Plan evaluation for heat resilience: complementary methods to comprehensively assess heat planning in Tempe and Tucson, Arizona
Name:
Meerow_2024_Environ._Res._Lett ...
Size:
2.763Mb
Format:
PDF
Description:
Final Published Version
Affiliation
School of Landscape Architecture and Planning, University of ArizonaIssue Date
2024-07-30
Metadata
Show full item recordPublisher
IOP PublishingCitation
Sara Meerow et al 2024 Environ. Res. Lett. 19 084050.Journal
Environmental Research LettersRights
© 2024 The Author(s). Published by IOP Publishing Ltd. Original content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license.Collection Information
This item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at repository@u.library.arizona.edu.Abstract
Escalating impacts from climate change and urban heat are increasing the urgency for communities to equitably plan for heat resilience. Cities in the desert Southwest are among the hottest and fastest warming in the U.S., placing them on the front lines of heat planning. Urban heat resilience requires an integrated planning approach that coordinates strategies across the network of plans that shape the built environment and risk patterns. To date, few studies have assessed cities' progress on heat planning. This research is the first to combine two emerging plan evaluation approaches to examine how networks of plans shape urban heat resilience through case studies of Tempe and Tucson, Arizona. The first methodology, Plan Quality Evaluation for Heat Resilience, adapts existing plan quality assessment approaches to heat. We assess whether plans meet 56 criteria across seven principles of high-quality planning and the types of heat strategies included in the plans. The second methodology, the Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard™ (PIRS™) for Heat, focuses on plan policies that could influence urban heat hazards. We categorize policies by policy tool and heat mitigation strategy and score them based on their heat impact. Scored policies are then mapped to evaluate their spatial distribution and the net effect of the plan network. The resulting PIRS™ for Heat scorecard is compared with heat vulnerability indicators to assess policy alignment with risks. We find that both cities are proactively planning for heat resilience using similar plan and strategy types, however, there are clear and consistent opportunities for improvement. Combining these complementary plan evaluation methods provides a more comprehensive understanding of how plans address heat and a generalizable approach that communities everywhere could use to identify opportunities for improved heat resilience planning.Note
Open access journalEISSN
1748-9326Version
Final published versionSponsors
Robert Wood Johnson Foundationae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.1088/1748-9326/ad5d05
Scopus Count
Collections
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as © 2024 The Author(s). Published by IOP Publishing Ltd. Original content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license.