It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Heat has become a central concern for cities everywhere, but heat governance has historically lagged behind other climate change hazards. This study examines 175 municipal plans from the 50 most populous cities in the United States to understand which aspects of urban heat are included or not in city plans and what factors explain inclusion. We find that a majority of plans mention heat, but few include strategies to address it and even fewer cite sources of information. The term ‘extreme heat event’ (EHE) is significantly more likely to be paired with institutional actions as a part of hazard planning, while ‘urban heat island’ (UHI) is more likely to be paired with green and grey infrastructure interventions as a part of general planning. Disparity and thermal comfort framings are not significantly related to any solutions and are used least. Plan type, followed by environmental networks (e.g. C40, Urban Sustainability Directors Network, Rockefeller 100 Resilient Cities), explain variation in plan content; social and environmental context do not. Findings point to the emergence of two independent heat governance systems, EHE and UHI, and several gaps in heat planning: integration, specificity, solutions, disparity, economy, and thermal comfort.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details




1 Urban Planning Department, Luskin School of Public Affairs, University of California Los Angeles , Los Angeles, CA, United States of America; Luskin Centre for Innovation, Luskin School of Public Affairs, University of California , Los Angeles, CA, United States of America
2 Urban Planning Department, Luskin School of Public Affairs, University of California Los Angeles , Los Angeles, CA, United States of America
3 Luskin Centre for Innovation, Luskin School of Public Affairs, University of California , Los Angeles, CA, United States of America
4 School or Arts, Media and Engineering, Arizona State University , Tempe, AZ, United States of America
5 School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning, Arizona State University , Tempe, AZ, United States of America
6 University of Southern California , Los Angeles, CA, United States of America
7 Public Policy Department, Luskin School of Public Affairs, University of California , Los Angeles, CA, United States of America