Integrating three plan evaluation approaches for coordinated heat resilience in cities across the Arizona urban corridor

Abstract

Increasing heat poses a growing threat to cities worldwide due to both climate change and the urban heat island effect. While heat planning and governance are still emergent, research suggests that silos and conflicts within cities' networks of plans often impede heat resilience. Integrated heat resilience planning, therefore, requires a systematic and comprehensive analysis of the silos and conflicts relevant to heat resilience within networks of plans. This study is the first to combine three complementary plan evaluation methods to assess how cities' networks of plans address heat resilience. We applied 1) plan cross-referencing, 2) Plan Quality Evaluation for Heat Resilience, and 3) Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard™ (PIRS™) for Heat to 19 plans from seven Arizona cities. We find similarities and differences in how these cities' networks of plans address heat hazards. The plans have consistently high-quality participation and coordination principles but lack details on vulnerability and climate change uncertainty, suggesting a need to move beyond immediate heat risks. We also identify opportunities to diversify policy mechanisms, spatially target high heat risk areas, and enhance the connection between planning efforts. These results validate that plan elements are interlinked and the importance of integrative plan development processes to improve heat resilience.