Phoenix Regional Heat and Air Quality Knowledge Repository
This repository houses peer-reviewed literature, data sets, reports, and other materials generated by researchers, practitioners, and other regional stakeholders that may be informative for local and regional efforts mitigating the adverse impacts of heat. The collection is intended to serve as a resource for anyone looking for information on top research findings, reports, or initiatives related to heat and air quality. This includes community, local, state, and regional partners and other interested parties contributing to heat and air quality planning, preparedness, and response activities.
More Information: The Phoenix Regional Heat and Air Quality Knowledge Repository is product of the Healthy Urban Environments (HUE) initiative in partnership with the Urban Climate Research Center.
Filtering by
- All Subjects: Air Quality
- All Subjects: Analysis
- All Subjects: heat planning
As a result of three workshops within each community, the residents brought forth ideas that they want to see implemented to increase their thermal comfort and safety during extreme heat days. As depicted below, residents’ ideas intersected around similar concepts, but specific solutions varied across neighborhoods. For example, all neighborhoods would like to add shade to their pedestrian corridors but preferences for the location of shade improvements differed. Some neighborhoods prioritized routes to public transportation, others prioritized routes used by children on their way to school, and others wanted to see shaded rest stops in key places. Four overarching strategic themes emerged across all three neighborhoods: advocate and educate; improve comfort/ability to cope; improve safety; build capacity. These themes signal that there are serious heat safety challenges in residents’ day-to-day lives and that community, business, and decision-making sectors need to address those challenges.
Heat Action Plan elements are designed to be incorporated into other efforts to alleviate heat, to create climate-resilient cities, and to provide public health and safety. Heat Action Plan implementation partners are identified drawing from the Greater Phoenix region, and recommendations are given for supporting the transformation to a cooler city.
To scale this approach, project team members recommend a) continued engagement with and investments into these neighborhoods to implement change signaled by residents as vital, b) repeating the heat action planning process with community leaders in other neighborhoods, and c) working with cities, urban planners, and other stakeholders to institutionalize this process, supporting policies, and the use of proposed metrics for creating cooler communities.
Presentation by David Sailor, professor in the School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning and director of the Urban Climate Research Center at ASU. Sailer's presentation addresses how to define urban heat islands (UHI), and decisions about why and how to measure these complex ecosystems.
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.