Heat Mitigation Solutions Guide for Mobile Homes Heat Mitigation Solutions Guide for Mobile Homes Knowledge Exchange for Resilience, Arizona State University About this Solutions Guide People who live in mobile homes are 6 to 8 times more likely to die of heat-associated deaths. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), more people die in the U.S. from heat than from all other natural disasters combined. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), more than 1,300 deaths per year in the United States are due to extreme heat. Arizona, California and Texas are the three states with the highest burden, accounting for 43% of all heat-related deaths according to the CDC. heat resilience for mobile home residents. These solutions were designed as a coordinated set of actions for everyone — individual households, mobile home residents, mobile home park owners, cities and counties, private businesses and nonprofits serving mobile home parks, and other stakeholders — to be able to contribute to heat mitigation for mobile home residents. Although only 5% of housing in Maricopa County, Arizona, is mobile homes, approximately 30% of indoor heat-related deaths occur in these homes. Thus, the residents of mobile homes in Maricopa County are disproportionately affected by heat. Mobile home residents are extremely exposed to heat due to the high density of mobile home parks, poor construction of dwellings, lack of vegetation, socio-demographic features and not being eligible to get utility and financial assistance. When we invest in a collective, coordinated suite of solutions that are designed specifically to address the heat vulnerability of mobile homes residents, we can realize a resilience dividend in maintaining affordable, feasible, liveable housing for the 20 million Americans who choose mobile homes and manufactured housing as their place to live and thrive. We researched numerous solutions across different domains that could help build the heat resilience of mobile home residents. As a result we found 50 different solutions for diverse stakeholders, budgets and available resources. The goal of this toolbox is to present these solutions and to To cite this guide: Varfalameyeva, Katsiaryna, Patricia Solís, Lora Phillips, Elisha Charley, David Hondula, and Mark Kear (2021). Heat Mitigation Solutions Guide for Mobile Homes. Knowledge Exchange for Resilience Solutions Series. Tempe: Arizona State University. Available from https://keep.lib.asu.edu/ collections/160080. explain how to apply them in order to get the most optimal result and build resilience.asu.edu 4 5 Table of Contents Chapter 1 Why is it important to address the heat exposure of mobile home residents? 9 Chapter 2 50 ways to mitigate heat 14 Chapter 3 Guidelines and decision matrix to select solutions and estimate their efficiency 26 Chapter 4 How to build a set of solutions 36 Chapter 5 Solution application 48 References 57 Bibliography 58 Appendix 60 The story of this guide 78 Partners and stakeholders 80 7 Why is it important to address the heat exposure of mobile home residents? 1 According to the CDC, more people die in the U.S. from heat than from all other natural disasters combined. According to the EPA, more than 1,300 deaths per year in the United States are due to extreme heat. Heat deaths in Maricopa County have been increasing for the last six years. Since 2006 there have been a total of 1,696 heat-associated deaths, and 35% of them were indoor heat deaths (Fig. 1). Prior research shows that the recent increase in heat-related deaths cannot be explained by weather patterns. Heat death in Maricopa County, AZ, 2006-2020 179 182 2017 2018 197 207 154 106 74 51 49 2007 2008 2009 110 82 2010 75 2011 2012 2013 84 61 2014 2015 2016 2019 2020 Figure 1. Trend and number of heat-related deaths in Maricopa County, 2006-2020 Although only 5% of housing in Maricopa County is mobile homes, approximately 30% of indoor heat-related deaths occur in these homes. Thus, the residents of mobile homes in Maricopa County are disproportionately affected by heat. Given that this pattern cannot be explained by weather patterns (Fig. 2), there must be additional factors that make heat so deadly for mobile home residents specifically. 9 Why is it important to address the heat exposure of mobile home residents 168.2 164.2 169.3 147.1 120.5 97.7 88.0 2006 60.5 58.4 2007 2008 4. 123.5 97.1 residents have no space to plant trees. In addition, unique relationships between park owners and residents prevent increasing vegetation since residents rent the lot under their homes and have no legal right to plant anything. 84.0 80.7 63.7 2009 2010 2011 Adjusted Heat Deaths 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Predicted Heat Deaths based on weather 5. Socio-demographic factors. Mobile home households have significantly lower incomes, higher rates of poverty, an older population and lower housing value, but they have higher rents compared to the single-family households. As a result, mobile home residents more often experience financial hardship, in which electric bills, air conditioning repairs, or energy efficiency improvements are extremely unaffordable. Very often this puts mobile home residents into a challenging situation where they need to choose between essential purchases like food or cooling down their home and not suffering from heat exhaustion. Oftentimes, they face this tradeoff while simultaneously working to manage age-related pre-existing health conditions that also increase their heat risk. 6. Social isolation. Mobile home residents are more likely to live alone than residents of single-family or multi-unit homes. Additionally, some mobile home residents do not have friends or relatives nearby, and although mobile home residents express a great willingness to help their neighbors, very few report interacting with their neighbors on a regular basis. In Maricopa County specifically, many mobile home parks also cater to snowbirds who arrive in the winter and leave before summer begins, meaning that mobile home parks are less populated during the hottest portion of the year. These conditions force many mobile home residents to manage heat and heat costs alone, increasing their risk of heatrelated illness or death. Figure 2. Weather patterns and heat-related deaths in Maricopa County, 2006-2019 Residents of mobile homes experience very low heat resilience due to the following reasons: 1. Extremely high density of mobile home parks. Mobile home parks often resemble parking lots full of RVs or mobile homes. Their density is three to five times higher than the density of single-family communities. All dwellings in the parks are located close to each other without yards. 2. Poor construction of mobile homes. Mobile homes are not designed to be permanent housing, and for that reason they have lower construction standards than single-family homes. In addition, aging mobile homes require a lot of maintenance and repairs, which a majority of residents cannot afford. Mobile homes in the Phoenix Metro Area have very poor construction, including low insulation, thin walls, holes between windows and doors, old and thin roofs and floors. As a result, these mobile homes get very hot inside in a short period of time and require a lot of energy to cool down. 3. Age of the structure. Two-thirds of all mobile homes in Maricopa County were built before 1990, which increases the likelihood that they do not comply with the energy efficiency standards that were issued in 1990 for all residential buildings. This resulted in poor construction that has been degrading over time. 10 No vegetation. Mobile home parks are parking lots with very high density where 11 Why is it important to address the heat exposure of mobile home residents 7. Policy regulations that exclude mobile home residents from getting assistance. Because of their unique renter-owner situation (i.e., owning the mobile home but renting the land it is parked on), and the fact that their homes have wheels (even if they are immobilized), mobile home households are excluded from many programs such as weatherization and utility assistance. In situations where the mobile home park is the direct utility consumer, mobile home households are also excluded from utility provider-sponsored programs. Even though these households are in need of this support, they are ineligible for these programs because they do not own the land, are very often not direct customers to the utility companies, and simply because they live in a mobile home. The issue of extreme heat vulnerability among mobile home residents is important to address due to high heat-related mortality rates for this group. According to the State Department of Health Services, in 2020 alone, there were a record 521 heat-related deaths in the state of Arizona. In addition, the consequences of heat exposure impose a huge cost on the county. In 2020, the estimated financial toll of all heat-associated health impacts ranged from $360,180,000 to $1,800,900,000. Hospitalization alone from heat-related illness also imposes a huge cost on the county. In 2018, the estimated cost of these hospitalizations was $24,160,675. Even though heat is the deadliest hazard in the U.S., its consequences have not received due attention relative to other hazards. However, awareness is growing. Numerous local, regional and national news outlets have recently provided coverage of heat-related hazards, particularly among mobile home residents, including: The Arizona Republic, Arizona Mirror, ABC 15 News, Cronkite News, Los Angeles Times, High Country News, The New York Times, The Washington Post and National Geographic. Thus, it is more timely than ever before to develop and improve adaptive capacity to heat for all groups of people, starting with the most vulnerable populations. 12 50 ways to mitigate heat 2 Heat mitigation requires a strategic approach because the issue of heat exposure is complex and further complicated by the many factors that make mobile home households especially vulnerable to heat. Therefore, the goal of this toolbox is to address heat mitigation from all possible angles. We propose five main areas where solutions should be implemented: technical and built solutions, natural solutions, policy-related solutions, communitybased solutions, and innovative financial opportunities. This chapter provides a list of all 50 solutions, along with their description. Technical and built solutions The goal of this group of solutions is to increase heat resilience by improving the quality of construction and the built environment around mobile homes. All of these solutions should be applied directly on site. Some of the solutions are designed to be applied to a single mobile home, while others should be applied to the mobile home park. Improve insulation and construction of mobile homes: 1. Air sealing the home – Reduce air leakage for mobile home structures by inserting new windows and doors, improving insulation and sealing holes. 2. External insulated finishing or stucco systems – Improve insulation of mobile homes by adding additional layers of stucco. 3. Skirting – Insulate underneath the mobile home. Various materials can be used, including vinyl, brick, concrete, metal, plywood, foam and reil rock. 15 50 ways to mitigate heat Increase sun protection: 4. Curtains – Add curtains on windows inside mobile homes. 5. Window films & window tinting – Add films or tint to mobile home windows. 6. Shutters or other external window covering (e.g. cardboard) – Attach to windows outside mobile homes. 7. Shade awnings – Protect homes and lots from direct sun exposure. Awnings use an angled design to provide versatile, cost-efficient heat reduction. 8. Shade sails – Shading structures can be a temporary solution if solar panels are not installed on mobile homes.​​All structures include: the shade structure, installation, powder coating, high density polyethylene cover, cable, hardware, anchor bolts, template and rebar cages. 12. Portable air conditioning – Known to be cost effective, as it has low electricity use. It is portable and compact due to its lightweight design, so it is easy to carry around the house or car if needed. This cooler is also noise-free. 13. Swamp coolers – Swamp coolers are alternatives to traditional portable air conditioners. They consume less energy than traditional air conditioners, and they use the natural power of evaporation to cool the atmosphere in low-humidity areas. Evaporative coolers cool outdoor air by passing it over water-saturated pads, causing the water to evaporate. The 15°F- to 40°F-cooler air is then directed into the home, pushing warmer air out through windows. Sustainable energy use: 9. Reflective coatings (white coat) – Special white coating on mobile home roofs that is weather-resistant for year-round, eco-friendly protection. 10. Passive Daytime Radiative Cooling (PDRC) – Innovative roof coating that radiates heat to the cold outer space, which decreases the temperature of the mobile home itself and the environment around it. 14. LED lights – Update and install energy efficient lighting. 15. High-efficiency appliances – Update and install new appliances in mobile homes. 16. Solar (PV) canopies – Provide direct shade to mobile homes and generate power for HVAC equipment. 17. Solar pavement – Hungarian tech company Platio uses recycled plastic to build solar panels into pavements, which can power buildings and charge electronic devices. Watch this video to learn more: https://youtu. be/SNOIm9YFJPM, or visit their website at https://platiosolar.com/ Improve air conditioning: Change the physical environment of the park: 11. Heat pumps (especially mini-split versions) – Alternative to traditional air conditioning units. The main advantages of mini-splits are their small size and flexibility for zoning, or heating and cooling individual rooms. Ductless mini-split systems are easier to install than some other types of air conditioning systems. Mini-splits have no ducts, so they avoid the energy losses associated with the ductwork of central forced air systems. 16 18. Outdoor evaporative cooling (misters) – Build water systems around mobile homes. Misters are both energy- and water-efficient, with easy professional and cheap DIY installation options. 19. Proximity of structures to each other for shading and ventilation – Improve or change the distance between mobile homes, allowing natural ventilation. 17 50 ways to mitigate heat 20. Site orientation optimization for cooling – Change or improve the location of mobile home units to account for wind and sun angles. Policy-related solutions 21. Cool pavements – Apply cool pavement coating on roads and sidewalks to reduce the temperature. Learn about a cool pavement pilot project by ASU researchers here: https://tinyurl.com/ayf5p8bw These solutions are based on an analysis of the policies and regulations that govern mobile home parks. The implementation of these solutions will require high-level decision makers’ participation. The results of these recommendations will be visible on a city, county and state level. 22. Mechanical trees – This technology, developed by ASU professor Klaus Lackner, mimics real trees to remove carbon dioxide from the air faster than nature, helping reduce global carbon emissions. This will result in a temperature reduction around mobile home parks in the long term. Learn more in The State Press: https://tinyurl.com/29c8t2eu 26. Cooling centers within mobile home parks – Permanent or popup cooling centers could be set up within or near mobile home parks. These centers would especially benefit residents who are less mobile, and mobile home parks often already have an established common space. Natural solutions This group of solutions is focused on using natural resources such as different types of vegetation to improve the heat resilience of mobile home parks. To provide a meaningful impact, these ideas should be applied to the whole park. 23. Green or living walls – Implement vertical forms of vegetation (e.g., vines) to provide shade (and possibly evaporative cooling) to the mobile home park. They provide benefits similar to those of trees, but they may be more feasible because they can be installed without having to alter the ground surface. 24. Replacing pavement and asphalt with soil and plants – Where possible (e.g., driveways), replace pavement and asphalt (which absorbs and re-emits heat, increasing ambient temperatures) with gravel, soil, vegetation or a combination. 27. Free or subsidized transportation options – Provide a regular free or subsidized transportation service to and from mobile home parks in order to help residents access existing cooling centers. 28. Door-to-door wellness checks by government employees and community groups – Have dedicated individuals or teams regularly check on vulnerable residents of mobile home parks in order to ensure that they are not unnecessarily exposed to extreme heat conditions and that they are accessing helpful resources that are available to them. 29. Improve the building envelope program and tailor this program to mobile homes – Review (and revise) existing policies and programs aimed at supporting or subsidizing the weatherization and retrofitting of dwellings to make them more energy-efficient and less susceptible to extreme heat conditions. 25. Trees – Plant trees throughout mobile home parks to provide additional shade (and possibly evaporative cooling). Landlord and tenant cooperation is needed for trees, as the landlord has to allow trees, and tenants have to maintain them. 18 19 50 ways to mitigate heat 30. Outreach and education programs with mobile home parks – Outreach and education should focus on: 1) existing resources for mitigating the impacts of extreme heat (e.g., cooling centers, personal actions, assistance programs, etc.) and 2) overview of tenants’ rights in relation to the utilities and landlords (e.g., utility shut-off rules). Communication needs to be bilingual. Outreach and education programs could be led by institutional actors, but there is also potential to draw on community knowledge and connections. Education programs often work especially well when knowledge is shared among familiar actors, underscoring the importance of developing educational programs that draw on existing residents’ knowledge, expertise and skills. 31. Revise utility assistance programs, policies and regulations to reclassify “mobile” – Policies could be modified to reclassify “mobile.” Just because a home has axles and wheels does not necessarily mean that it is truly mobile, but classifying these homes as such makes them ineligible for many grants and programs. Mobile homes are not currently eligible for many utility assistance programs that can help to reduce utility burden or subsidize helpful technologies and retrofits. Through modifications to existing programs, policies and regulations, these “loopholes” can be closed. 32. Draft statewide legislation that institutes utility shutoff protection – Such legislation would prohibit utility companies from terminating service to certain residents (e.g., vulnerable residents of mobile home parks) during extreme heat conditions. 33. Develop or increase shade via zoning requirements – Enact zoning laws that require mobile home parks to have a certain amount of shading. 20 34. Create public regulatory policies and financial or tax incentives that facilitate the creation of resident-owned cooperative housing – Provide a pathway to land ownership for mobile home residents in order to avoid some of the complications and misalignment of incentives that exist when one entity owns the land, and residents lease their lots, dwellings or both from this entity. 35. Utility conversion program – Modify the electric meter system to be submetered at the individual dwelling level rather than master metered at the community level. 36. Energy efficiency standards and requirements – Revise and update energy efficiency requirements for mobile homes. Given that mobile home residents generally express that they want to increase the energy efficiency of their homes but cannot afford to do so, this solution would be most effective if paired with a cost-share or financing arrangement. Current mobile home owners should also be grandfathered in under new energy efficiency regulations so that they are not removed from their homes if cost is a prohibitive factor for making improvements. Since many mobile home residents are not able to finance their home improvements, this solution should be paired with other programs, tools and financing arrangements to lower the cost for residents. 37. Home improvement loans – Provide loans specifically for mobile home residents with low interest and easy qualifying criteria (Kear et. al. 2019). Equity efforts and social or community programs 38. Social infrastructure and community engagement – Implement programs and resources to support and enhance social cohesion within mobile home parks. Possible ways to bring residents together include bingo nights, art nights, game nights or small classes held at a central location (e.g., a resident’s home, an on-site community center, a local library or park). Well-maintained social infrastructure facilitates community engagement by providing welcoming and convenient places for people to congregate. 21 50 ways to mitigate heat 39. Heat-resilient community center – The community center incorporates solutions that increase both social connectedness and heat resilience. Some things that increase social connectedness are vegetable gardens, outdoor cooking areas, social events, playgrounds and seating. Shaded areas with misters, aluminum benches, shaded houses and vegetation instead of asphalt increase heat resilience. 40. Information campaign via AARP bulletin – Partner with AARP to ensure that the most vulnerable residents of mobile home parks (e.g., the elderly and those on a fixed or low income) are receiving pertinent information about the risks of extreme heat, as well as information regarding what resources, support and solutions are available to mitigate their heat risk. AARP could also be a powerful voice in lobbying for meaningful regulatory and legislative changes (e.g., utility shut-off ban, utility subsidies, etc.) 41. Early detection warning system to notify friends, family and caretakers when a home is getting too hot – Implement monitoring and communication systems that alert mobile home residents and their social networks of upcoming or existing dangerous heat conditions within their homes or communities and suggest steps for minimizing the danger. 42. Educate public health officials and emergency responders about the unique vulnerability of mobile home residents – Provide information about mobile home residents’ unique vulnerability to extreme heat and the disproportionate health impacts extreme heat has on mobile home park residents. Develop policies and protocols for giving extra care and attention to mobile home parks during extreme heat events. 43. Mutual aid networks and neighborhood associations – The human infrastructure characterized by “people helping people” is comprised of formal and informal entities that are hyperlocal and created by and for neighbors where they live. This constitutes a potentially critical resource that could utilize greater investment, especially when it comes to the opportunity to take advantage of the often friendly atmosphere in park-wide settings. 22 Innovative financial products and opportunities 44. Support for small-dollar home lending markets – This should include chattel lending for both new and already sited homes. The goal of such support should be to reduce the cost of buying a manufactured home titled as personal property and to reduce practices such as contract selling, which are common, often predatory and largely unregulated. 45. Greater consumer protections for mobile home buyers comparable to those available to real estate buyers – Most households who purchase a mobile or manufactured home do so without the same legal safeguards and consumer protections enjoyed by mortgagees. For example, the Real Estate Procedure Settlement Act (1974) does not apply to personal property loans. Even formal personal property loans do not have the same disclosure requirements about loan costs, do not require appraisals, and homes purchased with them can be repossessed without a regular foreclosure or eviction process (Bourke and Siegel 2020). Those borrowing to purchase newer homes must rely on high-cost chattel loans, while those purchasing existing homes in mobile home parks have fewer options still. Typically, they must buy “on contract”, entering into agreements, similar to those offered to households in redlined neighborhoods that combine “all the responsibilities of homeownership with all the disadvantages of renting” (Coates 2014). 46. Expansion of tenure forms that preserve the affordability that comes from owning one’s home separately from land but without the insecurity – Three potential approaches here are cooperative ownership of land — or land trust — nonprofit or public ownership of land. 47. Right of first refusal – This would obligate community owners to sell to residents if they are able to match the terms of another offer. 23 50 ways to Mitigate Heat 48. Greater lending support for residents who would like to create a cooperative park – For example, currently, community development financial institutions, like ROC USA Capital, do not receive the same level of support from government-sponsored enterprises (Fannie Mae and Freddie Freddie Mac) through Duty to Serve as corporate lenders and purchasers often do. 49. Support for real estate conversions – Many states allow for the conversion of personal property in parks into real estate, but the practice is rare. For many this could confer the advantages of traditional homeownership on mobile home owners in parks. 50. Tailor home improvement lending products for housing titled as personal property – Currently, many only apply to manufactured housing titled as real estate or mortgagees. Programs tailored to housing titled as personal property should be created. 24 Guidelines and decision matrix to select solutions and estimate their efficiency. 3 Even though there are numerous ways to mitigate heat, the issue itself still exists partly because of the poor selection and implementation of solutions. All solutions mentioned above have different levels of benefits they can provide. In addition, they all require different resources to be implemented. Since there is a significant number of heat mitigation solutions, the decision of which solutions to pursue should be based on the following guidelines to ensure the most optimal use of resources and maximum benefits. To support decision-making, we developed a multistage process to evaluate and select solutions that will provide the most optimal results. Since solutions exist within different groups and provide benefits on different scales, it may seem challenging to evaluate which suite of solutions will be the most feasible and effective. To support the decision making process, we developed helpful evaluation criteria based on the most important factors for successful heat mitigation. In our approach, we divide solutions into two groups for evaluation, based on the different criteria used to measure them: (1) technical and natural solutions and (2) policy and community-based solutions. Thus, each group of solutions can be analyzed using appropriate criteria. Technical and natural solutions evaluation To analyze the technical and natural solutions, we developed nine evaluation criteria based on our knowledge and expertise. First, using an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) we developed a decision matrix to represent the weight each criterion has in comparison to other criteria, as some criteria are more important than others. Below, there is a description of each criterion to evaluate solutions. The AHP decision matrix can be found in the appendix as Table A-1. 27 Guidelines and decision matrix to select solutions and estimate their efficiency Criteria to evaluate technical and natural solutions: • Price: The price of each solution. Price was weighted quite low because our community partners stressed that the price of any presented solution would not be a deciding factor in its implementation. • Ease of installation: How quickly and easily the solution can be implemented. expertise, we evaluated each solution on a five-point scale according to our nine criteria, and we then multiplied the scores by the weighting factor. This allowed us to select the most optimal solutions. A scoring rubric for each criterion and a table with all evaluated solutions can be found in the appendix as Table A-2 and Table A-3 accordingly. Below are the final tables (Tables 1 and 2) presenting all evaluated solutions, including their scores, benefits and approximate price to implement. Table 1. Cost and benefit of evaluated technical solutions Technical solutions Score Cost Benefits • Maintenance: How effectively the solution can be maintained and how many resources it will take. External insulated finishing or stucco systems 4.718 $5,000– $7,000 for 1 mh Better insulation, lower temperature inside, less energy to cool down, smaller electric bill • Usability: How easy the solution is to use. PDRC 4.597 Unknown • Effectiveness: How effective the solution is at cooling the area it is impacting. Roof absorbs less heat, lower temperature inside, less energy to cool down, smaller electric bill Air sealing the home 4.596 $350–$600 Better insulation, lower temperature inside, less energy to cool down, smaller electric bill Cool pavements 4.201 $0.1–10 per sq ft Reduce the temperature of the urban environment Swamp coolers 4.484 $250 More efficient models cool down better and use less energy Skirting 4.475 $1,500 for 1 mh Better insulation, lower temperature inside, less energy to cool down, smaller electric bill Shade sails 4.443 $20,000 for 1 mh Additional shading, dwelling consumes less heat, lower temperature inside, less energy to cool down, smaller electric bill • Resilience: How resilient the solution is to the heat. • Sustainability: The impact that each solution has on the environment. The sustainability of a more permanent engineering solution is important, but for temporary solutions it is less important because the impact caused will not be long term. • • 28 Next, using the weighting factor from the AHP decision matrix, we evaluated each solution to find the most optimal ones. Based on our knowledge and Durability: How long the solution will last and how harsh an environment the solution can survive in. Aesthetics: The visual impact caused by a design. 29 Guidelines and decision matrix to select solutions and estimate their efficiency Table 1 continued. Cost and benefit of evaluated technical solutions Technical solutions Score Cost Benefits Technical solutions Score Cost Benefits Window film 4.275 $50 for one window Dwelling heats up less, lower temperature inside, less energy to cool down, smaller electric bill Misters 3.887 $2,000 for 1 mh Reduce the temperature of the urban environment Proximity of structures to each other for shading, ventilation 3.750 Difficult to estimate Natural cooling of the whole park Natural cooling of the whole park Site orientation optimization for cooling 3.750 Difficult to estimate Natural cooling of the whole park Heat pumps 3.719 $600 More efficient models cool down better and use less energy High efficiency appliances 3.355 Varies based on type Efficient energy use, smaller electric bill Solar (PV) canopies 4.210 $430,000 for 40 mh Additional shading, dwelling absorbs less heat, lower temperature inside, less energy to cool down, additional electricity from solar, smaller electric bill LED lights 4.202 $40 for one light Efficient energy use, smaller electric bill Mechanical trees 4.201 Unknown Reduce carbon dioxide emissions, reduce the temperature of the urban environment Curtains 4.193 Shutters or other external window covering 4.193 Shade awnings $50–$100 for one item Dwelling heats up less, lower temperature inside, less energy to cool down, smaller electric bill Table 2. Cost and benefit of evaluated natural solutions $50–$200 for one item Dwelling heats up less, lower temperature inside, less energy to cool down, smaller electric bill Natural solutions Score Cost Benefits Trees 4.532 $200 for one tree Reduce the temperature of the urban environment 4.193 $250 for one (Walmart) Dwelling heats up less, lower temperature inside, less energy to cool down, smaller electric bill Replacing pavement and asphalt with soil and plants 4.411 $5–$35 per sq ft Reduce the temperature of the urban environment Reflective coatings 4.153 $1.50 per sq ft Roof absorbs less heat, lower temperature inside, less energy to cool down, smaller electric bill Green or living walls 4.330 $75–$125 per sq ft Reduce the temperature of the urban environment Portable air conditioning 4.081 $150 More efficient models cool down better and use less energy 30 31 Guidelines and decision matrix to select solutions and estimate their efficiency Policy solutions, community-based solutions and innovative financial products and opportunities evaluation For policy and community-based solutions we developed another set of evaluation criteria along with an AHP decision matrix. Below there is a description of each criterion to evaluate solutions. The AHP decision matrix can be found in the appendix as Table A-4 Criteria to evaluate policy solutions, communitybased solutions and innovative financial products and opportunities: • Time to develop: How fast the policy or community actions can be developed. • Price: The price of each solution. • Ease of development: How difficult it is to develop and apply the policy, how many stakeholders and decision makers should be involved. • Effectiveness: How well the solution works for heat mitigation. • Resilience: How well the solutions help to build heat resilience. • Support of other solutions: How the policy correlates with other solutions and how many opportunities to implement other solutions it can offer. • 32 Maintenance: How effectively the solution can be maintained and kept, how many resources it will take. Consistent with the previous group of solutions, each solution has been evaluated on the five-point scale according to the seven criteria above. Then the scores were multiplied by the weighting factor. This allowed us to select the most optimal solutions. A scoring rubric for each criterion and a table with all evaluated solutions can be found in the appendix as Table A-5 and Table A-6 accordingly. Below is a final table presenting all evaluated solutions, including their score and benefits. Table 3. Benefits of evaluated policy and community-based solutions Policy and community-based solutions Score Benefits Energy efficiency standards and requirements 4.512 Improve the construction of mobile homes, better insulation of the homes Revise or update utility assistance programs and policies to reclassify “mobile” 4.512 Affordable electricity for mobile home residents, reduce heat deaths Improve the building envelope program, and tailor this program to mobile homes 4.386 Improve energy efficiency, less susceptible to extreme heat conditions Develop or increase shade via zoning requirements 4.268 Provide additional shading, reduce heat exposure Utility conversion program 4.260 More efficient electricity use, smaller electric bills Educate public health officials and emergency responders about special vulnerability in mobile homes 4.252 Educate and improve social awareness about heat, opportunity to develop other solutions Draft statewide legislation that institutes utility shutoff protection 4.205 Provide electricity during heat waves, prevent heat deaths Home improvement loans 4.071 Affordable housing, improve building conditions of mobile homes 33 Guidelines and decision matrix to select solutions and estimate their efficiency Table 3 continued. Benefits of evaluated policy and community-based solutions Table 4. Benefits of evaluated innovative financial products and opportunities Policy and community-based solutions Score Benefits Innovative financial products and opportunities Score Benefits Create policies and financial incentives that facilitate the creation of resident-owned cooperative housing 3.953 Provide a pathway to land ownership for mobile home residents, open opportunities for other solutions Expansion of tenure forms 4.512 Provide additional protection and open room for other solutions 4.386 Early detection warning system to notify friends, family and caretakers when a home is getting too hot 3.449 Support for real estate conversions Increase affordability of mobile homes Greater consumer protections for mobile home buyers 4.378 Provide additional protection and open room for other solutions Heat-resilient community center 3.378 Provide heat-resilient environment, prevent heat deaths Tailor home improvement lending products for housing titled as personal property 4.323 Increase affordability of mobile homes, provide financial protection and stability Free or subsidized transportation options 3.126 Provide heat-resilient environment, prevent heat deaths 4.197 Mutual aid networks 3.126 Support for small-dollar home lending markets Provide additional protection and open room for other solutions Greater lending support for the creation of cooperative mobile home parks 4.071 Increase affordability of mobile homes, provide financial protection and stability Right of first refusal 3.992 Provide additional protection and open room for other solutions Prevent heat deaths Provide heat-resilient environment, prevent heat deaths Social infrastructure and community engagement 3.126 Provide heat-resilient environment, prevent heat deaths Put information into AARP bulletin to raise awareness 3.126 Create heat-resilient environment, educate and improve social awareness about the heat, opportunity to develop other solutions Outreach and education programs with mobile home parks 3.063 Create heat-resilient environment, educate and improve social awareness about the heat, opportunity to develop other solutions Small or pop-up cooling centers within communities 2.937 Provide heat-resilient environment, prevent heat deaths Door-to-door wellness checks by government employees and community groups 2.929 Prevent heat deaths 34 This chapter described the approach to evaluate solutions for successful heat mitigation. This issue is so complex that it requires a multifaceted approach across different categories of solutions. The evaluation process allows us to distribute resources more effectively by picking the most optimal solution instead of one that just seems cheap or easy to implement. Since there are numerous stakeholders with different resources and goals, they will pick the most optimal solution out of the scope of solutions that are relevant for them. Thus, the next step is to pick solutions based on the evaluation results. 35 How to build a set of solutions 4 Since multiple factors contribute to heat vulnerability, one single solution cannot guarantee optimal heat mitigation. Moreover, there is no one solution that can solve the entire issue of heat exposure of mobile homes. Unfortunately, implementation of only one solution may actually be a waste of resources, since it will not provide significant benefits on its own. Another challenge is that stakeholders have different reach, goals and capacity, which usually dictates the scale of cost and benefits they can bear. In addition, the application of some solutions by one group would benefit from the application of other solutions by a different group. Thus, the most successful heat mitigation process will happen via collective decision-making. This requires a complex approach to implementing multiple solutions. As such, we propose creating packages of solutions depending on available resources and the capacity of stakeholders implementing the solutions. The concept of collective decision-making in the framework of heat mitigation actions looks something like Figure 3. Green space represents the most common approach and thinking in solving problems, where costs and benefits involve the same stakeholder. Most of the design solutions will be in this space. The orange area represents solutions with small-scale costs but a larger, more diffuse scale of benefits. An example of this is a household property tax that is aggregated for the benefit of neighborhoods and cities. Yellow represents solutions with large-scale costs and benefits for distinct people and places. An example of this is assistance and aid programs (Solís, Varfalameyeva, 2021). 37 How to build a set of solutions Table 5.1. Representation of solutions on different scales according to cost-benefit relationships along with their scores Cost Paid By IndividualsHousehold NeighborhoodCommunity City-State Spatial congruence matrix of broader solutions set for heat-resilient mobile homes Individual-Household Benefits Acrue to IndividualsHousehold 4.718 – External insulated finishing or stucco systems 4.596 – Air sealing the home 4.484 – Swamp coolers NeighborhoodCommunity 4.475 – Skirting 4.275 – Window films 4.202 – LED lights City-State 4.193 – Curtains 4.193 – Shutters or other external window covering Costs are borne at the same scale as benefits realized 4.193 – Shade awnings Costs are felt at smaller scales and benefits are realized at larger, more diffuse scales 4.081 – Portable air conditioning Costs are assumed at scales larger than where benefits are realized 3.719 – Heat pumps Figure 3. Scales of decision making (see Solís, Vanos & Forbis, 2017). The creation of solutions packages should be based not only on the decision matrix, but also on the scale of the solutions (i.e., the individual-household scale, the neighborhood-community scale, or the city-state scale). All provided solutions belong to a different scale depending on who implements them, who bears the costs, and who shares the benefits. Thus, the first step to creating a package of solutions is to decide the scale. The following table (Table 5) illustrates groups of solutions at different scales along with their efficiency scores. IndividualHousehold Neighborhood-Community 4.597 – Passive Daytime Radiative Cooling (PDRC) 4.153 – Reflective coatings (white coat) 3.449 – Park-controlled early detection warning system to notify friends, family and caretakers when a home gets too hot 2.937 – Small or pop-up cooling centers within communities City-State 3.126 – Free or subsidized transportation options to help community members access cooling centers 3.126 – Share information in AARP bulletin to raise awareness 2.929 – Door-to-door wellness checks by government employees or community groups 38 39 How to build a set of solutions Table 5.2. Representation of solutions on different scales according to cost-benefit relationships along with their scores Individual-Household Individual-Household 3.449 – Personal heat warning systems or personal alert notifications using internet of things devices 4.205 – Utility moratorium on shut-offs during hottest summer days Neighborhood-Community Neighborhood-Community 4.532 – Trees 3.126 – Social infrastructure and community engagement 4.443 – Shade sails 3.126 – Mutual aid networks 4.411 – Replacing pavement and asphalt with soil and plants City-State 4.330 – Green or living walls 4.512 – Revise or update utility assistance programs and policies to reclassify “mobile” 4.210 – Solar (PV) canopies NeighborhoodCommunity Table 5.3. Representation of solutions on different scales according to cost-benefit relationships along with their scores City-State 4.512 – Energy efficiency standards and requirements 4.201 – Cool pavements 4.268 – Develop or increase shade via zoning requirements 4.201 – Mechanical trees 4.260 – Utility conversion program 3.887 – Outdoor evaporative cooling (misters) 4.252 – Educate public health officials and emergency responders about special vulnerability in mobile homes +Solar pavements City-State 4.205 – Draft statewide legislation that institutes utility shutoff protections 4.386 – Improve the building envelope program, and tailor this program to mobile homes 4.071 – Home improvement loans 3.378 – Resilience hubs and heat-resilient community centers 3.953 – Create policies and financial incentives that facilitate the creation of resident-owned cooperative housing 3.063 – Outreach and education programs with mobile home parks 40 41 How to build a set of solutions Different packages of solutions will provide the desired cost and benefit for different scales. First, those who are going to implement the solutions — stakeholders — should determine what scale of resources they have and what scale of benefits they want to get. After this, they should pick solutions appropriate to their scale of cost and benefits. The combination of the solutions into one package should be based on the evaluation of each solution presented earlier in the guide. As such, we suggest combining the most optimal solutions with higher scores. However, based on the resources available for implementation, the number of solutions inside the package can vary. As an example, we built packages of solutions for two different scales — individual mobile home owners and renters, as well as mobile home park owners. Scale 1: Individual mobile home owners and renters Table 6. Packages of solutions for individual mobile home owners and renters Solutions Package 1 Package 2 Package 3 Package 4 Air sealing the home at the maximum level Air sealing the home at the maximum level Air sealing the home at the minimum level Foam insulation Foam insulation with cheaper materials Foam insulation with cheaper materials Swamp coolers Swamp coolers Swamp coolers Packages of solutions Skirting Skirting with cheaper materials Skirting with cheaper materials — This is a situation in which individual mobile home owners or renters in the community improve their own units. They bear the costs and the benefits. To motivate and assist owners and renters in making these changes, the funds could be subsidized or provided by someone else (e.g., park owner, community organization). At this scale, we selected all the solutions based on Table 5. We calculated the cost of the solutions for a medium-sized 2,000-square-foot. mobile home with four windows. Package 1 provides the largest possible benefit through the application of all solutions at their maximum level. In addition, we built three other more affordable packages by excluding less efficient solutions or by applying some solutions on a smaller scale. Table 6 illustrates four packages of solutions along with their associated costs. Regardless of the solutions package, individual mobile home owners and renters get significantly improved construction of their mobile homes, resulting in smaller utility bills, as less energy will be needed to cool down the homes. 4 Window films and window tinting 2 Window films and window tinting — 2 Window films and window tinting 3 LED lights 3 LED lights 4 Curtains 2 Curtains — 2 Curtains 4 Shutters or other external window covering 2 Shutters or other external window covering — 2 Shutters or other external window covering 4 Shade awnings 2 Shade awnings 42 Portable air conditioning — 3 LED lights 2 Shade awnings — Air sealing the home at the minimum level — Swamp coolers 3 LED lights 2 Shade awnings — 43 How to build a set of solutions Scale 2: Mobile home park owners Cost $10,420 $5,770 $4,970 $1,620 — The costs were reduced by eliminating some improvements, by reducing the scale of application of some improvements, and by using cheaper materials. The costs were reduced by eliminating some improvements, reducing by half the scale of application of some improvements, and by using cheaper materials. The costs were reduced by eliminating some improvements, reducing by half the scale of application of some improvements, and by using cheaper materials. Effectiveness 100% 90% 62% 62% Benefits: Better insulation, dwelling heats up less, lower temperature inside, less energy to cool down, smaller electric bill Scale 2: Mobile home park owners This is a situation in which mobile home park owners apply heat-resilient solutions to the entire park. They bear the cost, but the benefit will be divided between owners and residents. To motivate owners to make these changes, the funds could be subsidized or provided by community organizations or sponsors. At this scale we also selected all of the solutions based on Table 5 and calculated the cost of the solutions for a medium-sized mobile home park with 250 mobile homes. Package 1 provides the largest possible benefit through the application of all solutions at the maximum level. In addition, we built two other more affordable packages by excluding less efficient solutions or by applying some solutions for half of the park. Table 7 illustrates three packages of solutions along with their associated costs. The whole park and each individual resident of the park will benefit from these investments. Solutions at this scale will improve the urban environment of the park by reducing the temperature of the urban environment through less heat exposure and additional shading and vegetation and less heat. As a result, individual mobile homes will require less electricity to cool down. 44 Table 7. Packages of solutions for mobile home park owners Solutions Package 1 Package 2 Package 3 Solar (PV) canopies Solar (PV) canopies Solar (PV) canopies for 50% of the park Shade sails Shade sails Shade sails for 50% of the park Reflective coatings (white coat) Reflective coatings (white coat) Reflective coatings (white coat) Outdoor evaporative cooling (misters) Outdoor evaporative cooling (misters) Outdoor evaporative cooling (misters) Cool pavement Cool pavement Cool pavements with cheaper materials Trees Trees Trees Replacing pavement and asphalt with soil and plants Replacing pavement and asphalt with soil and plants using cheaper materials Replacing pavement and asphalt with soil and plants using cheaper materials Green or living walls Green or living walls Green or living walls for 50% of the park Solar pavements — — 45 How to build a set of solutions Table 7 continued. Packages of solutions for mobile home park owners Cost $13,130,860 — $6,430,860 The costs were reduced by eliminating some improvements, by reducing the scale of application of some improvements, and by using cheaper materials. $3,802,680 The costs were reduced by eliminating some improvements, by reducing the scale of application of some improvements, and by using cheaper materials. Effectiveness 100% 82% 60% Benefits: Reduce the temperature of the urban environment, additional shading, dwelling consume less heat, lower temperature inside, less energy to cool down, additional electricity from solar, smaller electric bill The same exercise can be performed to combine solutions for other scales. However, it is important to note that one group of solutions could require support from another group of solutions. For example, to use the solar energy from solar canopies it will be necessary to support this solution with broader policies. 46 Solution application Mobile homes in Maricopa County 5 There are 92,031 mobile homes in Maricopa County, which is 5.2% of the total housing stock. These homes are located in approximately 686 mobile home parks spread throughout different parts of the Phoenix Metropolitan Area, usually on the outskirts or in less valuable areas (Fig. 4). There is a cluster of mobile home parks in the Mesa area, on the right corner of the map, where we selected several parks for collaboration and for our first pilot projects. Figure 4. Mobile home parks around Phoenix Metropolitan Area, 2020 49 Solution application Mobile home park model example This chapter provides an example of how the described approach could be applied in a particular case. Students have been working on collaborating and developing solutions for specific parks. One of the parks is Parkhaven Estates mobile home park located at 306 S Recker Rd, Mesa, AZ 85206. This 900,000 square feet mobile home park was built in 1980 as a 55+ community. The approximate capacity of this park is 288 spots total where 250 of those are mobile homes, and the rest are RVs. It also has a leasing office and community center with a pool (Fig. 5). 1. lower total heating and cooling energy use by 5–10% ($50–$90 per dwelling unit) (McPherson et al., 1997). Thus we need at least 900,000*10% = 90,000 square feet of tree coverage. One tree with a small canopy covers an area of 400 square feet.; therefore we should plant 90,000/400 = 225 trees minimum. The cost will be $200*225 = $45,000. 2. Solar canopies These structures are designed to be similar to carports in that they cover several mobile homes at once. The approximate size of one structure is 19,000 square feet, which will cover approximately 14 mobile homes. One solar canopy structure will fit 1,000 solar panels that will produce 320 kW of energy and power 40 mobile homes (one home needs ~25 panels). Thus, to power this park we need six structures, which will cost $430,560*6 = $2,583,360. As a benefit, 84 mobile homes will have shading structures on top of them, and the whole park will have solar electricity. 3. Shading structures After applying solar canopies there will be 166 mobile homes left without shade coverage. For this project we decided to use shading structures that could cover two mobile homes at once. This means that we need 166/2 = 83 shading structures. This will result in a $20,000*83 = $1,660,000 investment. As a benefit, all mobile homes will have additional shading which reduces heat in the house, the amount of energy required to cool the house down and utility costs. As with many other mobile home parks, Parkhaven Estates has high heat vulnerability due to factors that include: • High density – Houses are located extremely close to each other without any back or front yards. • A lot of impervious surfaces – The whole area of the park is covered with roads. • Very little vegetation – There is a very low number of trees near the leasing office and along Recker Rd. Approximately 99% of the park has no trees or any other form of vegetation. • Lack of shading – There are no forms of additional shading around mobile homes. • Construction of the mobile homes – Many of the mobile homes are older models that were not constructed to modern energy efficiency standards To pick the solutions set for this park, it was assumed that the mobile home park owner would invest into solutions with the goal of providing benefits for the community. For this scale, we selected the top three solutions from different categories: trees, shade sails and solar (PV) canopies. Then we calculated the cost to implement these solutions for the whole park. 50 Trees A Chicago study found that increasing tree cover by 10% could The total investment to improve the heat resilience of the Parkhaven Estates mobile home park will be $4,288,360. The main benefits will be solar energy, reducing cooling energy use by 5–10% and saving $50–$90 in utility costs per dwelling unit (Fig. 6). 51 Solution application Although the cost of implementing solution packages may seem steep, it is a necessary investment to protect some of Maricopa County’s most vulnerable Figure 5. Parkhaven Estates mobile home park 3D model before implementing solutions residents. To that end, it is essential that any solutions that get implemented do not increase mobile home residents’ vulnerability. For instance, if costs are passed down to residents in the absence of financial assistance, some residents may end up homeless due to not being able to afford improvements or lot rental costs. Further, indoor heat-related deaths in mobile homes may actually increase if residents are forced to shift limited funds towards improvements or rent, thus limiting what they can afford in terms of utility use. Balancing mobile home residents’ capacity with their need for heat mitigation underscores the complex nature of heat mitigation; solutions may not achieve the desired objective if they are not supported by financing, policies and regulations aimed at limiting negative externalities. Candidate site for the pilot project With the goal of starting to implement solutions, we selected La Rancheria mobile home park in Phoenix as the candidate site (Fig. 7). This park has 109 mobile homes and was built in 1955 as a 55+ community. It is a highly populated park, as 44% of households have three to four members, and the same percentage of households have more than five members living in a home. However, 60% of households have only one member employed, and only 30% of households have two members employed. Almost all residents of the park — 98% — are of Hispanic ethnicity. Around 80% of residents rent their mobile homes. Figure 6. Parkhaven Estates mobile home park 3D model after implementing solutions The implementation of these solutions, however, requires support from other stakeholders. Park owners, for instance, could be incentivized to make these changes through updated regulations or subsidies, and financial assistance or financing tools could address cost challenges. Beyond the goal of decreasing heat-related illness and death in mobile homes, stakeholders can also be incentivized by the positive externalities associated with implementing solutions. For example, if utility companies invest in solar canopies, they may reap the future benefit of buying electricity from the park. 52 Figure 7. La Rancheria mobile home park, Phoenix 53 Solution application Taking into account that residents of this community have no personal funding for home improvements, and since the majority of mobile homes are owned by the park, the investments into heat-resilient solutions should be made by the park owner and other interested investors. In light of this, we combined packages of solutions from both levels — individual homeowner and park owner. We revisited all of the solutions and picked the most appropriate for this park. For instance, we excluded natural solutions, as there is no space in this park for additional vegetation. We combined the most optimal solutions from both solution sets and calculated the implementation cost, which can be found in Table 8. Improving the construction of mobile homes, along with creating a cooling environment, will significantly increase the heat resilience of this community. Table 8. Heat-resilient solutions for La Rancheria mobile home park, Phoenix Solution Solar (PV) canopies for 50% of the park Cost for the whole park $1,291,680 Shade sails for 50% of the park $500,000 Reflective coatings (white coat) $162,500 Outdoor evaporative cooling (misters) $200,000 Cool pavements with cheaper materials $43,000 Air sealing the home at the minimum level $35,000 Foam insulation with cheaper materials $300,000 Total Cost Effectiveness 54 $2,532,180 80% References Coates, T-N. (2014) The Case for Reparations. The Atlantic. Retrieved April 6, 2021, from https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/thecase-for-reparations/361631/ Greg McPherson et al. (1997). Quantifying urban forest structure, function, and value: the Chicago Urban Forest Climate Project. Urban ecosystems 1, no. 1: 49-61, https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/jrnl/1997/ne_1997_ mcpherson_001.pdf. Kear M, Handschuh, T, Launius S, Meyer D, Hartman J, Christopherson G. (2019) The ‘Manufactured Housing Gap’ in Tucson and Pima County. Economic and Business Research Center, Eller College, University of Arizona. Nick Bourke & Rachel Siegel Bourke. (2020) Protections for Owners of Manufactured Homes Are Uncertain, Especially During Pandemic. PEW Charitable Trusts. Retrieved July 30, 2021, from https://pew.org/3hftAgx Solís Patricia, Jenni Vanos and Robert Forbis. 2017. The Decision-making / Accountability Spatial Incongruence Problem for Research linking Science and Policy. The Geographical Review 107(4): 680-704. DOI: 10.1111/ gere.12240. 57 Bibliography Hinrichs, Margaret M. and Patricia Solís (Editors). (2021). A Knowledge Exchange Playbook to Build Resilience. Tempe: Knowledge Exchange for Resilience, Arizona State University. Washington, D.C.: Global Council for Science and the Environment. https://hdl.handle.net/2286/ R.2.N.160839 Kear M, Wilder M (2021). The American Dream of Real Property. Association of American Geographers AGM, Seattle, WA, USA. Phillips, Lora A., Patricia Solís, Chuyuan Wang, Katsiaryna Varfalameyeva, and Janice Burnett. 2021. Engaged Convergence Research: An Exploratory Approach to Heat Resilience in Mobile Homes. The Professional Geographer 73(4):619-631. https://doi.org/10.1080/0033 0124.2021.1924805 Rodin, Judith. 2014. The Resilience Dividend. New York: The Rockefeller Foundation. KER in the news: 1. The New York Times, “As Phoenix Heats Up, the Night Comes Alive,” Margurite Holloway. www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/climate/ phoenix-heat.html 2. Arizona Republic, “Self-isolating from COVID-19 in a mobile home? That could be deadly in Arizona.” OpEd with Mark Kear, Margaret Wilder, David Hondula, and Mark Bernstein. https://bit.ly/2WsytKN 58 3. Arizona Mirror, “Experts fear COVID-19 pandemic will lead to more summer heat deaths,” Allison Stevens. https://bit.ly/3ga1Fia 4. Los Angeles Times, “Coronavirus could worsen death toll of summer heat waves, health officials warn,” Anna M. Phillips and Tony Barboza. https://lat.ms/2YFTtAd 5. National Geographic, “As summer arrives, how will the most vulnerable escape deadly heat and COVID-19?” Stephen Leahy. https:// on.natgeo.com/2YISFdX 6. High Country News, “Extreme heat is here, and it’s deadly.” Jessica Kutz. https://bit.ly/3gVo172 7. The Washington Post, “Hottest season on record.” Ian Livingston. wapo.st/3bj6aFP 8. Arizona Republic, “Metro Phoenix’s eviction and foreclosure rates double U.S. average, new report says.” Catherine Reagor. https://bit. ly/2ZmemQU 9. Cronkite News – PBS, “Report: Arizona had highest ‘housing loss’ rate; more evictions coming.” MacKenzie Belley. http://bit.ly/pbs3m7oB5e 10. ABC 15 News, “Arizona Researchers look for ways to decrease heat deaths in trailers.” Courtney Holmes. https://bit.ly/32Y9y5y 11. Arizona Republic, “Heat Killed a record number of people in Arizona last year, ‘a staggering increase’.” Ian James. https://bit.ly/2ShmnWz 12. Washington Post, “Extreme heat is killing people in Arizona’s mobile homes.” Karen Peterson, July 2, 2021. https://www.washingtonpost. com/climate-environment/2021/07/02/arizona-mobile-home-deaths/ in Spanish at https://bit.ly/3hlhHZW 59 Appendix Table A-1. AHP decision matrix for technical and natural solutions Design Criteria Design Criteria Price Ease of installation Maintenance Useability Effectiveness Resilience Sustainability Durability Aesthetic Total Weighting factor Price 1 0.5 0.33 0.25 0.2 0.25 0.33 0.5 1 4.370 0.040 Ease of installation 2 1.0 0.67 0.50 0.4 0.50 0.67 1.0 2 8.730 0.081 Maintenance 3 0.6 1.00 0.75 0.6 0.75 1.00 1.5 3 12.20 0.113 Useability 4 2.0 1.33 1.00 0.8 1.00 1.33 2.0 4 17.47 0.161 Effectiveness 5 2.5 1.67 1.25 1.0 1.25 1.67 2.5 5 21.83 0.202 Resilience 4 2.0 1.33 1.00 0.8 1.00 1.33 2.0 4 17.47 0.161 Sustainability 3 1.5 1.00 0.75 0.6 0.75 1.00 1.5 3 13.10 0.121 Durability 2 1.0 0.67 0.50 0.4 0.50 0.67 1.0 2 8.730 0.081 Aesthetic 1 0.5 0.33 0.25 0.2 0.25 0.33 0.5 1 4.370 0.040 108.27 1.000 Total 60 61 Appendix Table A-2. Scoring rubric for technical and natural solutions Score Criteria Score 1 2 3 4 5 very expensive medium price affordable cheap free or very cheap professional assistance needed, difficult to install somewhat difficult not difficult easy very easy high regular, requires other resources regular, requires other resources low regular low not needed professional assistance needed, difficult somewhat difficult not difficult easy very easy low effectiveness or none slightly effective somewhat effective very effective, decrease temp extremely effective, provides extra benefits not resilient low resilience somewhat resilient very resilient extremely resilient not sustainable, dangerous not sustainable somewhat sustainable very sustainable extremely sustainable, improves the environment Durability very fragile, easily destroyed by heat will last less than one year will last several seasons will last more than five years extremely durable Aesthetic decreases aesthetic of the buildings slightly decreases aesthetic of the buildings doesn’t influence slightly improves significantly improves Price Ease of installation Maintenance Useability Effectiveness Resilience Sustainability 62 63 Appendix Table A-3. Evaluated technical and natural solutions Air sealing the home Criteria Weighting factor Score (1–5) Price 0.040 East of installation 0.081 Maintenance Shutters or other external window covering Curtains External insulated finishing or stucco systems Heat pumps High efficiency appliances Total Score (1–5) Total Score (1–5) Total Score (1–5) Total Score (1–5) Total Score (1–5) Total 3 0.120 4 0.160 3 0.120 3 0.120 3 0.120 2 0.080 1 0.081 5 0.405 3 0.243 4 0.324 4 0.324 3 0.243 0.113 5 0.565 5 0.565 5 0.565 5 0.565 4 0.452 4 0.452 Useability 0.161 5 0.805 5 0.805 5 0.805 5 0.805 4 0.644 4 0.644 Effectiveness 0.202 5 1.010 2 0.404 3 0.606 5 1.010 4 0.808 3 0.606 Resilience 0.161 5 0.805 4 0.644 4 0.644 5 0.805 3 0.483 3 0.483 Sustainability 0.121 5 0.605 5 0.605 5 0.605 4 0.484 3 0.363 3 0.363 Durability 0.081 5 0.405 5 0.405 5 0.405 5 0.405 5 0.405 4 0.324 Aesthetic 0.040 5 0.200 5 0.200 5 0.200 5 0.200 5 0.120 4 0.160 Total 1 4.596 4.193 4.193 4.718 3.719 3.355 Table A-3 continued Air sealing the home Criteria Shutters or other external window covering Curtains External insulated finishing or stucco systems Heat pumps High efficiency appliances Weighting factor Score (1–5) Total Score (1–5) Total Score (1–5) Total Score (1–5) Total Score (1–5) Total Score (1–5) Total Price 0.040 3 0.120 4 0.160 3 0.120 3 0.120 3 0.120 2 0.080 East of installation 0.081 1 0.081 5 0.405 3 0.243 4 0.324 4 0.324 3 0.243 Maintenance 0.113 5 0.565 5 0.565 5 0.565 5 0.565 4 0.452 4 0.452 Useability 0.161 5 0.805 5 0.805 5 0.805 5 0.805 4 0.644 4 0.644 Effectiveness 0.202 5 1.010 2 0.404 3 0.606 5 1.010 4 0.808 3 0.606 Resilience 0.161 5 0.805 4 0.644 4 0.644 5 0.805 3 0.483 3 0.483 Sustainability 0.121 5 0.605 5 0.605 5 0.605 4 0.484 3 0.363 3 0.363 Durability 0.081 5 0.405 5 0.405 5 0.405 5 0.405 5 0.405 4 0.324 Aesthetic 0.040 5 0.200 5 0.200 5 0.200 5 0.200 5 0.120 4 0.160 Total 64 1 4.596 4.193 4.193 4.718 3.719 3.355 65 Appendix Table A-3 continued Shade awnings Criteria Shade sails Site orientation optimization for cooling Skirting Solar (PV) canopies Swamp coolers Weighting factor Score (1–5) Total Score (1–5) Total Score (1–5) Total Score (1–5) Total Score (1–5) Total Score (1 –5) Total Price 0.040 3 0.120 2 0.080 1 0.040 3 0.120 1 0.040 4 0.160 East of installation 0.081 2 0.162 1 0.081 1 0.081 3 0.243 1 0.081 4 0.324 Maintenance 0.113 5 0.565 4 0.452 5 0.565 5 0.565 3 0.339 4 0.452 Useability 0.161 5 0.805 5 0.805 5 0.805 5 0.805 5 0.805 5 0.805 Effectiveness 0.202 4 0.808 4 1.010 3 0.606 4 0.808 5 1.010 4 0.808 Resilience 0.161 4 0.644 4 0.805 4 0.644 5 0.805 5 0.805 5 0.805 Sustainability 0.121 4 0.484 5 0.605 4 0.484 5 0.605 5 0.605 5 0.605 Durability 0.081 5 0.405 5 0.405 5 0.405 4 0.324 5 0.405 5 0.405 Aesthetic 0.040 5 0.200 5 0.200 3 0.120 5 0.200 3 0.120 3 0.120 Total 1 4.193 4.443 3.750 4.475 4.21 4.484 Table A-3 continued Window film Criteria Cool pavements Mechanical trees Green or living walls Replacing pavement and asphalt with soil and plants Trees Weighting factor Score (1–5) Total Score (1–5) Total Score (1–5) Total Score (1–5) Total Score (1–5) Total Score (1 –5) Total Price 0.040 4 0.160 1 0.040 2 0.080 2 0.080 2 0.080 3 0.120 East of installation 0.081 5 0.405 1 0.081 1 0.081 2 0.162 2 0.162 4 0.324 Maintenance 0.113 5 0.565 4 0.452 4 0.452 3 0.339 3 0.339 3 0.339 Useability 0.161 5 0.805 5 0.805 5 0.805 5 0.805 5 0.805 5 0.805 Effectiveness 0.202 3 0.606 4 0.808 4 0.808 5 1.010 5 1.010 5 1.010 Resilience 0.161 4 0.644 5 0.805 5 0.805 5 0.805 5 0.805 5 0.805 Sustainability 0.121 5 0.605 5 0.605 5 0.605 5 0.605 5 0.605 5 0.605 Durability 0.081 5 0.405 5 0.405 5 0.405 4 0.324 5 0.405 4 0.324 Aesthetic 0.040 2 0.080 5 0.200 4 0.160 5 0.200 5 0.200 5 0.200 Total 66 1 4.275 4.201 4.201 4.330 4.411 4.532 67 Appendix Table A-4. AHP decision matrix for policy and community-based solutions Policy criteria Policy criteria Time to develop Price Ease of development Effectiveness Time to develop 1 0.5 0.33 0.25 Price 2 1.0 0.67 Ease of development 3 1.0 1.00 Effectiveness 4 2.0 1.33 Resilience 3 1.5 Support of other solutions 2 1.0 Maintenance 1 0.5 Resilience Support of other solutions Maintenance Total Weighting factor 0.33 0.5 1.00 3.92 0.063 0.50 0.67 1.0 2.00 7.83 0.126 0.75 1.00 1.5 3.00 11.25 0.181 1.00 1.33 2.0 4.00 15.67 0.252 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.5 3.00 11.75 0.189 0.67 0.50 0.67 1.0 2.00 7.83 0.126 0.33 0.25 0.33 0.5 1.00 3.92 0.063 62.17 1.000 Total Table A-5. Scoring rubric for the policy and community-based solutions Score Criteria Time to develop Price Score 1 2 3 4 5 requires more than 12 months requires 6–12 months requires 3–6 months Requires up to two months can be developed right away very expensive medium price affordable cheap free or very cheap requires many decision-makers to be involved somewhat difficult not difficult easy very easy low effectiveness or none slightly effective somewhat effective very effective, decreases temperature extremely effective, provides extra benefits Resilience does not contribute to resilience slightly effective somewhat improved resilience improved resilience significantly improved resilience Support of other solutions doesn’t correlate with other solutions potential support for other solutions supports only one solution provides some support for other solutions crucial to implement other solutions Maintenance high regular, requires other resources regular, requires other resources low regular low not needed Ease of developing Effectiveness 68 69 Appendix Table A-6. Evaluated policy and community-based solutions Small or pop-up heat relief centers within communities Free or subsidized transportation options Door-to-door wellness checks by government employees or community groups Improve the building envelope program, and tailor this program to mobile homes Outreach and education programs with mobile home communities Revise and update utility assistance programs and policies to reclassify “mobile” Weighting factor Score (1–5) Total Score (1–5) Total Score (1–5) Total Score (1–5) Total Score (1–5) Total Score (1–5) Total Time to develop 0.063 3 0.189 4 0.252 4 0.252 3 0.189 4 0.252 3 0.189 Price 0.126 3 0.378 3 0.378 3 0.378 5 0.630 4 0.504 5 0.630 Ease of developing 0.181 3 0.543 3 0.543 4 0.724 3 0.543 3 0.543 3 0.543 Effectiveness 0.252 3 0.756 3 0.756 3 0.756 5 1.260 3 0.756 5 1.260 Resilience 0.189 4 0.756 4 0.756 3 0.567 5 0.945 4 0.756 5 0.945 Support of other solutions 0.126 1 0.126 2 0.252 1 0.126 4 0.504 1 0.126 5 0.630 Maintenance 0.063 3 0.189 3 0.189 2 0.126 5 0.315 2 0.126 5 0.315 Criteria Total 70 1 2.937 3.126 2.929 4.386 3.063 4.512 71 Appendix Table A-6 continued Draft statewide legislation that institutes utility shutoff protection Develop or increase shade via zoning requirements Create policies and financial incentives that facilitate the creation of resident-owned cooperative housing Utility conversion program Energy efficiency standards and requirements Home improvement loans Weighting factor Score (1–5) Total Score (1–5) Total Score (1–5) Total Score (1–5) Total Score (1–5) Total Score (1–5) Total Time to develop 0.063 3 0.189 2 0.126 1 0.063 3 0.189 3 0.189 2 0.126 Price 0.126 5 0.630 5 0.630 3 0.378 3 0.378 5 0.630 2 0.252 Ease of developing 0.181 2 0.362 2 0.362 2 0.362 3 0.543 3 0.543 3 0.543 Effectiveness 0.252 5 1.260 5 1.260 5 1.260 5 1.260 5 1.260 5 1.260 Resilience 0.189 5 0.945 5 0.945 5 0.945 5 0.945 5 0.945 5 0.945 Support of other solutions 0.126 4 0.504 5 0.630 5 0.630 5 0.630 5 0.630 5 0.630 Maintenance 0.063 5 0.315 5 0.315 5 0.315 5 0.315 5 0.315 5 0.315 Criteria Total 72 1 2.937 4.268 3.953 4.260 4.512 4.071 73 Appendix Table A-6 continued Social infrastructure and community engagement Heat-resilient community center Put information into AARP bulletin to raise awareness Early detection warning system to notify friends, family, caretakers, etc. when a home is getting too hot Educate public health officials and emergency responders about special vulnerability in mobile homes Mutual aid networks Weighting factor Score (1–5) Total Score (1–5) Total Score (1–5) Total Score (1–5) Total Score (1–5) Total Score (1 –5) Total Time to develop 0.063 3 0.189 3 0.189 4 0.252 3 0.189 5 0.315 3 0.189 Price 0.126 5 0.630 3 0.378 3 0.378 2 0.252 4 0.504 4 0.504 Ease of developing 0.181 3 0.543 3 0.543 3 0.543 2 0.362 4 0.724 3 0.543 Effectiveness 0.252 3 0.756 4 1.008 3 0.756 4 1.008 5 1.260 3 0.756 Resilience 0.189 3 0.567 5 0.945 4 0.756 5 0.945 3 0.567 4 0.756 Support of other solutions 0.126 1 0.126 1 0.126 1 0.126 4 0.504 5 0.630 1 0.126 Maintenance 0.063 5 0.315 3 0.189 5 0.315 3 0.189 4 0.252 4 0.252 Criteria Total 74 1 3.126 3.378 3.126 3.449 4.252 3.126 75 Appendix Table A-6 continued Support for small-dollar home lending markets Criteria Time to develop Greater consumer protections for mobile home buyers Expansion of tenure forms Right of first refusal Weighting factor Score (1–5) Total Score (1–5) Total Score (1–5) Total Score (1–5) 0.063 3 0.189 4 0.252 3 0.189 Great lending support to create a co-operative park Support for real estate conversions Total Score (1–5) Total Score (1–5) 4 0.252 3 0.189 0.630 2 0.252 Tailor home improvement lending products for housing titled as personal property Total Score (1–5) Total 3 0.189 3 0.189 4 0.504 4 0.504 Price 0.126 5 0.630 4 0.504 5 0.630 5 Ease of developing 0.181 3 0.543 4 0.724 3 0.543 5 0.905 3 0.543 3 0.543 3 0.543 Effectiveness 0.252 5 1.260 5 1.260 5 1.260 3 0.756 5 1.260 5 1.260 5 1.260 Resilience 0.189 4 0.756 5 0.945 5 0.945 4 0.756 5 0.945 5 0.945 5 0.945 Support of other solutions 0.126 4 0.504 4 0.504 5 0.630 3 0.378 5 0.630 5 0.630 5 0.630 Maintenance 0.063 5 0.315 3 0.189 5 0.315 5 0.315 4 0.252 5 0.315 4 0.252 Total 76 1 4.197 4.378 4.512 3.126 4.070 4.386 0.252 77 The story of this guide Timeline and discovery process of this project • December 2018 – Utility assistance network analysis and discovery The “aha” moment happened when we discovered that mobile home residents fell between the cracks of utility assistance programs. • Summer 2020 – Innovation challenge with Walton Solutions students summer interns Digging deeper into recommendations by participants and stakeholders to assess discrete solutions. • Summer 2019 – Schmidt Futures project Measuring, surveying and calculating the scope of the heat and health problem. • August 2020 – April 2021 – EPICs student teams Working at the park scale to assess solutions and design sets of ideas in actual park conditions. • January 2020 – Interpretation meeting with mobile home owners and study participants Checking back and sharing the results with participants. • June – August 2021 – Mobile Home Solutions Guide Compiling everything we have learned in a way that can be used by multi-sector actors. • May 27, 2020 – Heat Resilience Solutions Meeting with stakeholders Socializing the results more broadly among actors who might be able to mitigate and respond. • Now – Launching pilot phase effort Mobilizing a community of actors to create prototype solutions based on this exchanged knowledge. 78 79 Partners and stakeholders ASU Academic Unit Partners Knowledge Exchange for Resilience Sponsor Decision Theater Geospatial Research and Solutions Healthy Urban Environments Julie Ann Wrigley Global Futures Laboratory Research Enterprise Rob and Melani Walton Sustainability Solutions School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning Urban Climate Research Center Funding support also received from 80 Community Partners 81 Partners and stakeholders Community Partners 82 83 With special thanks To the families and residents of the parks who co-created this knowledge about the effects of heat, who shared their innovative strategies to stay cool, and inspired this collection of ideas and solutions. 84