City of Tempe, AZ: Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard™ (PIRS™) For Heat

This item is a report produced under cooperative agreement with the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.The combination of climate change and the urban heat island (UHI) effect is increasing the number of dangerously hot days and the need for all communities to plan for urban heat resilience equitably. Urban heat resilience requires an integrated planning approach that coordinates strategies across community plans and uses the best available heat risk information to prioritize heat mitigation strategies for the most vulnerable communities. The Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard™ (PIRS™) for Heat is an approach that communities can use to analyze how heat mitigation policies are integrated into different plans and to identify opportunities to better target heat mitigation policies in high heat risk areas. The PIRS™ for Heat was developed as an extension of the original Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard™, a methodology originally developed by Berke et al. (2015) and then further advanced and translated to planning practice by Malecha et al. (2019), for spatially evaluating networks of plans to reduce vulnerability to hazards. With support from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Climate Program Office’s Extreme Heat Risk Initiative and in partnership with the American Planning Association, PIRS™ for Heat was initially piloted in five geographically diverse U.S. communities, including Baltimore, MD, Boston, MA, Fort Lauderdale, FL, Seattle, WA, and Houston, TX. The rationale, methodology, and findings from the first five cities are published in the guidebook The Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard™ (PIRS™) for Heat: Spatially evaluating networks of plans to mitigate heat. The approach was then applied to the City of Tempe, AZ with support from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. This report summarizes the PIRS™ for Heat results for Tempe. Adapting the process detailed in Malecha et al. (2019), the project team analyzed all policies in Tempe’s network of plans, including their comprehensive plan, hazard mitigation plan, climate action plan, and sustainability plan. Policies were only included if they had the potential to impact urban heat, were place-specific, and contained a recognizable policy tool. Policies were then scored based on whether they would likely mitigate heat (“+1”), worsen heat (“-1”), or the impact was unclear from the description in the plan (“Unknown”). Scored policies were mapped to relevant census tracts across the city to evaluate their spatial distribution and the net effect on urban heat. The resulting PIRS™ for Heat scorecard was then compared with physical and social vulnerability data to assess policy alignment with heat risks and to identify opportunities for improved urban heat resilience planning.This material was supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the U.S. NOAA Climate Program Office’s Extreme Heat Risk Initiative, Cooperative Agreement NA21OAR4310148. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation or the U.S. NOAA.Immediate accessThis item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]

Plan Evaluation for Heat Resilience: City of Phoenix, AZ

The combination of climate change and the urban heat island (UHI) effect is increasing the number of dangerously hot days and the need for all communities to plan for urban heat resilience equitably. Urban heat resilience requires an integrated planning approach that coordinates strategies across community plans and uses the best available heat risk information to prioritize heat mitigation and management strategies for the most vulnerable communities. This report, supported by the U.S. DOE-funded Southwest Urban Corridor Integrated Field Laboratory (SW-IFL), summarizes the findings from two complementary methods for examining how different city plans shape urban heat resilience. The first methodology, Plan Quality Evaluation for Heat Resilience, provides a broad assessment of how plans address heat and their effectiveness likelihood. We adapted well-established plan quality assessment approaches to heat. We then applied the methodology to assess whether Phoenix’s plans meet 56 criteria across seven established principles of high-quality heat resilience planning. We also cataloged the types of heat mitigation and management strategies included in the plans. The second methodology, the Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard™ (PIRS™) for Heat provides a more detailed assessment of the heat mitigation policies and their spatial alignment with heat vulnerability. PIRS™ for Heat was developed as an extension of the original Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard™, a methodology developed by Berke et al. (2015) and then further advanced and translated to planning practice by Malecha et al. (2019), for spatially evaluating networks of plans to reduce vulnerability to hazards. With support from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Climate Program Office’s Extreme Heat Risk Initiative and in partnership with the American Planning Association, PIRS™ for Heat was initially piloted in five geographically diverse U.S. communities, including Baltimore, MD, Boston, MA, Fort Lauderdale, FL, Seattle, WA, and Houston, TX. The rationale, methodology, and findings from the first five cities are published in the guidebook The Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard™ (PIRS™) for Heat: Spatially evaluating networks of plans to mitigate heat. We analyzed all policies in Phoenix’s network of plans, including their comprehensive plan, hazard mitigation plan, climate action plan, and tree and shade plan. Policies were only included if they had the potential to impact urban heat, were place-specific, and contained a recognizable policy tool. Policies were then scored based on how they would likely impact urban heat. Scored policies were mapped to relevant census tracts across the city to evaluate their spatial distribution and the net effect on urban heat. The resulting PIRS™ for Heat scorecard was then compared with physical and social vulnerability data to assess policy alignment with heat risks and to identify opportunities for improved urban heat resilience planning.This material was supported by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Climate Program Office’s Extreme Heat Risk Initiative, Cooperative Agreement NA21OAR4310148, and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research’s Urban Integrated Field Laboratories research activity, under Award Number(s) DE-SC0023520. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the U.S. NOAA or U.S. DOE.This item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]

Plan Evaluation for Heat Resilience: City of Tucson, AZ

The combination of climate change and the urban heat island (UHI) effect is increasing the number of dangerously hot days and the need for all communities to plan for urban heat resilience equitably. Urban heat resilience requires an integrated planning approach that coordinates strategies across community plans and uses the best available heat risk information to prioritize heat mitigation and management strategies for the most vulnerable communities. This report, supported by the U.S. DOE-funded Southwest Urban Corridor Integrated Field Laboratory (SW-IFL), summarizes the findings from two complementary methods for examining how different city plans shape urban heat resilience. The first methodology, Plan Quality Evaluation for Heat Resilience, provides a broad assessment of how plans address heat and their effectiveness likelihood. We adapted well-established plan quality assessment approaches to heat. We then applied the methodology to assess whether Tucson’s plans meet 56 criteria across seven established principles of high-quality heat resilience planning. We also cataloged the types of heat mitigation and management strategies included in the plans. The second methodology, the Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard™ (PIRS™) for Heat provides a more detailed assessment of the heat mitigation policies and their spatial alignment with heat vulnerability. PIRS™ for Heat was developed as an extension of the original Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard™, a methodology developed by Berke et al. (2015) and then further advanced and translated to planning practice by Malecha et al. (2019), for spatially evaluating networks of plans to reduce vulnerability to hazards. With support from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Climate Program Office’s Extreme Heat Risk Initiative and in partnership with the American Planning Association, PIRS™ for Heat was initially piloted in five geographically diverse U.S. communities, including Baltimore, MD, Boston, MA, Fort Lauderdale, FL, Seattle, WA, and Houston, TX. The rationale, methodology, and findings from the first five cities are published in the guidebook The Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard™ (PIRS™) for Heat: Spatially evaluating networks of plans to mitigate heat. We analyzed all policies in Tucson’s network of plans, including their comprehensive plan, hazard mitigation plan, and climate action plan. Policies were only included if they had the potential to impact urban heat, were place-specific, and contained a recognizable policy tool. Policies were then scored based on how they would likely impact urban heat. Scored policies were mapped to relevant census tracts across the city to evaluate their spatial distribution and the net effect on urban heat. The resulting PIRS™ for Heat scorecard was then compared with physical and social vulnerability data to assess policy alignment with heat risks and to identify opportunities for improved urban heat resilience planning.This material was supported by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Climate Program Office’s Extreme Heat Risk Initiative, Cooperative Agreement NA21OAR4310148, and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research’s Urban Integrated Field Laboratories research activity, under Award Number(s) DE-SC0023520. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the U.S. NOAA or U.S. DOE.This item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]

City of Kent, WA: Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard™ (PIRS™) For Heat

This item is a report produced under cooperative agreement with the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and distributed by the American Planning Association.The combination of climate change and the urban heat island (UHI) effect is increasing the number of dangerously hot days and the need for all communities to plan for urban heat resilience equitably. Urban heat resilience requires an integrated planning approach that coordinates strategies across community plans and uses the best available heat risk information to prioritize heat mitigation strategies for the most vulnerable communities. The Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard™ (PIRS™) for Heat is an approach that communities can use to analyze how heat mitigation policies are integrated into different plans and to identify opportunities to better target heat mitigation policies in high heat risk areas. The PIRS™ for Heat was developed as an extension of the original Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard™, a methodology originally developed by Berke et al. (2015) and then further advanced and translated to planning practice by Malecha et al. (2019), for spatially evaluating networks of plans to reduce vulnerability to hazards. With support from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Climate Program Office’s Extreme Heat Risk Initiative and in partnership with the American Planning Association, PIRS™ for Heat was initially piloted in five geographically diverse U.S. communities, including Baltimore, MD, Boston, MA, Fort Lauderdale, FL, Seattle, WA, and Houston, TX. The rationale, methodology, and findings from the first five cities are published in the guidebook The Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard™ (PIRS™) for Heat: Spatially evaluating networks of plans to mitigate heat. The approach was then applied to a sixth community, the City of Kent, WA. This report summarizes the PIRS™ for Heat results for Kent. Adapting the process detailed in Malecha et al. (2019), the project team analyzed all policies in each community’s network of plans, including their comprehensive plans, hazard mitigation plans, climate action plans, and climate change adaptation, resilience, or sustainability plans. Policies were only included if they had the potential to impact urban heat, were place-specific and contained a recognizable policy tool. Policies were then scored based on whether they would likely mitigate heat (“+1”), worsen heat (“-1”), or the impact was unclear from the description in the plan (“Unknown”). Scored policies were mapped to relevant census tracts across the communities to evaluate their spatial distribution and the net effect on urban heat. The resulting PIRS™ for Heat scorecard was then compared with physical and social vulnerability data to assess policy alignment with heat risks and to identify opportunities for improved urban heat resilience planning.This material was supported by the U.S. NOAA Climate Program Office’s Extreme Heat Risk Initiative, Cooperative Agreement NA21OAR4310148. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the U.S. NOAA.Immediate accessThis item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]

Plan Evaluation for Heat Resilience: City of Tempe, AZ

The combination of climate change and the urban heat island (UHI) effect is increasing the number of dangerously hot days and the need for all communities to plan for urban heat resilience equitably. Urban heat resilience requires an integrated planning approach that coordinates strategies across community plans and uses the best available heat risk information to prioritize heat mitigation and management strategies for the most vulnerable communities. This report, supported by the U.S. DOE-funded Southwest Urban Corridor Integrated Field Laboratory (SW-IFL), summarizes the findings from two complementary methods for examining how different city plans shape urban heat resilience. The first methodology, Plan Quality Evaluation for Heat Resilience, provides a broad assessment of how plans address heat and their effectiveness likelihood. We adapted well established plan quality assessment approaches to heat. We then applied the methodology to assess whether Tempe’s plans meet 56 criteria across seven established principles of high quality heat resilience planning. We also cataloged the types of heat mitigation and management strategies included in the plans. The second methodology, the Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard™ (PIRS™) for Heat provides a more detailed assessment of the heat mitigation policies and their spatial alignment with heat vulnerability. PIRS™ for Heat was developed as an extension of the original Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard™, a methodology developed by Berke et al. (2015) and then further advanced and translated to planning practice by Malecha et al. (2019), for spatially evaluating networks of plans to reduce vulnerability to hazards. With support from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Climate Program Office’s Extreme Heat Risk Initiative and in partnership with the American Planning Association, PIRS™ for Heat was initially piloted in five geographically diverse U.S. communities, including Baltimore, MD, Boston, MA, Fort Lauderdale, FL, Seattle, WA, and Houston, TX. The rationale, methodology, and findings from the first five cities are published in the guidebook The Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard™ (PIRS™) for Heat: Spatially evaluating networks of plans to mitigate heat. We analyzed all policies in Tempe’s network of plans, including their comprehensive plan, hazard mitigation plan, and climate action plan. Policies were only included if they had the potential to impact urban heat, were place-specific, and contained a recognizable policy tool. Policies were then scored based on how they would likely impact urban heat. Scored policies were mapped to relevant census tracts across the city to evaluate their spatial distribution and the net effect on urban heat. The resulting PIRS™ for Heat scorecard was then compared with physical and social vulnerability data to assess policy alignment with heat risks and to identify opportunities for improved urban heat resilience planning.This material was supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Climate Program Office’s Extreme Heat Risk Initiative, Cooperative Agreement NA21OAR4310148, and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research’s Urban Integrated Field Laboratories research activity, under Award Number(s) DE-SC0023520. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the U.S. NOAA, or U.S. DOE.This item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]

Plan Evaluation for Heat Resilience: City of Nogales, AZ

The combination of climate change and the urban heat island (UHI) effect is increasing the number of dangerously hot days and the need for all communities to plan for urban heat resilience equitably. Urban heat resilience requires an integrated planning approach that coordinates strategies across community plans and uses the best available heat risk information to prioritize heat mitigation and management strategies for the most vulnerable communities. This report, supported by the U.S. DOE-funded Southwest Urban Corridor Integrated Field Laboratory (SW-IFL), summarizes the findings from two complementary methods for examining how different city plans shape urban heat resilience. The first methodology, Plan Quality Evaluation for Heat Resilience, provides a broad assessment of how plans address heat and their effectiveness likelihood. We adapted well-established plan quality assessment approaches to heat. We then applied the methodology to assess whether Nogales’s plans meet 56 criteria across seven established principles of high-quality heat resilience planning. We also cataloged the types of heat mitigation and management strategies included in the plans. The second methodology, the Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard™ (PIRS™) for Heat provides a more detailed assessment of the heat mitigation policies and their spatial alignment with heat vulnerability. PIRS™ for Heat was developed as an extension of the original Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard™, a methodology developed by Berke et al. (2015) and then further advanced and translated to planning practice by Malecha et al. (2019), for spatially evaluating networks of plans to reduce vulnerability to hazards. With support from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Climate Program Office’s Extreme Heat Risk Initiative and in partnership with the American Planning Association, PIRS™ for Heat was initially piloted in five geographically diverse U.S. communities, including Baltimore, MD, Boston, MA, Fort Lauderdale, FL, Seattle, WA, and Houston, TX. The rationale, methodology, and findings from the first five cities are published in the guidebook The Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard™ (PIRS™) for Heat: Spatially evaluating networks of plans to mitigate heat. We analyzed all policies in Nogales’s network of plans, including their comprehensive plan and hazard mitigation plan. Policies were only included if they had the potential to impact urban heat, were place-specific, and contained a recognizable policy tool. Policies were then scored based on how they would likely impact urban heat. Scored policies were mapped to relevant census tracts across the city to evaluate their spatial distribution and the net effect on urban heat. The resulting PIRS™ for Heat scorecard was then compared with physical and social vulnerability data to assess policy alignment with heat risks and to identify opportunities for improved urban heat resilience planning.This material was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research’s Urban Integrated Field Laboratories research activity, under Award Number(s) DE-SC0023520. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the U.S. DOE.This item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]

Plan Evaluation for Heat Resilience: City of Flagstaff, AZ

The combination of climate change and the urban heat island (UHI) effect is increasing the number of dangerously hot days and the need for all communities to plan for urban heat resilience equitably. Urban heat resilience requires an integrated planning approach that coordinates strategies across community plans and uses the best available heat risk information to prioritize heat mitigation and management strategies for the most vulnerable communities. This report, supported by the U.S. DOE-funded Southwest Urban Corridor Integrated Field Laboratory (SW-IFL), summarizes the findings from two complementary methods for examining how different city plans shape urban heat resilience. The first methodology, Plan Quality Evaluation for Heat Resilience, provides a broad assessment of how plans address heat and their effectiveness likelihood. We adapted well-established plan quality assessment approaches to heat (Meerow et al. 2024). We then applied the methodology to assess whether Flagstaff’s plans meet 56 criteria across seven established principles of high-quality heat resilience planning. We also cataloged the types of heat mitigation and management strategies included in the plans. The second methodology, the Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard™ (PIRS™) for Heat provides a more detailed assessment of the heat mitigation policies and their spatial alignment with heat vulnerability. PIRS™ for Heat was developed as an extension of the original Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard™, a methodology developed by Berke et al. (2015), and then further advanced and translated to planning practice by Malecha et al. (2019) for spatially evaluating networks of plans to reduce vulnerability to hazards. With support from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Climate Program Office’s Extreme Heat Risk Initiative and in partnership with the American Planning Association, PIRS™ for Heat was initially piloted in five geographically diverse U.S. communities, including Baltimore, MD, Boston, MA, Fort Lauderdale, FL, Seattle, WA, and Houston, TX. The rationale, methodology, and findings from the first five cities are published in the guidebook The Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard™ (PIRS™) for Heat: Spatially evaluating networks of plans to mitigate heat. We analyzed all policies in Flagstaff’s network of plans, including their comprehensive plan, hazard mitigation plan, and climate action plan. Policies were only included if they had the potential to impact urban heat, were place-specific, and contained a recognizable policy tool. Policies were then scored based on how they would likely impact urban heat. Scored policies were mapped to relevant census tracts across the city to evaluate their spatial distribution and the net effect on urban heat. The resulting PIRS™ for Heat scorecard was then compared with physical and social vulnerability data to assess policy alignment with heat risks and to identify opportunities for improved urban heat resilience planning.This material was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research’s Urban Integrated Field Laboratories research activity, under Award Number(s) DE-SC0023520. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the U.S. DOE.This item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]

Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard™ (PIRS™) for Heat: Spatially evaluating networks of plans to mitigate heat (Version 1.0)

This item is a guidebook produced under cooperative agreement with the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and distributed by the American Planning Association.The combination of climate change and the urban heat island (UHI) effect is increasing the number of dangerously hot days and the need for all communities to plan for urban heat resilience equitably. Urban heat resilience requires an integrated planning approach that coordinates strategies across community plans and uses the best available heat risk information to prioritize heat mitigation strategies for the most vulnerable communities. The Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard™ (PIRS™) for Heat is an approach that communities can use to analyze how heat mitigation policies are integrated into different plans and to identify opportunities to better target heat mitigation policies in high heat risk areas. The PIRS™ for Heat was developed as an extension of the original Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard™, a methodology, originally developed by Berke et al. (2015) and then further advanced and translated to planning practice by Malecha et al. (2019), for spatially evaluating networks of plans to reduce vulnerability to hazards. With support from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Climate Program Office’s Extreme Heat Risk Initiative and in partnership with the American Planning Association, PIRS™ for Heat was piloted in five geographically diverse U.S. communities, including Baltimore, MD, Boston, MA, Fort Lauderdale, FL, Seattle, WA, and Houston, TX. Adapting the process detailed in Malecha et al. (2019) to heat, the project team analyzed all policies in each community’s network of plans, including their comprehensive plans, hazard mitigation plans, climate action plans, and climate change adaptation, resilience, or sustainability plans. Policies were only included if they had the potential to impact urban heat, were place-specific and contained a recognizable policy tool. Policies were then scored based on whether they would likely mitigate heat (“+1”), worsen heat (“-1”), or the impact was unclear from the description in the plan (“Unknown”). Scored policies were mapped to relevant census tracts across the communities to evaluate their spatial distribution and the net effect on urban heat. The resulting PIRS™ for Heat scorecard was then compared with physical and social vulnerability data to assess policy alignment with heat risks and to identify opportunities for improved urban heat resilience planning. This guidebook explains the rationale for the PIRS™ for Heat, provides a step-by-step guide for any practitioner or researcher interested in applying the methodology, includes a detailed and ready-to-go worksheet, and summarizes key plan integration findings from five communities across the U.S.This material was supported by the U.S. NOAA Climate Program Office’s Extreme Heat Risk Initiative, Cooperative Agreement NA21OAR4310148. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the U.S. NOAA.Immediate accessThis item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]

Plan Evaluation for Heat Resilience: City of Casa Grande, AZ

The combination of climate change and the urban heat island (UHI) effect is increasing the number of dangerously hot days and the need for all communities to plan for urban heat resilience equitably. Urban heat resilience requires an integrated planning approach that coordinates strategies across community plans and uses the best available heat risk information to prioritize heat mitigation and management strategies for the most vulnerable communities. This report, supported by the U.S. DOE-funded Southwest Urban Corridor Integrated Field Laboratory (SW-IFL), summarizes the findings from two complementary methods for examining how different city plans shape urban heat resilience. The first methodology, Plan Quality Evaluation for Heat Resilience, provides a broad assessment of how plans address heat and their effectiveness likelihood. We adapted well-established plan quality assessment approaches to heat (Meerow et al. 2024). We then applied the methodology to assess whether Casa Grande’s plans meet 56 criteria across seven established principles of high-quality heat resilience planning. We also cataloged the types of heat mitigation and management strategies included in the plans. The second methodology, the Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard™ (PIRS™) for Heat provides a more detailed assessment of the heat mitigation policies and their spatial alignment with heat vulnerability. PIRS™ for Heat was developed as an extension of the original Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard™, a methodology developed by Berke et al. (2015) and then further advanced and translated to planning practice by Malecha et al. (2019), for spatially evaluating networks of plans to reduce vulnerability to hazards. With support from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Climate Program Office’s Extreme Heat Risk Initiative and in partnership with the American Planning Association, PIRS™ for Heat was initially piloted in five geographically diverse U.S. communities, including Baltimore, MD, Boston, MA, Fort Lauderdale, FL, Seattle, WA, and Houston, TX. The rationale, methodology, and findings from the first five cities are published in the guidebook The Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard™ (PIRS™) for Heat: Spatially evaluating networks of plans to mitigate heat. We analyzed all policies in Casa Grande’s network of plans, including comprehensive and hazard mitigation plans. Policies were only included if they had the potential to impact urban heat, were place-specific, and contained a recognizable policy tool. Policies were then scored based on how they would likely impact urban heat. Scored policies were mapped to relevant census tracts across the city to evaluate their spatial distribution and the net effect on urban heat. The resulting PIRS™ for Heat scorecard was then compared with physical and social vulnerability data to assess policy alignment with heat risks and to identify opportunities for improved urban heat resilience planning.This material was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research’s Urban Integrated Field Laboratories research activity, under Award Number(s) DE-SC0023520. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the U.S. DOE.This item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]

Plan Evaluation for Heat Resilience: City of Mesa, AZ

The combination of climate change and the urban heat island (UHI) effect is increasing the number of dangerously hot days and the need for all communities to plan for urban heat resilience equitably. Urban heat resilience requires an integrated planning approach that coordinates strategies across community plans and uses the best available heat risk information to prioritize heat mitigation and management strategies for the most vulnerable communities. This report, supported by the U.S. DOE-funded Southwest Urban Corridor Integrated Field Laboratory (SW-IFL), summarizes the findings from two complementary methods for examining how different city plans shape urban heat resilience. The first methodology, Plan Quality Evaluation for Heat Resilience, provides a broad assessment of how plans address heat and their effectiveness likelihood. We adapted well-established plan quality assessment approaches to heat (Meerow et al. 2024). We then applied the methodology to assess whether Mesa’s plans meet 56 criteria across seven established principles of high-quality heat resilience planning. We also cataloged the types of heat mitigation and management strategies included in the plans. The second methodology, the Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard™ (PIRS™) for Heat provides a more detailed assessment of the heat mitigation policies and their spatial alignment with heat vulnerability. PIRS™ for Heat was developed as an extension of the original Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard™, a methodology developed by Berke et al. (2015) and then further advanced and translated to planning practice by Malecha et al. (2019), for spatially evaluating networks of plans to reduce vulnerability to hazards. With support from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Climate Program Office’s Extreme Heat Risk Initiative and in partnership with the American Planning Association, PIRS™ for Heat was initially piloted in five geographically diverse U.S. communities, including Baltimore, MD, Boston, MA, Fort Lauderdale, FL, Seattle, WA, and Houston, TX. The rationale, methodology, and findings from the first five cities are published in the guidebook The Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard™ (PIRS™) for Heat: Spatially evaluating networks of plans to mitigate heat. We analyzed all policies in Mesa’s network of plans, including their comprehensive plan, hazard mitigation plan, and climate action plan. Policies were only included if they had the potential to impact urban heat, were place-specific, and contained a recognizable policy tool. Policies were then scored based on how they would likely impact urban heat. Scored policies were mapped to relevant census tracts across the city to evaluate their spatial distribution and the net effect on urban heat. The resulting PIRS™ for Heat scorecard was then compared with physical and social vulnerability data to assess policy alignment with heat risks and to identify opportunities for improved urban heat resilience planning.This material was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research’s Urban Integrated Field Laboratories research activity, under Award Number(s) DE-SC0023520. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the U.S. DOE.This item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]