture, North Carolina State
University
“
.”
We articulate it in such a way
that we have signifi cant chunks of the
curriculum spent on the urban scale,
over all human settlement, the MSA
[Metropolitan Statistical Area], and then
you have the neighborhood scale...
– James Spencer, Department of
City and Regional Planning, Clemson
University
“
.”
It is not just building by building
or structure by structure, but it is looking
at the systems of buildings, housing,
commercial, government, culture,
infrastructure, and saying, ‘well what
do we have to do to design these to be
resilient?’
– Dr. Mary Comerio, Department of
Architecture, University of California,
Berkeley
“
.”
DEFINING RESILIENT DESIGN
INSIGHTS FROM KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS
AND ADVISORY PANEL
A resilient system also takes into account multiple
scales of vulnerability and risk. Furthermore, many
systems’ domains lie within particular scales. A
water system can be regional or national while a
building’s system is site specifi c. While both systems
are indicative of drastically different scales, they
are interdependent. Considering how to develop
more resiliently at multiple scales is more commonly
addressed in the fi elds of planning and landscape
architecture than in architecture, building science,
or engineering. The following two statements from
an urban planner and landscape architect address
the multi-scalar concept:

16
.”
The concept of resilience has historically focused
on technical resilience. More recently, resilience
has come to encompass social dimensions, dynamic
processes, and multidisciplinary perspectives, as
explained here:
Results
Among the engineering interviewees, there was
a commonly shared view that as a profession,
their goal is to always design resilient structures.
What this suggests is that the fi eld of engineering
uses performance standards to ensure that what
is designed and built can withstand shocks to a
given design standard and return to a steady-
state equilibrium. These performance standards
are foundational to engineering education and
are integrated into departmental accreditation
standards at U.S. colleges and universities as
well. However, performance standards are not
necessarily adjustable or fl exible, thus limiting the
ability to respond to unexpected shocks, such as
those created by extreme and intensifying weather
events. This is evident in the emerging challenges
associated with the use of the concept of stationarity
(i.e. relying on past hazard history to establish design
parameters) in an era of climate change, whereby
such standards are now viewed as insuffi cient.
THE EVOLUTION OF RESILIENCE AS A
CONCEPT
I think we need to go to a
broader look to see how the building fi ts
into a system, and I think this is true for
building sciences as well, but we need to
start making linkages.
– Terri McAllister, Engineer, National
Institute of Standards and Technology
“
Initially, [it was] strictly
technical... At fi rst it had little to do
with the knowledge of people and
how communities work... It’s moved
toward fi nding some balance between
that [nonhuman physical resources and
systems] and people.
– Kofi Boone, Department of Landscape
Architecture, North Carolina State
University
“
.”
While many of the interviewees across disciplines
agree that resilient design should be systems-
based and multi-scalar, within the university setting,
the delivery of resilient design curricula is often
siloed and focuses on a limited scale and system.
As a consequence, students in design related
disciplines are often unexposed to resilient design
from a systems-based and multi-scalar perspective.
Architecture, building sciences, and engineering
tend to have a narrower focus on specifi c scales
within their curriculum. One engineer highlights
these limitations within the discipline:
This evolution of the concept has altered the way in
which resilient design is taught, incorporating not only
built or natural systems, but also considerations about
social vulnerability, equity, organizational/institutional
capacity, political factors, and power dynamics in
shaping a community’s ability to be resilient. The
fi ndings from our study show that more recently,
disciplines that were rooted in building resiliently
through the built environment, such as engineering,
have recognized the importance of cross-disciplinary
perspectives. One civil engineer remarks:
I think there’s been much more
emphasis on the non-engineering aspects
of resilience. For example, considering
social resilience, community preparedness,
the non-engineering aspects.
– Reginald DesRoches, School of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, Georgia
Institute of Technology
“
.”

17
.”
.”
Results
INTER- AND MULTI-DISCIPLINARY
PERSPECTIVES
The problem is that academia
is very siloed and doesn’t bring
together the disciplines as it should.
When you work in the real world, it is
interdisciplinary.
– David Vaughn, Department of Civil
Engineering, Clemson University
“
In educational settings, it’s
studios or research projects that are
interdisciplinary.
– Kofi Boone, Department of Landscape
Architecture, North Carolina State
University
“
The organizational structure of U.S. colleges and
universities creates substantial barriers to providing
educational experiences that allow students to
learn how to work in inter- and multi-disciplinary
teams and to understand the systems-based and
multi-scalar nature of resilient design beyond their
own discipline. This sentiment is expressed here:
The interview data reveal that the most common
form of interdisciplinary teaching involved
studio courses, which are most often delivered in
architecture, landscape architecture, and to a
lesser extent, planning programs.
To learn more about how interdisciplinary studios
can offer valuable student learning opportunities,
we turn to the example of North Carolina State
University’s unique approach to resilient design
education. While multiple faculty members push
interdisciplinary work in the classroom, their
Coastal Dynamics Design Lab offers opportunities
to connect this interdisciplinary thinking to applied
projects, including design charrettes.

18
CASE STUDY 1
NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY | COLLEGE OF DESIGN: MASTER OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
North Carolina State University’s landscape
architecture program approaches resilient
design from a systems-thinking and multi-scalar
perspective, incorporating both engineering and
architecture in many of its studios and classes.
According to Andy Fox, an associate professor in
Landscape Architecture, landscape architects work
across a range of scales that can be as small as a
school yard and as large as a region.
NC State teaches students to conceptualize a
variety of landscape scales as well as the systems
they are entangled in from a resilience perspective.
Kofi Boone, Associate Professor of Landscape
Architecture, describes how the discipline is uniquely
suited to focus on multiple scales especially when
dealing with water systems:
Results
The drawing, created as part of the Hurricane Matthew Recovery and Resilience Initiative (see p. 30), shows
a conceptualization of a house elevated above fl ood levels using a design style familiar to the local context.
It is part of a series intended to provide replacement housing options for those who are participating in the
post-disaster program that acquires and demolishes one’s home and
commits the land to open space in perpetuity.
Across the discipline, it’s multi-
scalar… you have to deal with water at
multiple scales. You can’t stick to one
scale.
– Kofi Boone, North Carolina State
Landscape Architecture
“
.”

19
In addition to being multi-scalar and systems
based, NC State also incorporates architecture
and engineering into landscape architecture
studios. This serves as the primary means by which
NC State exposes students to other disciplines.
Students are also involved in design studios that
focus on problem-based learning and are largely
student driven with faculty reviews rather than
more traditional settings like seminars or labs.
Studio-based classroom opportunities provide
students with an understanding of other disciplinary
perspectives on resilient design. One drawback,
however, is the reliance on individual faculty to
push interdisciplinary work in their teaching spaces.
This is not a sustainable model for delivering
interdisciplinary training, but should be embedded
and institutionalized in the curriculum.
which means that some classes count toward
both degrees. Additionally, some classes can be
modifi ed, or even waived from one curriculum if
the student provides evidence that a topic is being
covered to acceptable standards in another
program, thereby offering some fl exibility.
Students have also focused on resilient design
through the Coastal Dynamics Design Lab (CDDL)
and completed dual degrees.
The Coastal Dynamics Design Lab (CDDL) connects
interdisciplinary coursework with applied, real-
world challenges. Founded in 2013, the CDDL is
geographically oriented towards environmentally
vulnerable towns on the Mid-Atlantic seaboard,
with projects focused on how to increase community
resilience in the face of natural hazards and
climate change-related risks. Its mission is to
lead multidisciplinary research and design teams
that are created to address ecological, social,
and physical challenges in these communities.
Teams consist of landscape architects, engineers,
architects, and graphic designers. The Lab is
co-taught by a Professor of Architecture, David
Hill and an Associate Professor of Landscape
Architecture, Andy Fox.
The CDDL provides an advanced course
opportunity (summer seminar) for students, but also
serves as a component of other classes by bringing
students into projects the Lab supports. Students in
the advanced course are involved with all aspects
of research, teaching, and engagement. These
activities are carried out through coursework
(registered students in the classroom) and funded
graduate positions.
The CDDL offers three and six credit-hour courses
to graduate students across the academic year and
a Coastal Dynamics Summer Seminar. On average,
20 students (predominantly from departments
Results
COASTAL DYNAMICS DESIGN LAB (CDDL)
We do it in our coursework, but
there is nothing in our program. We
don’t do this as a program objective.
– Andy Fox, NC State Landscape
Architecture
“
.”
Students can cross-enroll in engineering,
landscape architecture, and architecture at NC
State. One example involves students working
in bio-agricultural engineering and landscape
architecture, cross-enrolling because of a common
focus on stormwater management. There has also
been success in integrating this type of engineering
with landscape architecture principles in seminar
and studio courses.
While students are able to pursue concurrent
degrees at NC State, this is not supported by an
offi cial “dual degree” program offered by the
school. NC State’s architecture and landscape
architecture programs allow for some overlap
between the two degree’s course requirements
RESILIENT DESIGN COURSEWORK

20
of landscape architecture and architecture) are
enrolled in CDDL courses. The Lab employs about
four graduate research assistants each year,
engages licensed professionals, and partners with
other universities such as East Carolina University’s
geography program and the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill’s Coastal Resilience Center
of Excellence. To date, 18 students have worked
as research assistants at the CDDL.
Tackling applied challenges is a priority of the
CDDL. NC State students have been involved
in two design charrettes related to Hurricane
Matthew recovery in eastern North Carolina.
The fi rst charrette was held in January of 2017,
three months after Hurricane Matthew struck.
DesignWeek involved students and faculty from
the departments of Landscape Architecture and
Architecture in the College of Design at NC
State and the Department of City and Regional
Planning and the Hurricane Matthew Disaster
Recovery and Resilience Initiative at UNC-Chapel
Hill. The purpose of the event was to develop
preliminary designs to increase North Carolina
community resilience to future fl ooding in three
communities. The work was divided between
interdisciplinary student teams that brought
a diversity of experience and expertise. The
charrette forced students to use their various
skill sets in a collaborative setting and develop
a common vision for each community. Student
teams were also required to present their fi ndings
and associated designs to local offi cials from the
impacted communities as well as a review panel
comprised of design faculty and professionals.
The second charrette occurred in August of 2017
and involved architects; landscape architects;
planners; engineers; emergency managers;
federal, state, and local offi cials; and students
from NC State and UNC-Chapel Hill. The purpose
of this charrette was to conceptualize the future of
Results
Princeville, NC, the fi rst town established by freed
enslaved people after emancipation in 1865.
Princeville was hit especially hard by Hurricane
Matthew, with the majority of its residents unable
to return to their homes more than one year
after the event. The charrette allowed students
to work in a high-pace, high-stakes environment
with professional interdisciplinary teams that
considered not only design but policy, regulations,
and the future resilience of the town’s residents.
Disciplinary diversity is not required in the
curriculum of either NC State or UNC, Chapel Hill.
Efforts to diversify subject matter were driven
by the actions of faculty who agreed to work
together following Hurricane Matthew. Due to the
efforts of several engaged faculty at NC State,
a resilient design curriculum has been developed
that is focused on providing students applied
training that spans systems, is multi-scalar, and
advances interdisciplinary perspectives through
studios, classes, and design charrettes.
Diagram from a winning DesignWeek project:
‘Eat Drink Play | Kinston’

21
Results
With the [Pacifi c Earthquake
Engineering Research Center], you
did interdisciplinary work and students
worked in those interdisciplinary teams…
[I]t changed the culture of the way
engineering students learned how to
work…they developed these relationships
and bonds that are lasting 10-15 years
after the center…I think that culture
change has had a signifi cant impact.
– Mary Comerio, Department of
Architecture, University of California at
Berkeley
“
.”
Beyond the classroom, students are often exposed
to resilient design projects through work at
university affi liated centers and institutes. These
centers and institutes attract research and contract
funding that often facilitates collaborations
among an interdisciplinary group of faculty and
students. Our interview data reveal that research
centers and institutes may be the most fruitful
unit within the academy to fund, facilitate, and
encourage inter- and multi-disciplinary resilient
design collaborations, thereby providing rich
learning opportunities for students. In addition,
applied or client-based projects that are often run
through centers and institutes provide experiences
for students that more closely resemble resilient
design in practice. These experiences have lasting
education impacts on students, as explained below:
CENTERS AND INSTITUTES
In two case studies, Louisiana State University and
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis
Obispo, we discuss the opportunities for student
learning through studios, centers and institutes, and
applied projects.

22
Results
CASE STUDY 2
LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY | INTERDISCIPLINARY: DESIGN, ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL
A rendering shows a site plan developed within the Grand Isle Studio, which focused on
designing for a disappearing and changing landscape in southern Louisiana.
Studio Instructor: Elizabeth Williams; Credit: Abbey Brown
Louisiana State University’s location near the Lower
Mississippi River Delta is central to the development
of their coastal resilience and sustainability focus.
Multiple units on campus, including the College
of Art and Design, the College of Engineering,
and College of the Coast and the Environment
contribute to an interdisciplinary and robust resilient
design education spanning undergraduate to PhD
students. These units examine: 1) changes to the
deltaic system, 2) how human actions can mitigate
the negative consequences of development and
climate change, and 3) how to think about the
future of human settlement in at-risk areas.
The Louisiana State University Coastal Sustainability
Studio (CSS) is an interdisciplinary program that
involves the College of Art and Design, the College
of Engineering, the College of the Coast and
Environment, the College of Science, and the College
of Humanities and Social Sciences. Founded in 2009,
the CSS seeks to connect disciplines that often work
separately to develop creative, comprehensive
strategies to respond to coastal challenges. Jeff
Carney, an Associate Professor of Architecture and
former Director of the CSS, explains that the studio
is a way for students to use a systems approach to
think about different scales of resilience outside of
their individual disciplines. For example, landscape
architects are more engaged in systems and larger
scale implications of changes to the landscape than
architects, who usually focus on the design of an
individual site or building. As an interdisciplinary
studio, students can expand their ability to think on
multiple scales.
In contrast to NC State’s Coastal Dynamics Design
Lab (see case study on page 18), opportunities to
work with the studio are available primarily through
COASTAL SUSTAINABILITY STUDIO

23
Results
assistantships with limited course related options.
The CSS offers graduate assistantships and summer
internships for students as a means to complement
research interests outside of the classroom. The
CSS is less embedded in the curriculum but often
supplements traditional academic course work.
Since 2009, the CSS has employed between fi ve to
fi fteen students per academic year and between
three to twenty students as summer interns.
The Coastal Studies Institute (CSI) evolved from
a postwar concern over the lack of coastal
environmental data that could be used to predict
coastal conditions and the need to understand
the world’s coastlines for national security and
defense purposes. The CSI was founded in 1952
and recognized by the Louisiana State Board of
Supervisors in 1954 when it became an independent
unit of the School of Geoscience. Its mission today
is to facilitate the development and integration of
coastal science and engineering expertise to inform
policies that promote environmental sustainability
of the Mississippi River Delta and deltaic coasts
around the world. Their mission is focused on
the enhancement of research and educational
opportunities in coastal regions.
CSI currently involves 29 faculty representing the
fi elds of engineering, oceanography, geography,
anthropology, geophysics, and geology; 59
PhD and post-docs; 45 master’s students; and
seven undergraduates. The CSI includes multiple
disciplines with separate labs for specifi c fi elds
of research, such as the Coastal Morphodynamics
Laboratory (CML), the Marine Meteorology Group,
and the Earth Scan Laboratory (ESL). While the
interdisciplinary research conducted to understand
coastal dynamics is crucial to planning for present
and future coastal issues, there is little mention of
applying these fi ndings in design related projects
such as those undertaken by the CSS, although this
COASTAL STUDIES INSTITUTE
appears to be changing. One way the CSS and
CSI are working together is through a partnership
focused on a Delta Research Minor, with additional
support from LSU’s engineering and design schools,
as well as the Offi ce of Research and Economic
Development.
LSU is developing an interdisciplinary
undergraduate water-intensive minor built
around a collaborative approach emphasizing
“design thinking.” The proposed multi-disciplinary
undergraduate Delta Research Minor will focus
on coastal issues with distinct but interrelated
scientifi c, engineering, and design components.
In collaboration with CSI and ORED (Offi ce of
Resarch and Economic Development), and the
Colleges of Art + Design, Coast and Environment,
and Engineering, CSS led the effort to launch the
program. The Delta Research minor includes the
following components: multidisciplinary and faculty-
mentored research, including fi eld research at the
Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium; access to
the Delta Research Studio, a new active learning
environment; and participation and presentations
within a symposium framework. Graduates of the
15-hour program will be uniquely prepared to face
the complex challenges facing coastal Louisiana and
similarly vulnerable coasts worldwide.
UNDERGRADUATE MINOR: DELTA RESEARCH
Grand Isle Studio; Studio Instructor: Elizabeth
Williams; Credit: Kyle Schroeder

24
The City and Regional Planning (CRP) Department
at California Polytechnic State University, San
Luis Obispo (Cal Poly) aligns with the university’s
motto “Discere Faciendo” or “Learn by Doing,” and
provides students with numerous opportunities to
engage the world outside the classroom through the
ideas learned through applied curricula. CRP stands
out among programs in our investigation due to the
heavy faculty workload in teaching both graduate
and undergraduate students. Faculty teach a 3-3-
3 schedule, meaning they lead three courses per
trimester. Consequently, much thought has been
placed on providing a resilient design education
through classroom instruction and applied class
projects.
CRP is home to the Resilient Communities Research
Institute (RCRI). The institute is an interdisciplinary
group of faculty, students, and practitioners
CASE STUDY 3
CAL POLY SAN LUIS OBISPO | DEPARTMENT OF CITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING
“devoted to advancing the application of
knowledge and practice that improves the
quality and safety of the built environment.”
The experiences provided through applied
coursework and working in interdisciplinary teams
with on-going projects through the RCRI provides
undergraduate and graduate students with rich
opportunities for a resilient design education.
A defi ning feature of CRP is its connection to
ongoing projects outside the university, engaging
communities attempting to adapt to climate change.
The department goes beyond traditional credit-
granted coursework through the use of internships
to provide a range of classes integrated with
ongoing planning processes being undertaken by
state and municipal governments grappling with
hazard resilience. For example, an ongoing contract
Results
LEARNING BY DOING
Examples of Campus Resiliency Index (CaRI) wheel developed by groups of 3 students during a 5-week
project in the ‘Hazard Mitigation and Design: Towards Resilient Communities’ course. The drawings
incorporate fi fty-three pieces of information used to measure holistic resiliency goals.
MEETING CALIFORNIA’S CURRENT PLANNING
CHALLENGES

25
with the State of California’s Offi ce of Emergency
Services enables graduate and undergraduate
students, faculty, and practitioners to update the
State Hazard Mitigation Plan every fi ve years.
Cal Poly puts its students on the front lines of
state planning initiatives through additional class
projects, such as preparing comprehensive plan
updates, local resiliency indices, and climate action
plans. In 2008, when Cal Poly students developed
the City of Benicia’s climate action plan, the only
other city in the state to have such a plan was San
Francisco. The department’s strong ties to industry
partners, such as Arup, allow students and faculty
to work alongside practitioners, thereby gaining
experience from those already working in the
fi eld. In collaboration with Arup, the department
developed campus resiliency index models
and conducted campus resilience planning. The
interaction with a private sector partner also fosters
potential job opportunities upon graduation.
CRP hosts a biennial Climate Action Planning
conference, which drew over 300 attendees in
2017 and provides another venue for students to
make connections with professionals involved in
resilience-related work. The event has been credited
with building interest for students to take resilience-
related courses. In 2018, a Resilient Design: State
of the Art Symposium was held, where the leading
design professionals assembled to establish what it
takes to make the built environment more resilient,
and how to advance a curriculum that supports
resilience-thinking.
By embedding professional networks and applied
and project-based learning opportunities in the
curriculum, students pursuing a CRP degree at Cal
Poly graduate with substantial cross-sectoral work
experience that is attractive to employers. The
department aims to equip graduates to understand
resilient planning concretely through repeated case
examples, studios, and practitioner-guided work.
Results
‘Amphibious Neighborhoods’ by Amanda F., Iliana
V., Elise A.; and Andres R., students in the Cal Poly
Landscape Architecture Program

26
INSTITUTIONAL BARRIERS
There are real barriers to institutionalizing resilient
design education that incorporates interdisciplinary
perspectives, which often results in resilient design
remaining on the periphery, rather than as a core
element of the curriculum. Texas A&M University,
identifi ed in our study as having a wide number
of resilient design learning opportunities through
the curriculum, centers and institutes, and applied
research projects, still struggles with the institutional
barriers to teaching across disciplines as evidenced
by the following comment:
Texas A&M University is committed to breaking
down the siloed disciplinary walls through its new
Institute for Sustainable Communities. While the
institute’s mission is not framed around resilient
design, but rather sustainability, the work at the
institute is closely aligned with concepts relating
to resilience. For more on Texas A&M, read the
following case study.
Universities don’t like inter-
disciplinary degree courses. They want
it, but when it comes to implementing
it, departments get concerned about
compensation. There’s tension, because
people are always trying to keep their
numbers up.
– Phil Berke, Department of Landscape
Architecture and Urban Planning, Texas
A&M
“
.”
Results

27
The Master of Urban Planning (MUP) degree
program, which is housed in the Department of
Architecture and Urban Planning at Texas A&M
University showcases an expansive curriculum and
multidisciplinary foci on resilient design through a
center and an institute. The curriculum offers both
a formal certifi cate program in Environmental
Hazards Management and a program concentration
in Resilient Communities. In addition to in-class
learning, the program provides opportunities to
work on multidisciplinary and applied projects
CASE STUDY 4
TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY | DEPARTMENT OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN PLANNING
through the Hazards Reduction and Recovery Center
and the Institute for Sustainable Communities. The
applied projects also connect students and faculty
to practitioners and communities, thereby creating
opportunities to be challenged with real life
resilient design projects.
The program features six graduate-level course
options, or 18 credit hours including: Analyzing
Risk/Hazard and Public Policy, Disaster Recovery
and Hazard Mitigation, and Organizational and
Community Response to Crises and Disasters.
A Master Plan study from ‘Neighborhood Detox: Enhancing Resilience in a Hazard Vulnerable Area’
by Yangdi Wang, a graduate student at Texas A&M University.
Results
EXPANSIVE AND MULTI-DISCIPLINARY RESILIENT
DESIGN CURRICULUM:
RESILIENT DESIGN COURSEWORK:

28
The Environmental Hazards Management
(EHM) Certifi cate engages students in “a cross-
disciplinary program that has been designed to
provide students with an understanding of the
interrelationship between the built environment,
social systems, and extreme [natural, technological,
or terror-related] environmental events.” There
are four tracks in the certifi cate program,
including hazard mitigation planning, emergency
management planning, environmental hazards
management planning, and disaster health
systems planning. The certifi cate emphasizes an
interdisciplinary perspective, including at least
three credit hours of required coursework to be
taken outside the department. The organizational
structure includes three dean-appointed faculty
members who make up the EHM Certifi cate Council
and serve in an advisory capacity.
In addition to the EHM certifi cate program,
students can pursue a concentration in Resilient
Communities, which is comprised of a 12 credit-
hour set of courses. These courses are managed
by eight faculty members and provide students
an education in: land use and environmental
planning, mitigation and recovery from natural
hazards, sustainable urban communities,
ecological systems, and the relationship between
the environment and human health.
Texas A&M prioritizes community engagement
and participatory research at the Hazards
Reduction and Recovery Center and the Institute
for Sustainable Communities.
The Hazard Reduction and Recovery Center
(HRRC), founded in 1988 by Dr. Dennis Wenger,
focuses on an interdisciplinary approach to
research and education in hazard analysis,
emergency preparedness and response, disaster
recovery, and hazard mitigation. HRRC employs
architects, planners, sociologists, policy analysts,
economists, landscape architects, and engineers.
The HRRC’s focus is on expanding the hazard
research community by educating the next
generation of leaders in the resilience fi eld,
engaging communities affected by hazards, and
sharing research fi ndings both within and outside
the academy. The HRRC is unique in that it is a unit
that reports to the Offi ce of the Provost, despite
being operated primarily by faculty in the
Department of Landscape Architecture and Urban
Planning. This organizational structure allows
students and faculty who engage with the center
to be exposed to interdisciplinary perspectives on
disaster resilience.
The Institute for Sustainable Communities (ISC),
directed by Dr. Philip Berke, brings together
researchers and students from across the university
to engage in transformative research that shapes
the future of communities. The Institute offers
opportunities for cross-disciplinary learning and
collaboration on projects that relate to resilience. A
recent project involved teaching communities how
to use land use planning to reduce damage from
natural hazards. Specifi cally, the ISC developed
the Plan Integration Resilience Scorecard that
identifi es hazard zones as well as physical and
social vulnerabilities while evaluating the degree
to which a community’s existing plans reduce or
exacerbate exposure to natural hazards.
Texas A&M offers expansive and multidisciplinary
opportunities in resilient design education,
supplying students with multiple pathways to
engage in scholarship and practice. Even with
these options present, resilient design instruction
is not a central part of the core curriculum in
any of the three departments within the College
of Architecture, including planning, landscape
Results
RESILIENT COMMUNITIES CONCENTRATION:
RESILIENT DESIGN PRACTICE:

29
architecture, and architecture. Texas A&M is not
alone in this curriculum arrangement and there are
very few programs in the U.S. that teach resilient
design within the core curriculum.
Results
Plan integration maps identifying the vulnerability
of different areas in the context of land use and
municipal planning. Credit: Jaimie Masterson and
Phil Berke, Department of Landscape Architecture
and Urban Planning, Texas A&M University.

30
.”
.”
.”
Results
Our interviews revealed that the delivery of
resilient design education is often the result of one
leader or champion. Relying on the efforts of an
individual or small group is not sustainable and
will likely not continue if that leadership leaves
the institution. We found this to be true across the
disciplines, as explained below:
outside these programs receive. Also, the collection
of departments and programs within the school or
college can facilitate or inhibit students from being
exposed to resilient design educational offerings.
In addition to relying on a champion, resilient
design education bumps up against barriers due
to the organizational structures of universities. In
most cases, students who want an interdisciplinary
resilient design education must take classes outside
of their major or department and the process of
being approved to do so can be fairly cumbersome
and act as a deterrent. Furthermore, the school
or college in which resilient design programs are
housed may affect the exposure students located
It always ends up being about the
personalities of the people who are there
at the moment. A project through a studio
leads to a great moment of resilience and
then it goes away. So, I think it’s very
episodic.
– Jeff Carney, School of Architecture,
Louisiana State University
There is no [resilient design]
program, there are just individual faculty
that piece it together with other faculty
in their departments or outside of their
departments
– Mary Comerio, Department of
Architecture, University of California at
Berkeley
“
“
These institutional arrangements
within colleges and universities, ‘sets the
stage for the ability for students to be
exposed [to other disciplines].’
– Andy Fox, Department of Landscape
Architecture, North Carolina State
University
“
.”
The competition for students in majors and the
accounting of students in classes also poses
institutional barriers to interdisciplinary resilient
design education. Revenue is often generated based
on the number of students in a classroom, which
promotes competition between departments rather
than collaboration, the latter of which is essential to
developing and institutionalizing interdisciplinary
resilient design education programs.
CHALLENGES IN IMPLEMENTATION
If I’m developing these courses
and if I’m in charge of it, the way I get
revenue is by students in the classroom.
But then somebody over in economics is
concerned about students ‘going over
there’ or faculty going and teaching
there. They don’t like the idea of students
going over and bleeding away from their
program. But if they get compensated,
then they like it. So that’s how it goes.
– Phil Berke, Department of Landscape
Architecture and Urban Planning, Texas
A&M University
“

31
.”
.”
Results
Accreditation standards for academic units also limit
the number of elective courses, including courses
taken by students outside of their discipline. Some
fi elds have more course requirements than others
due to accreditation standards and guidelines.
Students majoring in engineering or architecture,
for example, are restricted in the number of non-
major courses that can be taken, thereby limiting
their ability to enroll in resilient design courses
or educational offerings in other departments, as
explained below:
tasked with creating accreditation requirements
have been slow to adopt metrics that would
promote interdisciplinary resilient design curricula.
The incentive and reward structure for faculty
promotion and tenure, such as publishing in high-
impact disciplinary journals versus journals outside
their discipline disincentivizes interdisciplinary
collaborations. This is illustrated in the quote
below:
Despite the recognition that an interdisciplinary
education is an important aspect of preparing
students to work in the resilient design fi eld, those
There’s an expectation that
there’s a certain level [of] engineering
journal that is needed. Not that they
wouldn’t get credit but it would be
looked at differently. I think we need
to be advocates and reward that
interdisciplinary approach.
– Sandra Knight, Research Engineer,
Center for Disaster Resilience, University
of Maryland
“
.”
I think there are some hard
barriers, particularly engineering... In
undergrad, it’s so tied to the accreditation
process. Every school has to teach X, Y, Z
and there’s zero space for electives. And
to change the curriculum you could risk
losing your accreditation as an engineering
school.
– Sandra Knight, Research Engineer,
Center for Disaster Resilience, University
of Maryland
In architecture, you need to be
accredited, you have certain skills that
everyone agrees are important. But with
resilience you don’t have that, which is
why it happens in the interdisciplinary
world.
– Jeff Carney, School of Architecture,
Louisiana State University
“
“
There are substantial challenges to expanding and
institutionalizing resilient design education at U.S.
colleges and universities, such as the siloed nature
of university academic departments, schools and
colleges, an incentive structure tied to the number
of majors and students in courses, accreditation
standards, and the metrics used to evaluate faculty
for promotion and tenure.
The case study of UNC-Chapel Hill’s Hurricane
Matthew Disaster Recovery and Resilience Initiative
provides an example of an inter-institutional, inter-
disciplinary collaboration focused on responding
to real world resilient design challenges in the
aftermath of a disaster.

32
CASE STUDY 5
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL | DEPARTMENT OF CITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING
Students and faculty from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and North Carolina State University
worked with residents and professional designers during a charette to explore the partial relocation of
Princeville, North Carolina following Hurricane Matthew.
One emergent example of an innovative
educational structure comes from the
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,
where students, faculty, and practitioners
have collaborated to address resilient
design challenges outside of the classroom.
At the request of the Director of the North
Carolina Division of Emergency Management
and the Governor, the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill’s (UNC) Department of
City and Regional Planning and North Carolina
State University’s (NC State) College of Design
undertook a number of disaster recovery and
design-related challenges that are not typically
addressed by federal or state programs post-
disaster. The issues were identifi ed through direct
interaction with local offi cials who cited areas in
which they needed assistance. Of the more than
20 students that participated in this effort, most
were selected from those pursuing a 10-credit-
hour program in Natural Hazards Resilience at
the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Funding to support this initiative was provided
by the North Carolina Legislature, the North
Carolina Division of Emergency Management,
and the University of North Carolina’s Policy
Collaboratory.
TRENDS IN EDUCATION
HURRICANE MATTHEW DISASTER RECOVERY &
RESILIENCE INITIATIVE
Results

33
Through the Hurricane Matthew Disaster Recovery
and Resilience Initiative (HMDRRI), planning,
landscape architecture, and architecture students
and faculty worked together with consultants
to address unmet needs in six hard-hit towns
in eastern North Carolina. These communities
included Fair Bluff, Kinston, Lumberton, Princeville,
Seven Springs, and Windsor. Faculty and students
collaborated with consultants, state and federal
agency staff, and elected offi cials at the local
level to develop disaster recovery plans and
strategies to enhance post-Matthew outcomes.
Work included that undertaken at the Joint Field
Offi ce (JFO), a federal/state installation which
housed employees from FEMA and the North
Carolina Division of Emergency Management (the
HMDRRI team had multiple offi ces in the building,
including those for faculty and students that were
co-located with top state offi cials). In addition,
regular site visits were conducted to engage with
local offi cials and members of each community.
The ability to work directly in the JFO provided
a unique opportunity for students and faculty to
interact with a range of individuals and attend
regular federal-state meetings. Direct community
engagement included participating in open
houses, public meetings, interviews with offi cials
and residents, festivals and other public events,
and design workshops.
Several projects resulted from this two-year
interdisciplinary collaboration. They included: 1)
conducting land suitability analyses that identifi ed
sites where new housing could be located outside
the fl oodplain and within town boundaries to
replace those fl ood-prone homes that were
acquired and demolished, thereby reducing risk
and minimizing the loss of tax base; 2) creating
a series of home designs to support rebuilding
resilient affordable housing; 3) writing a regional
housing recovery strategy; 4) conducting an
Results
assessment of the fi nancial standing of several
towns, including conditions that might hinder their
ability to recover; 5) conducting an assessment of
possible fl ood retrofi t techniques that could be
applied in fl ood-impacted historic downtowns; and
6) developing open space plans for the vacant
land created following the buyout of homes. Each
of the projects were incorporated into community-
level disaster recovery plans that also identifi ed
an integrative vision, a series of associated goals,
and a collection of proposed policies and projects
to help guide overall recovery efforts. Funding
sources and appropriate organizations were
identifi ed to assist with the implementation of
these actions.
Additionally, several design charrettes following
Hurricane Mathew exposed students to
interdisciplinary collaboration undertaken during
compressed time frames typical of post-disaster
activities. DesignWeek, held at NC State, involved
teams of planning, architecture, and landscape
architecture students and faculty working with
communities impacted by Matthew, resulting in the
development of strategies to address recovery
needs and future long-term resilience through
design and planning interventions. In Princeville,
a fi ve-day design charrette was held to create
a design-based vision for rebuilding resiliently.
Specifi cally, the charrette involved envisioning
how the town could relocate residents and critical
services to a 52-acre parcel of land purchased by
the State of North Carolina that is located outside
the fl oodplain, but adjacent to the town limits.
The design team worked closely with the North
Carolina Division of Emergency Management, who
not only provided funding to support the workshop,
they also deployed teams to coordinate the
overall event, including logistics (travel, lodging,
food, and materials) and operations (IT support,

34
security, and the credentialing of participants).
This allowed the design team to focus on the task at
hand. As an example of interdisciplinary resilient
design education that is responsive to post-
disaster needs and drawing on the expertise of
emergency managers, HMDRRI provides a model
for future inter-institutional, cross-disciplinary, and
cross-sectoral collaborations undertaken in the
post-disaster environment.
Results
These images are part of a land suitability
analysis conducted for the Town of Seven
Springs. The color-coded building footprints
represent fl ood levels. Meanwhile, the parcels
are intended to inform areas best suited for
the location of replacement housing based on
a number of variables, including land located
outside the fl oodplain, areas zoned residential,
proximity to existing infrastructure, and land
located within the town limits.
Flooding Depth
Flooding Below FFE
0 - 1 ft
1 - 2 ft
2 - 3 ft
3 - 4 ft
4 - 5 ft
5+ ft
No Data
Seven Spr ings Town Limits
Parcels
NCEM Flood Extent
Development Suitability
Not Suitable (< 3)
Lowest (4 - 5)
Low (6 - 8)
Moderate (9 - 10)
High (11 - 15)
NCEM Flood Extent

35
.”
Results
The private sector and professional realm of design
related disciplines have a strong infl uence on what
is taught to prepare students for jobs in these highly
applied fi elds. Two aspects of professional practice
that infl uence resilient design education include
professional performance standards for fi elds such
as engineering and building sciences and the client
driven focus of design related professions.
For some professions, such as engineering
and building sciences, there are professional
building standards and guidelines that are set
by professional associations. These standards
have a strong infl uence on the curricula taught in
U.S. colleges and universities. The lack of clarity
and agreement as to whether these professional
standards and guidelines promote resilient
design poses a challenge to translating resilience
principles into practice. There is no doubt that the
building codes and performance standards have
advanced our ability to design more resiliently
than in the past, but there are instances in which
there is uncertainty as to whether existing codes
and standards are suffi cient. Alternatively, there
are examples of where construction standards
outperform expectations, such as the American
Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 24 Minimum
Flood Design and Construction Standards being
more stringent than is required by the National
Flood Insurance Program (Personal Communication,
John Ingargiola, July 6, 2017).
Outside the university setting, the professional
world’s infl uence on what is taught in the classroom
poses challenges and opportunities to foster
change. Client demand is a strong infl uence on
what is taught in a university setting to prepare
students for professional employment in their fi eld.
But clients are often concerned about the bottom
line, and the effort put into designing, planning, and
Sometimes, clients, including businesses that hire
designers and consumers (e.g. homeowners), need
to be convinced about the economic value of
designing resiliently, and that the benefi ts outweigh
the costs, as explained by Jeff Carney:
Unless your client is pushing for
that you might not want to do it.
– Kofi Boone, Department of Landscape
Architecture, North Carolina State
University
“
When thinking about the systems
approach, sometimes the effort benefi ts
the system and not just your client. Part
of the work is making the actual resilient
work pay back the client somehow like
a lower insurance rate or some other
dividend.
– Jeff Carney, School of Architecture,
Louisiana State University
“
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROFESSIONAL
PRACTICE AND ACADEMIA
building more resiliently may cost more. Therefore,
clients’ concerns over costs may discourage better
resilient design. Kofi Boone explains:
Clients often want the cheapest solution. In some
ways, changing the way we teach resilient design
is related to demand side factors, such as what
clients in a professional setting are willing to pay
for. Clients often dismiss taking on additional costs
for tackling broader, more systems-based resilient
features in their projects. But, if clients were to
internalize the long-term benefi ts of resilient
design, they may begin to demand resilient design
in their projects.
.”

36
.”
Results
One barrier to realizing the benefi ts of resilience
has been our inability to measure it in tangible,
monetized, metrics that can translate into real cost
savings. While the benefi ts of hazard mitigation
investments have been demonstrated in the seminal
study of the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Council (2005),
which found a 4 to 1 return on investment, this has
not necessarily been translated to widespread,
systemic action among the design community. By
2017, this return on mitigation investment had
increased to $6 in savings on future disaster costs
for every $1 spent (National Institute of Building
Sciences, Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves: 2017
Interim Report). Thus, there needs to be a strong
market incentive in favor of resilient design for
design professions to pivot their focus towards
resilience. Furthermore, by better framing and
messaging around how resilient design investments
can reduce future disaster losses as well as how
it benefi ts society (e.g. equitable, environmentally
sustainable, economically sound), this approach
may help to foster the greater adoption of resilient
design principles.
Private sector fi rms that focus on resilient design
from an interdisciplinary perspective have become
increasingly ubiquitous. The series of disasters
affecting cultural and economic centers in the U.S.,
including Hurricane Katrina and Sandy hitting
New Orleans and the upper Northeast, as well as
Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria, have brought
signifi cant attention and opportunity for the private
sector to be involved in resilient design work. As a
result, many fi rms have tried to market themselves
as resilience specialists to tap into a market that
draws on interdisciplinary perspectives and
prioritizes multi-scalar and systems-based thinking.
The private sector has started to take advantage
of the benefi ts of interdisciplinary teams as they
are adept at addressing the multi-scalar systems-
based nature of resilient design problems. Sasaki,
We employ planners, landscape
architects, architects, ecologists, and
engineers in equal proportions. There is
not one voice that dominates. We do
projects on interdisciplinary teams.
– Jill Allen Dixon and Brie Henshold,
Practitioners, Sasaki
“
one such fi rm focused on resilient design, uses
interdisciplinary teams to develop resilient design
products.

37
Based on our review of the literature, a scan of
resilient design education across fi ve disciplines
at U.S. colleges and universities, and consultation
with experts, we fi nd that while the fi eld of resilient
design is growing, resilient design curricula is still
a relatively new area of study that is unevenly
delivered. While scholars and practitioners concur
that resilient design education should incorporate
knowledge about the interrelatedness of ecological,
physical, and social systems, examine problems
from an interdisciplinary systems perspective,
and consider multiple scales, there are very few
educational programs that incorporate all of these
elements. Our study fi nds that resilient design
curricula at U.S. colleges and universities is driven
largely by individual scholars’ interests in the topic
and delivered in a piecemeal fashion. In many
cases the lack of a comprehensive approach to
resilient design curricula is due to strong institutional
barriers and reward structures found in U.S.
colleges and universities. To deliver a more robust
curricula focused on resilient design, we provide the
following goals and aspirations that will move U.S.
colleges and universities towards delivering better
resilient design curricula.
Goals and Aspirations
Universities must support individual commitments to
resilient design education by scholars with a larger
institutional commitment to resilient design education
that spans multiple disciplines and associated
departments. Universities must work to break down
institutional barriers, such as allowing students to
take courses outside their major and encouraging
faculty to teach interdisciplinary courses. This can
be achieved by incentivizing co-taught courses
where both faculty members receive full course
credit. Universities also need to create fl exible
incentive and reward structures that encourage
resilient design education and research, such as
course development grants, research grants, or
course releases in order to develop interdisciplinary
curricula, including those which may be triggered
by disasters that occur unpredictably.
Given that much of the research in the fi eld of
resilient design is applied, universities and colleges
should reward work done in this space, to include
recognizing the merits of engagement in the
promotion and tenure process. One way to do this
is to revise promotion and tenure guidelines to value
“engaged scholarship” that provides a service to
the greater community. In addition, funding should
be available to enable faculty and students to
participate in fi eld work both before and after
disasters, to include providing readily available
support to work in post-disaster settings on short
GOALS AND ASPIRATIONS
IMPROVE INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENTTOWARDS BETTER RESILIENT DESIGN
CURRICULA IN THE U.S.
Project Credit: Zixu Qiao, Texas A&M University

38
notice (akin to the National Science Foundation’s
Rapid Grants and the HMDRRI case study). This will
require a degree of staff and funding fl exibility that
remains uncommon at most universities. Universities
and colleges should help to address this challenge
by identifying faculty that are willing to engage
in this type of work and recruit others. In some
cases, this will necessitate identifying junior faculty
that have yet to identify a clear research agenda,
recognized mid- and senior-level hazards scholars
committed to this approach, and a supportive
administration willing to alter the status quo.
There are few universities that incorporate
interdisciplinary, systems-based, and multi-
scalar-elements of resilient design education
into educational, research, and engagement
opportunities. Universities must develop new
curricula models and organizational structures that
support this this type of educational offering. There
are a few established programs across the country
that offer promising models, as shown in our case
studies. In addition, there are emerging programs
that offer new degrees in resilient design, such
as the Clemson University’s Master’s of Resilient
Urban Design degree that offers an “issues-
based, teamwork model wherein students engage
with issues/questions based on a design-thinking
foundation that is enhanced with methodologies and
processes from multiple disciplines” (www.clemson.
edu/caah/departments/architecture/programs/
mrud/index.html). These new comprehensive
degree programs should be evaluated and lessons
should be drawn from them.
Design curricula benefi ts from a mix of education,
research, and engagement activities and
universities should provide more opportunities for
this mix to thrive, particularly at research intensive
colleges and universities. We realize that it is
extremely diffi cult to develop new curricula models
or reorganize institutional structures, so short of
this goal, colleges and universities can incentivize
the development of new courses or a certifi cate
program. Course development and teaching could
be supported by curriculum grants, or by funding
the development of new degree programs focused
on resilient design.
Resilient design is an inherently applied fi eld that
is also political in nature. Therefore, colleges and
universities should build interdisciplinary teams
to include a mix of faculty, practitioners, and
policymakers to teach and mentor students. Centers
and institutes are often the most successful units
on campus at bringing together inter- and multi-
disciplinary teams of students, faculty, researchers,
and practitioners. Colleges and universities should
provide funding to centers or other venues to
incentivize interdisciplinary work. Practitioners, as
part of this interdisciplinary team, can provide an
up-to-date understanding of professional standards,
guidelines (e.g. professional certifi cation, recognized
national standards and rules), and policies.
Practicing resilient design also requires thinking
that goes beyond existing codes and standards
(e.g. addressing challenges inherent in basing
future decisions on past trends that are no longer
accurate due to climate change) and fostering
interdisciplinary thinking that may necessitate
changes in current practice. Furthermore, the
curricula should refl ect the reality that designing
resiliently requires understanding political and
public policy realities. One major benefi t of
working in interdisciplinary teams during their
education, is that students will be better prepared
to work on resilient design projects in practice and
interact and communicate with colleagues from
diverse disciplinary backgrounds. This can make
them more effective at designing resiliently.
DEVELOP NEW CURRICULA MODELS AND
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES
BUILD INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAMS
Goals and Aspirations

39
Resilient design curricula benefi ts from a learning
by doing approach that provides a platform to
be innovative, allows students room to fail, and
challenges teams to readdress complex, multi-
disciplinary, multi-scalar problems. Field and
studio-based projects should be a key element
of any resilient design curricula because they
provide a venue that enables students and faculty
to explore the multi-faceted nature of challenges
present in practice. The involvement of practitioners
provides an additional element of reality and
feedback, thereby challenging students with “real-
world” problems, including the messiness of politics
and public policy, creating designs with limited or
changing information, and creating designs that
refl ect the manifestation of the existing policy milieu.
Field and studio-based projects can be delivered
as part of a course or through a center or institute
and should represent a substantial part of a
student’s matriculation process. Considering most
design schools already use studios as a required
element of their curricula, this recommendation
requires applying this method to resilient design
problems and thinking, to include the post-disaster
setting. Care should be taken to expand students’
knowledge and education beyond what clients in the
fi eld or studio-based courses want and to encourage
students to be bold, critical, and consider ideas that
the clients may not have asked for. The academy
should allow for practical options combined with
innovative, creative, and outside-the-box thinking.
Ways in which this can be accomplished is through
scenario or simulation-based studios that does not
involve a client. Students should also have the
opportunity to work with clients in studio-based
courses to learn about applied projects but also
granted the time and space required to engage
in speculative exploration that might be beyond a
client’s expressed needs.
Post-disaster conditions provide rich learning
opportunities. Therefore, colleges and
universities should create resilient design curricula
that are responsive to opportunities that arise,
including capitalizing on post-disaster situations
where design-thinking can result in tangible
benefi ts to communities, states, and others as
well as invaluable educational, research, and
engagement opportunities for faculty and
students. Colleges and universities should
consider establishing resilient design strike teams
capable of rapidly responding to post-disaster
situations and needs and establish fl exible
funding sources and curricula that can be used
when situational opportunities arise to include
travel, student and faculty time commitments,
and amendments to classes recognizing existing
constraints. The curriculum should have in place
a variety of different types of courses, such as
1-credit courses, 1-day courses, 5-day courses,
mini-courses, or internship credits that can allow
faculty to quickly respond in the aftermath of a
disaster. Furthermore, allowing faculty to deliver
these courses at fl exible times, such as in between
semesters or quarters, and during fall, winter, or
summer break, provides greater opportunities for
faculty to provide engaged learning opportunities
in real time.
In order to stay relevant, resilient design curricula
should meet the needs of national, state, and
local stakeholders. To facilitate this, colleges and
universities should seek out partners external to
the college/university that could serve as ongoing
“clients” or sounding boards regarding curriculum
content and the quality of products produced by
students and faculty. Addressing these needs may
take the form of design studios and fi eldwork,
CREATE FLEXIBLE AND RESPONSIVE
CURRICULA
MEET THE NEEDS OF STAKEHOLDERS
Goals and Aspirations
EMPHASIZE FIELD AND STUDIO-BASED
PROJECTS

40
to include the creation of specifi c design-based
solutions provided at the end of discrete projects
(classes) or as part of a long-term commitment to
provide help as identifi ed over time. It is incumbent
on faculty, as well as university and college
administrators, working with practitioners and
clients to identify an array of opportunities that
expose students to systems-based, interdisciplinary,
multi-scalar design challenges. In an era of climate
change, this should include addressing fundamental
questions such as designing for non-stationarity
and planning for uncertainty.
Goals and Aspirations

41
The escalating costs of damage from disasters and
the increasing intensity and frequency of weather-
related events force us to think about how we
educate and train future resilient design scholars
and practitioners. Furthermore, the potential to
save human lives and protect communities when
we design more resiliently makes it imperative that
we create and deliver high quality educational
curricula in this area.
The organizational and incentive structures in U.S.
colleges and universities pose many barriers to
delivering a high-quality resilient design education.
This report provides recommendations on how to
eliminate these barriers and facilitate the delivery
of an interdisciplinary, systems-based, multi-scalar
education in resilient design. There are some
external funding sources that may encourage this
type of work, including the Enabling NSF Next
Generation Hazards and Disasters Researchers
Program that provides mentorship and training to
junior scholars to increase the number of faculty
committed to the hazards and disasters fi eld, and
the NSF Rapid Grants that allow for quick-response
post- disaster research. But we need additional
funding to conduct longer-term, sustained
community engagement that would allow for a
deeper university-community relationship that can
have lasting effects on the design of places.
In addition, scholars and practitioners have a
wealth of knowledge about what is needed to
Conclusion
reduce the impacts of hazard events that is not
being shared with students because of the limited
and uneven educational offerings in resilient design
curricula. To increase and improve resilient design
education in the U.S. requires greater institutional
commitment. This will take more fi nancial resources
and leadership at the highest levels within the
academy.
The limited scope of this research did not allow
us to examine a variety of questions that would
be fruitful for future study. Future research could
include an evaluation of international models of
resilient design curricula. A comparative study of
U.S. and international models would be instructive
and benefi cial to our understanding of resilient
design education. This research was also limited
to programs within the academic setting, however,
future research could explore resilient design
programs and educational offerings emerging
outside colleges and universities, such as within
government agencies or professional associations.
During the short period of this study, a number
of degree programs focused on resilient design
were created across the U.S. In addition, several
universities have developed cluster hires – the hiring
of a group of interdisciplinary faculty – to focus
their research and teaching on resilient design.
Future research should examine how the faculty
hired as part of the cluster collaborate and engage
to provide a more robust resilient design education
CONCLUSION
Project Credit: Zixu Qiao, Texas A&M University

42
that breaks free from academic siloes. This
research identifi ed a number of internal challenges
and barriers to altering this problematic condition.
Future research should therefore examine the
“external” pressures to remain within these siloes,
including higher education and external research
funding practices.
There is an increasing demand to invest in the
creation of an interdisciplinary, agreed-upon
defi nition of resilient design and a methodology
that can guide future resilient design scholars
and practitioners. A fi nal area for future research
might ask: If an exemplary model for resilient
design curricula that addresses the challenges of
the twenty-fi rst century could be developed, what
would this look like? Future work in this area could
develop guidelines for developing such curricula.
Our past experiences with natural hazards and
disasters do not adequately prepare us for future
events. Therefore, we need to reevaluate the
curricula at U.S. colleges and universities in order
to equip a new generation of students with the
knowledge and skills to prepare for and respond
to future disaster events. We must train future
scholars and practitioners with the state-of-the-
art knowledge that incorporates interdisciplinary,
systems-based, multi-scalar thinking to design more
resilient communities. If 2017 is any indication of
the economic and human toll resulting from disasters
that is yet to come, designing resilient structures,
communities, regions, ecosystems, and economies
will be more important than ever.
Conclusion

43
Atran, S., Medin, D. and Ross, N.O. (2005). The cultural mind: Environmental decision making and cultural
modeling within and across populations. Psychological Review, 112, 744-776.
Banks, J. A., Au, K. H., Ball, A. F., Bell, P., Gordon, E. W., Gutierrez, K. D., Heath, S. B. (2007). Learning
in and out of school in diverse environments: Life-long, life-wide, life-deep. Seattle, Washington:
University of Washington Center for Multicultural Education.
Beatley, T. (1998). The Vision of Sustainable Communities. In Cooperating with Nature: Confronting
Natural Hazards with Land-Use Planning for Sustainable Communities. Chapter 8, Pp. 233-262.
Washington, D.C.: Joseph Henry Press.
Beatley, T. (2009). Planning for Coastal Resilience. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Bell, P. Lewinstein, A., Shouse, A. W., and Feder, M. A. (Eds.). (2009). Learning science in informal
environments: People, places, and pursuits. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
Berke, P. and T. Beatley. (1997). After the Hurricane: Linking Sustainable Development in the Caribbean.
Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Berke, P., and Smith, G. (2009). Hazard mitigation, planning, and disaster resilience: Challenges and
strategic choices for the 21st century. In U. Paleo (Ed.), Building safer communities: Risk governance,
spatial planning, and responses to natural hazards (pp. 1-20). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Burby, Raymond. (1998). Cooperating with Nature: Confronting Natural Hazards with Land-Use Planning
for Sustainable Communities. Washington, D.C.: Joseph Henry Press.
Geis, Donald and Tammy Kutzmark. (1995). Developing Sustainable Communities: The Future is Now.
Public Management (August): 4-13.
Godschalk, D.R., Kaiser, E.J., & Berke, P. (1998). Integrating hazard mitigation and local land use
planning. In R. J. Burby (Ed.), Cooperating with nature: Confronting natural hazards with land use
planning for sustainable communities (pp. 85-118). Washington, D.C.: Joseph Henry Press.
References
REFERENCES
Photo Credit: Lt. Zachary West

44
Godschalk, D.R., Beatley, T., Berke, P., Brower, D.J., & Kaiser, E. (1999). Natural hazard mitigation:
Recasting disaster policy and planning. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Godschalk, David R. 2003. Urban Hazard Mitigation: Creating Resilient Cities. Natural Hazards Review
4(3): 136-142.
Hewson, M. G. (1992). Traditional healers in Southern Africa. Annals of Internal Medicine, 128, 1029-
1034.
Hmelo-Silver, C. Marathe, S., and Liu, L. (2007). Fish swim, rocks sit, and lungs breathe: Expert-novice
understanding of complex systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16, 301-331.
Honwad et al. (2014). Education for sustainability and resilience in a changing climate. Proceedings of
International Conference of the Learning Sciences, ICLS, 3, 1466-1473.
Mileti, D. (1999). Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the United States. Washington,
D.C.: Joseph Henry Press.
National Academies. (2012). Disaster Resilience: A National Imperative. Washington, D.C.: The National
Academies Press.
National Science and Technology Council. (1996). Natural Disaster Reduction: A Plan for the Nation.
Washington, D.C.: Subcommittee on Natural Disaster Reduction, National Science and Technology
Council.
Norris, F. H., Stevens, S. P., Pfefferbaum, B., Wyche, K. F., and Pfefferbaum, R. L. (2008). Community
Resilience as a Metaphor, Theory, Set of Capacities, and Strategy for Disaster Readiness. Journal of
Community Psychology 41, 127-150.
O’Donnell, A. M., Hmelo-Silver, C., and Erkens, G. (Eds). (2103). Collaborative learning, reasoning, and
technology. New York: Routledge.
Orr, D. W. (1992). Ecological Literacy: Education and the Transition to a Postmodern World. Albany, New
York: State University of New York Press.
Resnick, M. and Wilensky, U. (1998). Diving into complexity: Developing probabilistic decentralized
thinking through role-playing activities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 153-172.
Smith, G. (2009). Resilience Research Workshop, July 14. Broomfi eld, Colorado. Sponsored by the
Community and Regional Resilience Institute. Panel presentation. Applications and Evaluation: What
Approaches are Currently being Used to Assess Resilience?
Smith, G. (2014). Disaster Recovery in Coastal Mississippi, USA: Lesson Drawing from Hurricanes Camille
and Katrina. In Adapting to Climate Change: Lessons from Natural Hazards Planning. Pp. 339-367.
New York: Springer.
References

45
Smith, G., Martin, A. and Wenger, D. (2017). Disaster Recovery in an Era of Climate Change: The
Unrealized Promise of Institutional Resilience. In Handbook of Disaster Research, second edition. Pp.
595-619.
Tierney, K., & Oliver-Smith, A. (2012). Social dimensions of disaster recovery. International Journal of
Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 30(2), 123–146.
United Nations. (1992). Agenda 21. New York: United Nations.
Westcoat, J. L., and Khan, A. (2011). Disaster Resilient Design: Research and Teaching Initiatives in
Pakistan.
World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford, England:
Oxford University Press.
References

46
APPENDIX A: COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES
Appendix A: Colleges and Universities
Delivery Method Organization Discipline Program Name Ba Ma PhD
Concentration Harvard University Design Masters in Design - Risk and Resiliency Concentration X
Specialization University of North Texas E.M. Degree specilization in emergency management X
Certifi cate
Texas A&M Interdisciplinary Environmental Hazard Management Certifi cate XX
International Association of Emergency Managers E.M. Associate Emergency Manager (AEM) and Certifi ed Emergency Manager (CEM) certifi cations
George Washington University Interdisciplinary Graduate Certifi cate in Homeland Security Preparedness and Response XX
UNC Chapel Hill Planning Natural Hazards Certifi cate XX
Course(s)
California Polytechnic Interdisciplinary Disaster-Resistant Sustainable Communities
California Polytechnic Interdisciplinary Climate and Humanity: Human Impact on Earth X
University of Oregon L. A. MA and BA of Landscape Architecture XXX
Louisiana State University Interdisciplinary Louisiana State University Coastal Sustainability Studio X
California Polytechnic Interdisciplinary Sustainable Environments Minor X
Columbia University Interdisciplinary MS in Architecture and Urban Design X
Arizona State University Planning Masters of Urban and Environmental Planning X
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Interdisciplinary MA of Landscape and Urbanism X
Auburn L.A. MA Landscape Architecture X
Pratt Institute Interdisciplinary MS in Sustainable Environmental Systems XX
Kansas State Planning MA in Regional and Community Planning X
California State University - Chico Geography Major in Physical Geography X
George Washington University Interdisciplinary Institute for Crisis, Disaster, and Risk Management XX
Texas Tech Interdisciplinary Wind Energy Degrees and Certifi cate Program XX
University of South Carolina Interdisciplinary Hazards and Vulnerability Research Institute XXX
University of North Texas Interdisciplinary Emergency Management and Planning Degree X
University of Memphis Earth Sciences MS Earth Sciences with a concentration in Geophysics XX
Extension Program
Texas A&M Interdisciplinary Hurricane Awareness & Preparation Program for Coastal Extension Agents
Louisiana State University Interdisciplinary Extension Disaster Education Network
Clemson University Interdisciplinary Hurricane Safety and Preparedness
E.M. stands for Emergency Management. L.A. stands for Landscape Architecture

47
Delivery Method Organization Discipline Program Name Ba Ma PhD
Research Center/
Institute/ Studio
University of Minnesota Interdisciplinary Resilient Communities Project XXX
University of Minnesota
Building
Sciences Center for Sustainable Building Research
California Polytechnic Interdisciplinary Resilient Communities Research Institute
Georgetown University Public Policy Georgetown Climate Center
Mississippi State University Interdisciplinary Community Design Studio
New Jersey Institute of Technology Interdisciplinary Center for Resilient Design
University of Arkansas Interdisciplinary Community Design Center
Tulane University Interdisciplinary Bywater Institute
Northeastern University Interdisciplinary Resilient Cities Lab XX
Texas A&M
Interdisciplinary Hazard Reduction and Recovery Center XX
Interdisciplinary
Structures of Long-Term Disaster Recovery: Organizational Roles and Collaboration in Six
Cities
Interdisciplinary REU Site: Studies in Social Inequality and Social Vulnerability
Rice University Interdisciplinary SPPEED - Center for Severe Storm Prediction, Education, and Evacuation from Disasters XX
Clark University Interdisciplinary The Marsh Institute XXX
Columbia University Interdisciplinary Center for Hazards and Risk Research XX
East Carolina University Interdisciplinary Center for Natural Hazards Research X
Florida International University
Engineering Laboratory for Wind Engineering Research
Interdisciplinary Laboratory for Coastal Research
Social Science Laboratory for Social Science Research
Interdisciplinary International Hurricane Research Center
Stanford University Engineering Blume Earthquake Engineering Center
University at Buffalo - SUNY Interdisciplinary MCEER: Earthquake Engineering to Extreme Events XX
Texas Tech Interdisciplinary National Wind Institute XXX
University of Arkansas Interdisciplinary Arkansas Earthquake Center XX
Western Carolina University Interdisciplinary Program for the Study of De veloped Shorelines XX
University of Virginia Interdisciplinary Center for Risk Management of Engineering Systems XX
University of Southern California Interdisciplinary South California Earthquake Center
University of Pennsylvania Interdisciplinary Wharton Risk Management and Decision Process Center XX
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Interdisciplinary Coastal Resilience Center of Excellence XX
University of New Orleans Interdisciplinary Center for Hazards Assessment, Response & Technology
University of Nebraska Interdisciplinary National Drought Mitigation Center
University of Memphis Interdisciplinary Center for Earthquake Research and Information
Appendix A: Colleges and Universities

48
APPENDIX B: INTERVIEWS
Appendix B: Interviews
KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWEE LIST
First Name Last Name Title Institution
Phil Berke Professor Department of Landscape
Architecture and Urban Planning
Texas A&M University
Kofi Boone Associate Professor of Landscape
Architecture
North Carolina State
University
Jeff Carney Associate Professor of Architecture Louisiana State University
Mary Comerio Professor of Architecture University of California,
Berkeley
Reginald DesRoches Professor of Engineering Georgia Institute of
Technology
Jill Dixon Principal Planner Sasaki
Andrew Fox Associate Professor of Landscape
Architecture
North Carolina State
University
Gerald Galloway Research Professor of Engineering University of Maryland
Brie Hensold Senior Associate Sasaki
John Ingargiola Lead Physical Scientist Building Science Branch,
FEMA
Sandra Knight Senior Research Engineer University of Maryland
Terri McAllister Leader of Community Resilience Group National Institute of
Standards and Technology
David Perkes Professor of Architecture Mississippi State University
James Spencer Professor of City and Regional Planning Clemson University
John van de Lindt Professor of Civil and Environmental
Engineering
Colorado State University
Shannon Van Zandt Associate Professor in the Department
of Landscape Architecture and Urban
Planning
Texas A&M University
David Vaughn Professor of Practice in Civil Engineering Clemson University

49
Appendix B: Interviews
Each structured interview consisted of two sections. First, a series of nineteen “general” queries were
given to elicit attitudes about resilient design generally and as it relates to the interviewee’s discipline.
The second section features a set of queries tailored to the discipline of the interviewee, including the
prevalence, type, and quality of resilient design instruction.
The following explanation of the project was verbally provided to each interviewee before they were
engaged in the structured interview:
• The focus of this study involves the review of existing college and university educational
programs that teach resilient design approaches in the face of natural hazards, disasters, and
climate change adaptation.
• Resilient design is defi ned as architecture, planning, engineering and building sciences that
advances “the ability to prepare and plan for, absorb, recover from, and more successfully
adapt to adverse events” (National Research Council).
• The study emphasizes planning, architecture, landscape architecture, building sciences, and
engineering programs that address the built, natural, and social environment, including
how these elements are intertwined and help produce design solutions that are mutually
reinforcing.
• An important sub-part of this effort involves the identifi cation of multidisciplinary programs
that bridge planning, architecture, landscape architecture, building sciences, and engineering.
• The impacts of climate change and extreme weather impose increasing risks to communities
across the nation and world. These risks include sea level rise as well as increasing frequency
of severe drought, storms, and fl oods.
• A key aspect of addressing these risks is planning and designing in ways that incorporate
adaptability and uncertainty over time and relying on the utilization of the latest models that
address the “non-stationarity” problem.
• That is, we are attempting to evaluate the latest thinking on how the design, planning, and
development community should account for the new reality that hazards models can no longer
rely on past events to predict the future. In many cases this is referred to as deep uncertainty
and requires new thinking regarding how we adapt to what amounts to a new normal.
• We are reaching out to you as an expert in the fi eld of disaster resilient design. The
following set of questions are intended to help us gain a greater understanding of resilient
design and to identify others in the fi eld you think we should talk to. We would also like to
reserve the ability to reach back out to you with additional questions if that’s ok with you. If
KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

50
interested, we would be more than happy to provide the results of our study with you when
completed.
SECTION 1 – GENERAL QUESTIONS:
G1. Please state your name and your title.
G2. Which of the following would you consider your primary technical fi eld: Architecture,
Landscape Architecture, Planning, Building Sciences, Engineering, Other?
G3. How would you briefl y defi ne resilient design within your fi eld?
PROBE (for engineers) - What are the design standards that are considered “resilient” in your
fi eld?
NOTE: This may vary across hazard types. Examples include designing to the 1% chance annual
fl ood, or designing for the 500-year return period earthquake.
Has the concept of resilience changed over time and if so, how has it changed?
G4. What is the scale of resilient design that your work (research, practice, and teaching) is
focused on?
PROMPT: Building, neighborhood, city, region, or a combination?
NOTE: Need to capture research, practice, and education, especially if different.
G5. Who are the foundational scholars that defi ne the fi eld of resilient design? (NOTE: We may
want to follow up with them about this question in order to ensure we get a full answer.)
Which scholars are currently at the forefront of resilient design in your fi eld?
G6. Please list what you believe are key articles and texts that comprise foundational research in
your fi eld.
G7. Do you know of any schools/programs that excel in teaching resilient design? Please list them.
G8. Do you know of any programs that incorporate resilient design as a part of the core
curriculum?
G9. What schools/programs are taking an innovative approach to teaching resilient design?
PROBE: Please describe what makes the program innovative.
NOTE: These might include working with identifi ed clients, unique teaching methods, etc. (do not
Appendix B: Interviews

51
mention these unless they are struggling to answer).
G10. Do the programs you mentioned offer degrees, certifi cates, or minors?
G11. Are the programs supported by centers or institutes?
NOTE: Make sure you capture these responses and link them back to a specifi c university/
program/person, etc.
G12. To what extent is climate change science incorporated into how programs you’ve described
are taught?
NOTE: Need a defi nition of climate change science here. Need to link comments back to specifi c
courses, programs, etc.
G13. Does your fi eld view climate change adaptation as part of resilient design?
PROBE: If yes, please describe how this is accomplished.
G14. To what extent are models, simulations, and scenario planning used in your fi eld to inform
resilient design teaching?
G15. To what extent are students in your fi eld exposed to other disciplines that relate to resilient
design?
NOTE: these may include architecture, planning, building science, engineering
PROBE: Please provide specifi c examples.
G16. Please describe educational programs in your fi eld that do a particularly good job of
teaching resilient design from an interdisciplinary perspective?
G17. What is the difference between teaching resilient design at the undergraduate versus
graduate level?
G18. Is there anything we missed that you would like to tell us about?
G19. Is there anyone else you think we should talk to?
Appendix B: Interviews

52
SECTION 2 – DISCIPLINE-SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
Architecture:
ARCH 1. We noticed many architecture programs incorporate sustainability into their curricula. Is
there a way of discerning whether a program incorporates resilient design versus sustainability?
PROBE: How is resilient design distinguished from sustainable design in architecture?
ARCH 2. Are architects prepared at the undergraduate level to deal with resilience-oriented
challenges?
PROBE: If so, how does this occur? Please be specifi c.
ARCH 3. Are architects prepared at the graduate level to deal with resilience-oriented
challenges?
PROBE: If so, how does this occur? Please be specifi c.
ARCH 4. Are architecture programs addressing the issue of non-stationarity in an era of climate
change?
PROBE: If yes, how is this occurring? Please be specifi c.
NOTE: Defi nition of non-stationarity: What is the latest thinking on how the design, planning, and
development community should account for the new reality that hazards models that can no longer
rely on past events to predict the future? In many cases this is referred to as deep uncertainty
and requires new thinking regarding how we adapt to what amounts to a new normal.
Landscape Architecture:
LA1. Which programs incorporate new climate science research into teaching students about
working with landscapes?
LA2. Are landscape architects prepared at the undergraduate level to deal with resilience-
oriented challenges?
PROBE: If so, how does this occur? Please be specifi c.
LA3. Are landscape architects prepared at the graduate level to deal with resilience-oriented
challenges?
PROBE: If so, how does this occur? Please be specifi c.
LA4. Are landscape architecture programs addressing the issue of non-stationarity in an era of
Appendix B: Interviews

53
climate change?
PROBE: If yes, how is this occurring? Please be specifi c.
NOTE: Defi nition of non-stationarity: What is the latest thinking on how the design, planning, and
development community should account for the new reality that hazards models that can no longer
rely on past events to predict the future? In many cases this is referred to as deep uncertainty
and requires new thinking regarding how we adapt to what amounts to a new normal.
Planning:
PL1. Planning curricula are frequently divided into distinct specializations (transportation,
economic development, land use, etc.). Is resilient design incorporated into particular planning
specializations more than others?
PROBE: If so, where are the linkages strongest?
PROBE: Are there examples of resilience-based curricula that span specializations?
PL2. Should resilient design be incorporated into core planning curricula or be a specialization/
certifi cate?
PROBE: Why or why not?
PL3. Are planning programs addressing the issue of non-stationarity in an era of climate change?
PROBE: If yes, how is this occurring? Please be specifi c.
NOTE: Defi nition of non-stationarity: What is the latest thinking on how the design, planning, and
development community should account for the new reality that hazards models that can no longer
rely on past events to predict the future? In many cases this is referred to as deep uncertainty
and requires new thinking regarding how we adapt to what amounts to a new normal.
Engineering:
ENG1. It appears that many engineering programs are focused on one hazard (e.g. earthquake
engineering, coastal engineering, etc.) Why do you believe this is the case?
PROBE: Are there engineering programs that address multiple hazards?
PROBE: If yes, please list.
ENG2. Are there any hazards-based certifi cations that engineers can get?
Appendix B: Interviews

54
PROBE: If yes, please list.
ENG 3. Do graduate certifi cates carry any weight in the engineering fi eld?
PROBE: If yes, please list those that do.
PROBE: What makes these programs valuable?
ENG4. Are engineering programs addressing the issue of non-stationarity in an era of climate
change?
PROBE: If yes, how is this occurring? Please be specifi c.
NOTE: Defi nition of non-stationarity: What is the latest thinking on how the design, planning, and
development community should account for the new reality that hazards models that can no longer
rely on past events to predict the future? In many cases this is referred to as deep uncertainty
and requires new thinking regarding how we adapt to what amounts to a new normal.
Building Science:
BLDG1. How is the discipline of building sciences taught with resilience to disasters in mind?
PROBE: What are some examples of these techniques and standards?
BLDG2. In practice, how is building sciences being incorporated into resilient construction
techniques and standards?
PROBE: What are some examples of these techniques and standards?
BLDG3. We noticed many building science programs incorporate sustainability into their
curricula. Is there an way of discerning whether a program incorporates resilient design versus
sustainability?
PROBE: How is resilient design distinguished from sustainable design in building sciences?
BLDG4. We found that some building science programs are in architecture or engineering
departments while others are in construction science departments. How do the tenants of building
science differ in relation to resilient design depending on the department it is housed in?
BLDG5. In those programs where there is little mention of resilience in relation to buildings
sciences, do you see there being room for incorporating resilience into building sciences more
explicitly in the future?
PROBE: Why or why not?
Appendix B: Interviews

55
PROBE: If yes, how would this be accomplished?
BLDG6. Are building science programs addressing the issue of non-stationarity in an era of
climate change?
PROBE: If yes, how is this occurring? Please be specifi c.
NOTE: Defi nition of non-stationarity: What is the latest thinking on how the design, planning, and
development community should account for the new reality that hazards models that can no longer
rely on past events to predict the future? In many cases this is referred to as deep uncertainty
and requires new thinking regarding how we adapt to what amounts to a new normal.
Nonacademic practitioners, including employees from Andropogon and Sasaki, were asked a different
set of questions, tailored to understanding the educational backgrounds of hired employees:
1. So that we have it correctly in our records, can you state your name and your title?
2. Which of the following would you consider your primary technical fi eld: Architecture,
Landscape Architecture, Planning, Building Sciences, Engineering, Other?
3. Your fi rm came up in our interviews as one on the forefront of resilient design - why do
you think that is?
4. How would you briefl y defi ne resilient design within your fi eld?
5. Has the concept of resilience changed over time and if so, how has it changed?
6. What is the scale of resilient design that your work (research, practice, and teaching) is
focused on? PROMPT: Building, neighborhood, city, region, or a combination?
7. What programs/schools teach resilient design well? 7a. What are the aspects of the
program or school that is specifi cally well taught?
8. When you are looking to hire a resilient design specialist, what programs or schools do
you generally receive applications from?
9. To practice resilient design, what type of training or skills are necessary? 9a. What type
of training or education would you consider necessary to practice resilient design but is not taught
at universities?
10. Do employees come in with this training or is this training provided on the job? 10a. If on
the job, what sort of training is provided on the job?
11. When you are looking to hire a resilient design specialist, are there any disciplinary
Appendix B: Interviews

56
majors that are more well suited to having the skills necessary? 11a. Example: do you only hire
from architecture, LA , planning, etc.
12. When looking to hire a resilient design specialist, does it matter if they have a bachelor’s,
master’s or other certifi cate/credential?
13. What’s the difference between a master’s degree and a bachelor’s with regard to the
types of jobs you offer/task people with?
14. Is your focus on resilient design common within the fi eld or is this a niche?
PROBE: What sort of momentum exists in this fi eld to expand resilient design?
15. How does your practice feed back into resilient design education (i.e. training future
resilient design practitioners)? What are the ways this happens?
16. That was the last question we had for you. Are there any questions you have for us? Is
there anything that we didn’t ask you that you would like to add to this conversation?
Appendix B: Interviews

57
APPENDIX C: REVIEW COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Appendix C: Review Committee Members
First Name Last Name Institution
Kofi Boone North Carolina State University
Michael Boswell Cal Poly San Luis Obispo
Jeff Carney Louisiana State University
Jill Allen Dixon Sasaki
Andrew Fox North Carolina State University
Richard Graves Center for Sustainable Building Research, University of
Minnesota
Eleanor Hajian Department of Homeland Security, Science and Technology
Directorate, Offi ce of University Programs
Brie Hensold Sasaki
John Ingargiola Building Science Branch, FEMA
Sandra Knight University of Maryland
Terri McAllister National Institute of Standards and Technology
Rob Olshansky University of Illinois
David Perkes Mississippi State University
Tim Reinhold Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety Building
Sciences
Michael Rimoldi Federal Alliance for Safe Homes
Bill Siembieda Cal Poly San Luis Obispo
Shannon Van Zandt Texas A&M University
David Vaughn Clemson University
COMMITTEE MEMBER LIST