We use the Northeast US Urban Climate Archipelago as a case study to explore three key limitations of planning and policy initiatives to mitigate extreme urban heat. These limitations are: (1) a lack of understanding of spatial considerations—for example, how nearby urban areas interact, affecting, and being affected by, implementation of such policies; (2) an emphasis on air temperature reduction that neglects assessments of other important meteorological parameters, such as humidity, mixing heights, and urban wind fields; and (3) too narrow of a temporal focus—either time of day, season, or current vs. future climates. Additionally, the absence of a direct policy/planning linkage between heat mitigation goals and actual human health outcomes, in general, leads to solutions that only indirectly address the underlying problems. These issues are explored through several related atmospheric modeling case studies that reveal the complexities of designing effective urban heat mitigation strategies. We conclude with recommendations regarding how policy-makers can optimize the performance of their urban heat mitigation policies and programs. This optimization starts with a thorough understanding of the actual end-point goals of these policies, and concludes with the careful integration of scientific knowledge into the development of location-specific strategies that recognize and address the limitations discussed herein.

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.