CERF 2025 Coastal Design Competition Brief

COASTAL MARYLAND
Richmond, VA
9-13 November, 2025

Join us in advancing the understanding and wise stewardship of estuarine and coastal ecosystems worldwide

COMPETITION BRIEF OUTLINE

1. Introduction and Background

2. Competition Description

3. Design Challenge

4. Resources

5. Entry Requirements

6. Evaluation Criteria

7. Competition Rules
   
   

8. Competition Timeline

9. Prizes and Awards

10. Registration

11. Jury Members

12. Competition Advisory Committee Members

1. Introduction and Background

The CERF 2025 Coastal Design Competition is a forward-facing initiative to inspire students and faculty across disciplines to work together in proposing innovative design solutions and strategies to make our coastal environments more resilient in the face of coastal impacts of climate change. The Design Competition is intended as a complementary way in which CERF can collaborate with local communities to solve pressing challenges. 

WHAT IS CERF? Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation (CERF), is a multidisciplinary organization of individuals who study and manage the structure and functions of coastal ecosystems and the effects of human activities on these environments. CERF members are dedicated to advancing human understanding and appreciation of Earth's estuaries and coasts, to the informed use and management of these environments, and to sharing the results of their research and management actions with their colleagues and the public.

The CERF Coastal Design Competition has evolved since the first competition at the 2019 CERF Conference in Mobile, AL. Initially intended to encourage multi-disciplinary teams to work together on design projects across various sites, the competition now prioritizes a particular site, local to the conference, where teams can focus their projects at a variety of scales. The competition aims to bring together coastal science with other disciplines to address coastal challenges associated with climate change through design.

2. Competition Description

The 2025 CERF Coastal Design Competition focuses on critical issues of resilience in coastal settlements, ecosystem restoration, flood protection and development highlighting the capacity of faculty-led, transdisciplinary teams to solve coastal problems and respond to climate change in the coastal Maryland region. Data-driven design and actionable plans that work with and for community priorities are the goal of the project.

Projects should: 

• Promote coastal resilience and adaptation by designing systems and solutions that reduce vulnerability of coastal communities; 

• Utilize that research to meet or respond to the local community interests or needs, showing design solutions that increase the research “impact” or relevance; and how actions affect research by showing design solutions using interdisciplinary techniques; and 

• Engage in problem-solving that elevates the voices and needs of community members in a collaborative, co-production model.

Student participation:

The scope and extent of the project should be consistent with the level of a senior or graduate design or capstone course. Students are expected to work with the guidance of a lead professor or professors, as well as seeking assistance from advisors, professors, and/or industry professionals and consultants. However, students must perform all the work themselves. The students are expected to work together as a team to prepare a complete resilient design study and solution. 

Students must perform the necessary study, research and literature review to complete the project. Students may use any printed or digital references or resources they choose, with appropriate citations. Lead professors should set the terms and physical scope of the project as well as guide the students in defining terms and limits of the project. 

3. Design Challenge

The Galesville Watershed is centered around the town of Galesville, Maryland, which is an unincorporated town in Anne Arundel County, Maryland. The watershed is made up of Lerch Creek I (WR5), Lerch Creek II (WR6), and Tenthouse Creek (WR7) subwatersheds, which drain west to east. Galesville Road (MD 255) is the main street through town, which connects the peninsula to Muddy Creek Road (MD 468). Galesville is the primary population center within the watershed and contains a mixture of low density residential, commercial, and institutional development. Commercial development is focused on marine services (marinas, boatyards, clubs), restaurants, and local businesses. Institutional development includes the Carrie Weedon Early Education Center, Ebenezer AME Church, and Galesville United Methodist Church. Areas outside of the town are characterized by agricultural farms and forests with small sections of very low to low density residential housing.

Image Source

Galesville is a low-lying community prone to flooding. Its current stormwater swale system is frequently overwhelmed and does not sufficiently manage or treat runoff.

Community members would like the students to look at the whole peninsula of Galesville and select specific project sites and mitigation measures. The Arundel Rivers Galesville Watershed Study Report provides information on the watershed in general, as well as site-specific information. There are several lists of potential project sites and the description of the flooding, erosion, water quality, etc. issues for each site. Students should not feel limited to the sites listed in the watershed study when deciding where to focus their projects.

Teams should choose a resilience assessment rubric, such as the NOAA version, to study and understand the local conditions including risk tolerances, vulnerabilities and strengths. 

Scale of Projects: 

Research and analysis should be at multiple scales. Initial research should start at the watershed scale, but be focused on the Galesville community. Teams can focus on larger scale issues that impact the entire community or as small as a single lot for their final design proposals. Final design proposal scale will be determined by the teams and the expertise of the teams.

Design Timeframe: 

Planning and design for a minimum of 30 years of resilience using the NOAA Intermediate Curve (Comprehensive Planning). 

Components of the Project:

A typical resilient design project includes many or all of the following components: 

• Sufficient background information with a clear problem statement; 

• Analysis of any alternative solutions, which may include a decision matrix 

• Ecosystem profile; 

• Community profile;

• Analysis of strengths, risks, and vulnerabilities of the study area;

• Proposal of solution(s) that mitigate or adapt to risks and vulnerabilities

• Preliminary implementation plan. 

All of the design work should be submitted in the design report, clearly labeled and referenced. 

4. Resources

Terminology excerpted from the UNDRR.

Disaster risk management is the systematic process of using administrative directives, organisations, and operational skills and capacities to implement strategies, policies and improved coping capacities to lessen the adverse impacts of hazards and the possibility of disaster. It aims to avoid, lessen or transfer the adverse effects of hazards through activities and measures for prevention, mitigation and preparedness (UNISDR). 

Disaster risk reduction is the concept and practice of reducing disaster risks through systematic efforts to analyse and manage the causal factors of disasters, including through reduced exposure to hazards, lessened vulnerability of people and property, wise management of land and the environment, and improved preparedness for adverse events (guided by the global policy set out in the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters). 

Hazard is a process, phenomenon or human activity that may cause loss of life, injury or other health impacts, property damage, social and economic disruption or environmental degradation.

Resilience means the ability of a system, community or society exposed to hazards to resist, absorb, accommodate to and recover from the effects of the hazard in a timely and efficient manner, including through the preservation and restoration of its essential basic structures and functions (UNISDR). Resilience focuses investment on increasing a city area’s overall ability to support a vibrant, healthy society and economy under a wide range of circumstances (ICLEI). 

Sustainable urbanization is a process that promotes an integrated, gender-sensitive and pro-poor approach to the social, economic and environmental pillars of sustainability. It is based on participatory planning and decision making processes, and inclusive governance (UN-HABITAT). The principles of sustainable urbanization involve: 

• Accessible and pro-poor land, infrastructure, services, mobility and housing; 
• Socially inclusive, gender-sensitive, healthy and safe development; 
• Environmentally sound and carbon-efficient built environment; 
• Participatory planning and decision making processes; 
• Vibrant and competitive local economies promoting decent work and livelihoods; 
• Assurance of non-discrimination and equitable rights to the city; and 
• Empowering cities and communities to plan for and effectively manage adversity and change to build resilience. 

Vulnerability is the conditions determined by physical, social, economic and environmental factors or processes which increase the susceptibility of an individual, a community, assets or systems to the impacts of hazards.

Consult UNISDR’s Disaster Risk Reduction Terminology for additional definitions and UNDRR.

General Information Resources

• Georgetown Climate Center Adaptation Clearinghouse Coastal Sector

An online database and networking site that serves policymakers and others who are working to help coastal communities adapt to climate change.

• Coastal Flood Exposure Mapper

This online visualization tool supports communities that are assessing their coastal hazard risks and vulnerabilities through user-defined maps that show the people, places, and natural resources exposed to coastal flooding. In addition, the tool provides guidance for using these maps to engage community members and stakeholders.

• Surging Sea by Climate Central

Climate Central's Surging Seas Risk Finder’s interactive toolkit includes maps, local sea level and flood risk projections, and potential impacts for communities.. It also provides customized downloadable tables and figures for communication and education.

Resilience Scorecards and Indicators

• NOAA

• UNDRR (UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction) Disaster Resilience Scorecard

• UVA Resilience Adaptation Feasibility Tool
  

• Community Rating System

The Community Rating System (CRS) is a voluntary program under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). CRS awards policyholders reduced flood insurance premiums for actions taken by local government to reduce flooding.

State and Local Information

• Maryland DNR Coastal Resilience Program

• Coastal Resilience
  

• Maryland Sea Grant
  

• The Nature Conservancy

The Design Competition organizers are working directly with local contacts to provide information for site assessment and extensive resources for the teams to maximize input of local community priorities from the start of the design process. 

• The community has also provided PDFs with additional information.
  

5. Entry Requirements

Teams will compete through a written and visual submission and an oral presentation. Teams will create a poster for exhibition but this will not be used directly for judging. See below for information on submission deadlines for each of these deliverables. 

Design Report -- DUE ON FRIDAY, 31 OCTOBER, 2025 AT 5:00 PM

A Design Report containing all research and design proposals and complying with the requirements set forth in this document must accompany each entry. 

Design Report Requirements

1. Cover Page – with project name, university name (team name), year, and entrants’ names. 

2. Table of Contents 

3. Abstract – a brief summary of the design, not to exceed 200 words. 

4. Summary of Project Team Effort – Provide a 1 to 2-page summary of the project team effort, including: 

• Each team member’s name and role in the effort (including faculty)
• Names of any other individuals that assisted in the effort 
• Consultants who facilitated the design project 
• A) Project Description – Provide a description of the design problem, site evaluation, and recommended design solution (not to exceed 30 pages*), including the following information: 
• Statement of design problem. 
• Discussion of alternatives evaluation – Discussion should provide a clear description of the alternatives and evaluation technique. 
• Description of recommended design solution – Discussion must cover the salient facts upon which the recommendation is made, present a clear recommendation of action, and provide bases for design. Relevant data should be presented in a clear manner. All elements shown on the judging form should be addressed. 
• Formatting to include a minimum of 0.75-inch margins on all sides; Calibri, Arial, Times New Roman or similar font with a minimum 11-point font size. 
• Pages of the Project Description portion of the report shall be continuously numbered. 
• Plans, visualizations, diagrams, graphics, plots, and photographs may be included that reflect the unique features of the project. Each is to be identified with an appropriate descriptive caption. Graphics/photos included within the project description will count toward the 30-page limit. 
• B) Supporting Documentation – If needed, provide additional drawings, calculations, tables, and other voluminous documents, as appendices. 
• C) References/Acknowledgements – All references and resources used for this project shall be cited appropriately. 

The judges will be directed to focus their review on the Project Description section of the design reports. Teams shall develop their materials such that their complete analysis and design solution may be understood from the 30 pages of material provided in the Project Description. 

Teams are encouraged to use a checklist to ensure all necessary documents are included in the design reports. The SDC Committee will not review any submission prior to the official submission. 

Oral/Visual Presentation -- RECORDED PRESENTATIONS/LIVE Q&A ON WEDNESDAY, 12 NOVEMBER, 2025 

Teams will record presentations of oral and visual components that summarize the project for the judging panel. Each team’s presentation will be 20 minutes followed by up to a 10-minute live question and answer period. Team presentations will be held to the 20-minute time limitation and will not be permitted to continue beyond the limit. The presentation files shall be saved in the format provided by the CERF SDC Committee and submitted per the requirements provided.

Presentation Requirements

A visual digital slide presentation describing the team’s design problem, approach, evaluation, design effort, and recommendations is required. CERF will retain a copy of the presentation files. Teams should work to assure compliance for images, graphics and any video across multiple platforms prior to the conference. Both written and oral presentations are subject to questioning during the question and answer period. However, questioning is limited to the judging panel only. Recording specifics will be distributed to teams by August 2025.

Posters for an Exhibition Display at the 2025 CERF Conference

Each poster will be displayed on 8-foot (2.44-meters) wide by 4-foot (1.22-meters) high boards with a 2-inch (5-centimeter) metal frame around the perimeter. Poster dimensions can be whatever the presenter sees best, but should not exceed 91-inches (2.31-meters) wide by 45-inches (1.14-meters) in height to fit within those dimensions. Mounting materials will be provided. Printing will be arranged for international teams upon request no later than one week prior to the conference.

Posters should also be compressed to no larger than 10MB and submitted digitally.

6. Evaluation Criteria

Proposals will be evaluated in the following categories:

• Research and analysis of natural and human systems impacting the site area.

• Innovative design proposals

• Clarity of presentation and convincing argumentation in the presentation

It is recognized that all professionals must possess a well-developed ability to communicate visually, orally and in writing. The competition is designed to emphasize the value of delivering both high-quality written and visual reports and oral presentations. Scoring of the design will be determined through an evaluation of both the competitors’ written and oral presentation skills, along with the content of the design solution. Scoring sheets have been developed for evaluating both the written (design report) and the oral presentations and will be used by the judges as the basis for judging all competing teams.

An electronic copy of the written report will be available to the judges during the oral presentation for their reference but teams should provide at least one printed copy.

During the competition held at the CERF Conference, the oral presentations will be evaluated by the judges, based on both the quality of the presentation and proficiency in answering questions in the ensuing judge Q&A period. Scores for the oral presentations will be submitted by the judges to the Coastal Design Competition Committee.

A representative of the Coastal Design Competition Committee will compile the written and oral presentation scores and determine the final ranking of the teams participating in the competition. All scores will be kept confidential. Judges’ comments regarding that team’s performance will be provided following the completion of the CERF Coastal Design Competition. It is intended that final presentation boards will be publicly available online following the competition. 

The order of team presentations will be selected at random prior to the competition. Teams will be notified of their time slot prior to the CERF Coastal Design Competition. Student teams are encouraged to be present for the entire day of the oral presentations through the conclusion of the awards announcements. 

Judging Criteria

The CERF Coastal Design Competition is intended to be multi-disciplinary. Accordingly, judging will be based on the elements outlined below and in the scoring sheets provided in Attachment C. The Coastal Design Competition Committee reserves the right to adjust the format and content of the scoring sheets provided in Attachment C. Participating teams will be provided with a copy of the revised sheets prior to the competition if such adjustments are made. 

Design Report:

1. Scientific/Design. Was the Project Description section of the report organized effectively with a Statement of Problem, appropriate background information, clear description of the resilience factors, etc? Was a continuous, logical sequence of steps taken to solve the design problem? Was the recommended solution feasible and appropriate to address the problem statement? Was creativity and an innovative approach used? Was knowledge of subject matter demonstrated? How was the community considered and engaged in the solution? Was the design solution analyzed for feasibility; was this analysis presented? Were works cited and credit to resources and assistance correctly presented? Was the complete analysis and design solution presented clearly within the 20-page Project Description? 

2. Presentation. Were visual aids (plans, graphics, supporting info, pictures, etc.), presented clearly? Were correct grammar, correct spelling, and appropriate technical writing methods used? Was the formatting and organization of the report presented in a logical manner? 

Oral Presentation:

3. Content. Was scientific subject matter relevant to design? To what extent was the subject of interest to a general audience? Was knowledge of subject and presentation content exhibited by team members? Was the work presented independent and original? Was credit given for source of material or contribution by others? Was there any novel approach to the solution? 

4. Organization. Was there sufficient background information provided in order to introduce the audience to the subject? Were facts developed in logical and continuous sequence? Was there a definite conclusion and was it adequately based on the facts or data presented? 

5. Delivery and Effectiveness. Was the appropriate volume used to reach all audience members? Was the vocabulary used sufficient? Were the words distinctly pronounced? Was personal appearance appropriate? Was the manner of delivery (conversation, memorized, read from manuscript) satisfactory? Were visual aids effectively used? 

6. Discussion. Did the presentation evoke spontaneous questions from the panel? Did questions indicate the need for clarification of facts presented or were they merely of the type seeking additional information? Did the answers indicate knowledge of the subject beyond that disclosed in the original presentation? 

The judges will have the opportunity to comment on the design reports and presentations during the judging process. Judging comments for each submission will be made available to the corresponding team after the competition at the request of the team. Teams will not be allowed to view any scores from the competition, including their own.

7. Competition Rules

• All teams should agree to work with specified local contacts for information rather than contacting community groups directly.

• Teams must be composed of students led by faculty mentors. 

• It is suggested that teams consist of at least three disciplines and should have one design discipline (architecture, landscape architecture, urban design, etc) as well as one coastal and estuarine science (ecology, environmental science, hydrology, geomorphology, etc) discipline represented on the team.

• Connections with underrepresented groups are encouraged along with diverse teams and thoughtful inclusion of regional Minority Serving Institutions. 

• Teams are responsible for the development of their own graphics and presentation methods but must follow the guidelines provided by the CERF hosts.

• Teams may include more than one academic institution.

• Faculty-student teams may partner with A&E firms and other professional consultants, but research and design must be performed by the students.

8. Competition Timeline

Spring 2025

• Teams are selected
• Team Q&A Webinar

Summer 2025

• Webinars are released for team information packets

Summer/Fall 2025

• Teams conduct research and create design proposals

31 October 2025

• Design Reports Submitted

13 November 2025 

• 2025 CERF Coastal Design Competition
  Presentation and Judging
  2025 CERF Conference |  Richmond, VA

9. Team Support

CERF has limited funds to support teams in their research and travel for the competition. Teams are encouraged to complete the Budget Request Form to request funding support. The form includes a budget template for your use.

10. Prizes and Awards

Selected teams will have access to informational webinars; site documentation; and up to $5000 per team for conference participation. Projects will be displayed at the conference and publicized by the sponsors. First prize of $2000 ($1000 for faculty mentor/s) and second prize of $1000 will be awarded. Additional prizes for the winner(s) at the 2025 CERF Conference will vary depending on sponsorship opportunities and are subject to change at the discretion of the Coastal Design Competition Committee. Each participating team will receive certificates of participation. 

Winning teams will be announced at an awards ceremony after the completion of the presentations. Winning entries will also be considered as part of coastal resilience and adaptation planning in the area.

11. Registration

All members of the participating teams who will be presenting at the conference must register for the conference.

More information to be announced.

12. Jury Members

To be announced.

13. Competition Advisory Committee

Co-Chairs: 

Jori Erdman, James Madison University

Tiffany Troxler, Florida International University

Elizabeth Salewski, South Florida Water Management District

Committee:

Linda Blum, University of Virginia

Victoria Chanse, Victoria University of Wellington

Jenna Clark, Maryland Sea Grant

Sara Loquist, University of Oregon

Joanna Parkman, FEMA

Jacqueline Richard, Nunez Community College

Roberto Rovira, Florida International University