Extreme events are of interest worldwide given their potential for substantial impacts on social, ecological, and technical systems. Many climate‐related extreme events are increasing in frequency and/or magnitude due to anthropogenic climate change, and there is increased potential for impacts due to the location of urbanization and the expansion of urban centers and infrastructures. Many disciplines are engaged in research and management of these events. However, a lack of coherence exists in what constitutes and defines an extreme event across these fields, which impedes our ability to holistically understand and manage these events. Here, we review 10 years of academic literature and use text analysis to elucidate how six major disciplines—climatology, earth sciences, ecology, engineering, hydrology, and social sciences—define and communicate extreme events. Our results highlight critical disciplinary differences in the language used to communicate extreme events. Additionally, we found a wide range in definitions and thresholds, with more than half of examined papers not providing an explicit definition, and disagreement over whether impacts are included in the definition. We urge distinction between extreme events and their impacts, so that we can better assess when responses to extreme events have actually enhanced resilience. Additionally, we suggest that all researchers and managers of extreme events be more explicit in their definition of such events as well as be more cognizant of how they are communicating extreme events. We believe clearer and more consistent definitions and communication can support transdisciplinary understanding and management of extreme events.

Over the last several decades, interest in green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) has rapidly increased, particularly given its potential to provide stormwater management in conjunction with other ecosystem services and co-benefits such as urban heat island mitigation or habitat provision. Here we explore the implementation of GSI in three US cities – Baltimore (Maryland), Phoenix (Arizona), and Portland (Oregon). We examine the trends in GSI construction over several decades, highlighting changes in implementation rates and GSI types with concurrent regulatory and economic changes. Additionally, we discuss the implications of these GSI portfolios for ecosystem service delivery in urban areas. Results indicate that Portland's quantity of GSI is approximately ten times greater than the quantity of GSI in Phoenix or Baltimore. However, Baltimore has the most diverse portfolio of GSI types. In Phoenix, regional stormwater policies focused on flood control have led to retention basins being the dominant GSI type for decades. In contrast, Portland and Baltimore both have had substantial changes in their GSI portfolios over time, with transitions from detention or retention basins and underground facilities toward filters, infiltration facilities, and swales. These changes favor increased water quality function as well as provision of other ecosystem services. Additionally, we find evidence that each city followed a different GSI implementation pathway, with Portland's combined sewer overflow program influencing initial development of GSI, while state legislation and regional water quality pressures played a major role in Baltimore's GSI development. By studying the evolution of GSI in these different cities, we can see the variability in stormwater management trajectories and how they manifest in different suites of benefits. We hope that continued research of GSI implementation and performance will identify opportunities for future improvement of these infrastructures.