The growing frequency, intensity, and duration of extreme heat events necessitates interventions to reduce heat exposures. Local opportunities for heat adaptation may be optimally identified through collection of both quantitative exposure metrics and qualitative data on perceptions of heat. In this study, we used mixed methods to characterize heat exposure among urban residents in the area of Boston, Massachusetts, US, in summer 2020. Repeated interviews of N = 24 study participants ascertained heat vulnerability and adaptation strategies. Participants also used low-cost sensors to collect temperature, location, sleep, and physical activity data. We saw significant differences across temperature metrics: median personal temperature exposures were 3.9 °C higher than median ambient weather station temperatures. Existing air conditioning (AC) units did not adequately control indoor temperatures to desired thermostat levels: even with AC use, indoor maximum temperatures increased by 0.24 °C per °C of maximum outdoor temperature. Sleep duration was not associated with indoor or outdoor temperature. On warmer days, we observed a range of changes in time-at-home, expected given our small study size. Interview results further indicated opportunities for heat adaptation interventions including AC upgrades, hydration education campaigns, and amelioration of energy costs during high heat periods. Our mixed methods design informs heat adaptation interventions tailored to the challenges faced by residents in the study area. The strength of our community-academic partnership was a large part of the success of the mixed methods approach.

Heat islands and warming temperatures are a growing global public health concern. Although cities are implementing cooling interventions, little is known about their efficacy. We conducted a literature review of field studies measuring the impact of urban cooling interventions, focusing on cooling centers, misting stations, cool pavements, and cool or green roofs. A total of 23 articles met the inclusion criteria. Studies of cooling centers measured the potential impact, based on evaluations of population proximity and heat-vulnerable populations. Reductions in temperature were reported for misting stations and cool pavements across a range of metrics. Misting station use was evaluated with temperature changes and user questionnaires. The benefits and disadvantages of each intervention are presented, and metrics for evaluating cooling interventions are compared. Gaps in the literature include a lack of measured impacts on personal thermal comfort, limited documentation on intervention costs, the need to standardize temperature metrics, and evaluation criteria.

No abstract

No abstract