Phoenix Regional Heat and Air Quality Knowledge Repository

Mortality from environmental heat is a significant public health problem in Maricopa County, especially because it is largely preventable. Maricopa County has conducted heat surveillance since 2006. Each year, the enhanced heat surveillance season usually begins in May and ends in October. The main goals of heat surveillance are to identify the demographic characteristics of heat-associated deaths (e.g., age and gender) and the risk factors for mortality (e.g., homelessness). Sharing this information helps community stakeholders to design interventions in an effort to prevent heat-associated deaths among vulnerable populations.

The two main sources of data for heat surveillance are: preliminary reports of death (PRODs) from the Office of the Medical Examiner (OME) and death certificates from the MCDPH Office of Vital Registration.

Heat-associated deaths are classified as heat-caused or heat related. Heat-caused deaths are those in which environmental heat was directly involved in the sequence of conditions causing deaths. Heat-related deaths are those in which environmental heat contributed to the deaths but was not in the sequence of conditions causing these deaths. For more information on how heat-associated deaths are classified, see the definitions in Appendix. For more information on MCDPH’s surveillance system, see Background and Methodology.

A web-based software tool has been developed to assist urban planners and air quality management officials in assessing the potential ofurban heat island mitigation strategies to affect the urban climate, air quality, and energy consumption within their cities. The user of thetool can select from over 170 US cities for which to conduct the analysis, and can specify city-wide changes in surface reflectivity and/or veg-etative cover. The Mitigation Impact Screening Tool (MIST) then extrapolates results from a suite of simulations for 20 cities to estimate airtemperature changes associated with the specified changes in surface characteristics for the selected city. Alternatively the user can simply definea nominal air temperature reduction that they hope to achieve with an unspecified mitigation scenario. These air temperature changes are theninput to energy and ozone models to estimate the impact that the mitigation action may have on the selected city. The results presented by MISTinclude a high degree of uncertainty and are intended only as a first-order estimate that urban planners can use to assess the viability of heatisland mitigation strategies for their cities. As appropriate, MIST analyses should be supplemented by more detailed modeling.

Urban green space is purported to offset greenhouse‐gas (GHG) emissions, remove air and water pollutants, cool local climate, and improve public health. To use these services, municipalities have focused efforts on designing and implementing ecosystem‐services‐based “green infrastructure” in urban environments. In some cases the environmental benefits of this infrastructure have been well documented, but they are often unclear, unquantified, and/or outweighed by potential costs. Quantifying biogeochemical processes in urban green infrastructure can improve our understanding of urban ecosystem services and disservices (negative or unintended consequences) resulting from designed urban green spaces. Here we propose a framework to integrate biogeochemical processes into designing, implementing, and evaluating the net effectiveness of green infrastructure, and provide examples for GHG mitigation, stormwater runoff mitigation, and improvements in air quality and health.