Because of a projected surge of several billion urban inhabitants by mid-century, a rising urgency exists to advance local and strategically deployed measures intended to ameliorate negative consequences on urban climate (e.g., heat stress, poor air quality, energy/water availability). Here we highlight the importance of incorporating scale-dependent built environment induced solutions within the broader umbrella of urban sustainability outcomes, thereby accounting for fundamental physical principles. Contemporary and future design of settlements demands cooperative participation between planners, architects, and relevant stakeholders, with the urban and global climate community, which recognizes the complexity of the physical systems involved and is ideally fit to quantitatively examine the viability of proposed solutions. Such participatory efforts can aid the development of locally sensible approaches by integrating across the socioeconomic and climatic continuum, therefore providing opportunities facilitating comprehensive solutions that maximize benefits and limit unintended consequences.

Maricopa County, Arizona, anchor to the fastest growing megapolitan area in the United States, is located in a hot desert climate where extreme temperatures are associated with elevated risk of mortality. Continued urbanization in the region will impact atmospheric temperatures and, as a result, potentially affect human health. We aimed to quantify the number of excess deaths attributable to heat in Maricopa County based on three future urbanization and adaptation scenarios and multiple exposure variables.

Two scenarios (low and high growth projections) represent the maximum possible uncertainty range associated with urbanization in central Arizona, and a third represents the adaptation of high-albedo cool roof technology. Using a Poisson regression model, we related temperature to mortality using data spanning 1983–2007. Regional climate model simulations based on 2050-projected urbanization scenarios for Maricopa County generated distributions of temperature change, and from these predicted changes future excess heat-related mortality was estimated. Subject to urbanization scenario and exposure variable utilized, projections of heat-related mortality ranged from a decrease of 46 deaths per year (− 95%) to an increase of 339 deaths per year (+ 359%).

Projections based on minimum temperature showed the greatest increase for all expansion and adaptation scenarios and were substantially higher than those for daily mean temperature. Projections based on maximum temperature were largely associated with declining mortality. Low-growth and adaptation scenarios led to the smallest increase in predicted heat-related mortality based on mean temperature projections. Use of only one exposure variable to project future heat-related deaths may therefore be misrepresentative in terms of direction of change and magnitude of effects. Because urbanization-induced impacts can vary across the diurnal cycle, projections of heat-related health outcomes that do not consider place-based, time-varying urban heat island effects are neglecting essential elements for policy relevant decision-making.

Exertional heat stroke continues to be one of the leading causes of illness and death in sport in the United States, with an athlete’s experienced microclimate varying by venue design and location. A limited number of studies have attempted to determine the relationship between observed wet bulb globe temperature (WBGT) and WBGT derived from regional weather station data. Moreover, only one study has quantified the relationship between regionally modeled and on-site measured WBGT over different athletic surfaces (natural grass, rubber track, and concrete tennis court). The current research expands on previous studies to examine how different athletic surfaces influence the thermal environment in the Phoenix Metropolitan Area using a combination of fieldwork, modeling, and statistical analysis. Meteorological data were collected from 0700–1900hr across 6 days in June and 5 days in August 2019 in Tempe, Arizona at various Sun Devil Athletics facilities. This research also explored the influence of surface temperatures on WBGT and the changes projected under a future warmer climate. Results indicate that based on American College of Sports Medicine guidelines practice would not be cancelled in June (WBGT≥32.3°C); however, in August, ~33% of practice time was lost across multiple surfaces. The second-tier recommendations (WBGT≥30.1°C) to limit intense exercise were reached an average of 7 hours each day for all surfaces in August. Further, WBGT was calculated using data from four Arizona Meteorological Network (AZMET) weather stations to provide regional WBGT values for comparison. The on-site (field/court) WBGT values were consistently higher than regional values and significantly different (p<0.05). Thus, using regionally-modeled WBGT data to guide activity or clothing modification for heat safety may lead to misclassification and unsafe conditions. Surface temperature measurements indicate a maximum temperature (170°F) occurring around solar noon, yet WBGT reached its highest level mid-afternoon and on the artificial turf surface (2–5PM). Climate projections show that WBGT values are expected to rise, further restricting the amount of practice and games than can take place outdoors during the afternoon. The findings from this study can be used to inform athletic trainers and coaches about the thermal environment through WBGT values on-field.

Global environmental change and sustainability science increasingly recognize the need to address the consequences of changes taking place in the structure and function of the biosphere. These changes raise questions such as: Who and what are vulnerable to the multiple environmental changes underway, and where? Research demonstrates that vulnerability is registered not by exposure to hazards (perturbations and stresses) alone but also resides in the sensitivity and resilience of the system experiencing such hazards. This recognition requires revisions and enlargements in the basic design of vulnerability assessments, including the capacity to treat coupled human–environment systems and those linkages within and without the systems that affect their vulnerability. A vulnerability framework for the assessment of coupled human–environment systems is presented.

Research on global environmental change has significantly improved our understanding of the structure and function of the biosphere and the human impress on both (1). The emergence of “sustainability science” (2–4) builds toward an understanding of the human–environment condition with the dual objectives of meeting the needs of society while sustaining the life support systems of the planet. These objectives, in turn, require improved dialogue between science and decision making (5–8). The vulnerability of coupled human–environment systems is one of the central elements of this dialogue and sustainability research (6, 9–11). It directs attention to such questions as: Who and what are vulnerable to the multiple environmental and human changes underway, and where? How are these changes and their consequences attenuated or amplified by different human and environmental conditions? What can be done to reduce vulnerability to change? How may more resilient and adaptive communities and societies be built?

Answers to these and related questions require conceptual frameworks that account for the vulnerability of coupled human–environment systems with diverse and complex linkages. Various expert communities have made considerable progress in pointing the way toward the design of these frameworks (10, 11). These advances are briefly reviewed here and, drawing on them, we present a conceptual framework of vulnerability developed by the Research and Assessment Systems for Sustainability Program (http://sust.harvard.edu) that produced the set of works in this Special Feature of PNAS. The framework aims to make vulnerability analysis consistent with the concerns of sustainability and global environmental change science. The case study by Turner et al. (12) in this issue of PNAS illustrates how the framework informs vulnerability assessments.