You may also like

OPEN ACCESS

Connecting people and place: a new framework
for reducing urban vulnerability to extreme heat
To cite this article: Olga V Wilhelmi and Mary H Hayden 2010 Environ. Res. Lett. 5 014021

View the article online for updates and enhancements.

- Spatial patterns of recent US summertime
heat trends: Implications for heat
sensitivity and health adaptations
Keith R Spangler and Gregory A Wellenius
- Interacting implications of climate change,
population dynamics, and urban heat
mitigation for future exposure to heat
extremes
P Vahmani, Andrew D Jones and Christina
M Patricola
- Environmental change, adaptation
strategies and the relevance of migration
in Sub-Saharan drylands
Charlotte Wiederkehr, Michael Beckmann
and Kathleen Hermans

This content was downloaded from IP address 184.182.36.54 on 11/05/2022 at 00:17

IOP PUBLISHING

ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LETTERS

Environ. Res. Lett. 5 (2010) 014021 (7pp)

doi:10.1088/1748-9326/5/1/014021

Connecting people and place: a new
framework for reducing urban
vulnerability to extreme heat
Olga V Wilhelmi and Mary H Hayden
Integrated Science Program and Research Applications Laboratory, National Center for
Atmospheric Research, 3450 Mitchell Lane, Boulder, CO 80301, USA
E-mail: olgaw@ucar.edu and mhayden@ucar.edu

Received 23 December 2009
Accepted for publication 10 March 2010
Published 26 March 2010
Online at stacks.iop.org/ERL/5/014021
Abstract
Climate change is predicted to increase the intensity and negative impacts of urban heat events,
prompting the need to develop preparedness and adaptation strategies that reduce societal
vulnerability to extreme heat. Analysis of societal vulnerability to extreme heat events requires
an interdisciplinary approach that includes information about weather and climate, the natural
and built environment, social processes and characteristics, interactions with stakeholders, and
an assessment of community vulnerability at a local level. In this letter, we explore the
relationships between people and places, in the context of urban heat stress, and present a new
research framework for a multi-faceted, top-down and bottom-up analysis of local-level
vulnerability to extreme heat. This framework aims to better represent societal vulnerability
through the integration of quantitative and qualitative data that go beyond aggregate
demographic information. We discuss how different elements of the framework help to focus
attention and resources on more targeted health interventions, heat hazard mitigation and
climate adaptation strategies.
Keywords: vulnerability, extreme heat, adaptive capacity, urban, human health

the elderly and children, and projected increases in the severity,
frequency and duration of extreme heat events (Meehl and
Tebaldi 2004, IPCC 2007) may couple to further increase
societal vulnerability to extreme heat.
Previous studies on extreme heat and human health
helped to establish heat–health associations and estimate
threshold temperatures beyond which there are negative
health outcomes (Hajat et al 2006, McGregor et al
2007), provide epidemiological information about heat-related
morbidity and mortality (Yip et al 2008), develop heat
preparedness plans (EPA 2006), and identify vulnerable groups
within the population (Semenza et al 1996, McGeehin and
Mirabelli 2001, O’Neill et al 2003, Uejio et al 2010).
Geographic analysis of social vulnerability to extreme heat
has been commonly conducted using aggregate Census-based
demographic and socio-economic information (Smoyer 1998,
Vescovi et al 2005, Reid et al 2009, Johnson et al 2009).

1. Introduction
More than half of the world’s population lives in cities, where
the combined effect of urban heat islands and summer time
extreme heat events, produce a myriad of negative health
outcomes. Despite advances in meteorological forecasting
capabilities and the widespread prevalence of air conditioning
systems in American cities, extreme heat persists as a threat to
human health. Extreme heat is a leading cause of weatherrelated human mortality in the United States and in many
countries world-wide (Kalkstein and Greene 1997, CDC 2006,
Pengelly et al 2007). Societal vulnerability to extreme heat
has been highlighted during major heat events in Chicago
(Semenza et al 1996), Philadelphia (Voelker 1995), Phoenix
(Yip et al 2008) and across Europe (McGregor et al 2007).
Increasing numbers of residents of expanding urban areas (UN
Habitat Agency 2009), especially such vulnerable groups as
1748-9326/10/014021+07$30.00

1

© 2010 IOP Publishing Ltd Printed in the UK

Environ. Res. Lett. 5 (2010) 014021

O V Wilhelmi and M H Hayden

(see Kinney et al 2008, Gosling et al 2009). But, only relatively
recently, have researchers started to explicitly incorporate
information about social vulnerability in their studies (Smoyer
1998, Guest et al 1999, Chan et al 2001, Harlan et al 2006,
Johnson et al 2009, Reid et al 2009).
Recent advances in geospatial research methods and
analysis tools allow for spatially explicit characterization of
extreme heat vulnerability in urban environments (Wilhelmi
et al 2004). In large sprawling cities, with a highly variable
socio-economic fabric, uneven infrastructure and multiple
housing types, vulnerability is expected to be complex. The
relative importance of the population’s heat health risk factors
has been investigated in several US cities (e.g., Smoyer 1998,
Johnson et al 2009, Uejio et al 2010). These integrated
neighborhood-level studies relied on remotely sensed land
surface data and self-reported, aggregate information from
the US Census (US Census 2000). These case studies
showed that surface temperature, socio-economic vulnerability
and neighborhood stability information can retrospectively be
associated with extreme heat morbidity or mortality cases to
identify first order risk factors and produce spatially variable
zones of elevated heat risk within urban areas (Uejio et al
2010).
Recent and ongoing research on household-level extreme
heat vulnerability, conducted in Phoenix, Arizona (Harlan
et al 2006, Wilhelmi and Hayden 2009), illustrated that while
Census data can summarize important demographic, socioeconomic and housing characteristics on a neighborhood scale,
they cannot fully capture the population’s coping ability,
perceptions, or people- and place-based community resources.
Therefore, in order to have a more complete understanding
of urban vulnerability, the aggregate analysis of demographic
characteristics needs to be supplemented by quantitative and
qualitative analyses of societal adaptive capacity in the context
of heat health outcomes. Here, we present a research
framework that addresses this critical research gap through
explicit characterization of population adaptive capacity and
integration of quantitative and qualitative physical and social
science data at the local level. This is especially relevant in the
context of climate change because previous research has shown
that high adaptive capacity at the national or regional level
may not automatically translate into successful adaptations
to climate change at the local level (O’Brien et al 2006).
Adaptive capacity at the local level is critical to understanding
the vulnerability of urban population, and this argues for
social science field research (e.g., household interviews) in
order to validate researchers’ hypotheses about vulnerability
as perceived through aggregate demographic information.

While these approaches offer useful information about the
geographic distribution of potentially vulnerable ‘hot spots’
in a study region, they are limited in delineating differential
vulnerabilities to extreme heat within neighborhoods and
social groups, due to disproportionate adaptive capacity of
urban residents.
In this letter, we explore the relationships between people
and place, in the context of urban heat stress, and present
a research framework for a multi-faceted, top-down and
bottom-up analysis of local-level vulnerability to extreme heat.
This top-down, bottom-up approach strives to assess critical
community participation in the development of adaptation
strategies and subsequent ownership of these strategies
(bottom-up) while concurrently engaging government officials
(top-down) in the process to ensure program sustainability.
The importance of the role of government in coordinating
efforts cannot be underestimated; because extreme heat is
only one among many health problems faced by residents,
government support is essential if coordination of response
efforts and stimulus to participate in adaptation and mitigation
is to be maintained. For example, visible concern on the
part of government affirms the serious nature of the threat
and validates the need for adaptation efforts at the local level
(Spiegel et al 2005). The likelihood of success is further
enhanced if a wide range of local and regional partners are
engaged in the effort, and government is in an excellent
position to facilitate and broadly extend this process. This
interpretation of a top-down, bottom-up approach incorporates
and enhances the concept of interacting spatial scales of
vulnerability indicators and their external drivers as denoted
by O’Brien et al (2004). In this letter, we discuss how
different elements of the framework help to focus attention and
resources on more targeted health interventions, heat hazard
mitigation and climate adaptation strategies.

2. Extreme heat and urban health
Management of urban health and quality of life is a continuing
challenge because of urban growth. Heat-related mortality and
morbidity result from a combination of stressors from both
natural and human systems. While atmospheric conditions
can create exposure to a heat hazard (Harlan et al 2006,
Smoyer 1998), the features of the human system such as
socio-economic inequality, characteristics of individuals and
communities, building structure and housing density, access to
material resources, and social networks, impact the ability of
human populations to respond to and cope with these exposures
(Harlan et al 2006, Klinenberg 2002, McMichael 2000,
Wilhelmi et al 2004). The climate assessment community
has defined vulnerability as ‘the degree to which a system
is susceptible to injury, damage, or harm’ (Smit et al 2001).
Vulnerability science has evolved over the past few decades
from a concept primarily based on the severity of the natural
hazard itself to a much more comprehensive notion involving
social capital, poverty levels, and access to resources among
other factors (Bankhoff et al 2003, Eakin and Luers 2006).
Research on heat stress and human health has expanded
rapidly since the early 1990s in various academic disciplines

3. Extreme heat vulnerability framework
The extreme heat vulnerability framework was developed
in response to the growing threat of urban heat to human
health; it underscores the urgent need to better understand
underlying societal vulnerability to this hazard. The proposed
analytical framework adopts and expands upon concepts
and definitions from previously proposed more generalized
frameworks (Turner et al 2003, Wilhelmi et al 2004, Adger
2

Environ. Res. Lett. 5 (2010) 014021

O V Wilhelmi and M H Hayden

Figure 1. Extreme heat vulnerability analysis framework.

Recent vulnerability research (Leichenko and O’Brien
2008, Harlan et al 2006) demonstrated that interview- and
stakeholder-based data help contextualize societal vulnerability and validate the mapping and modeling results. Few
studies (e.g., Acosta-Michlik and Rounsevell 2008) have used
interview-based data as input into spatio-temporal models.
We explore these methodological concepts in the context of
human health and heat hazards. The framework suggests that
interview-based household-level data on adaptive capacity are
explicitly incorporated into spatial analysis of vulnerability.
Similar to more generalized frameworks (Turner et al
2003, Patt et al 2008), we define vulnerability of the system
as a function of three interactive components: exposure
(i.e., climate and synoptic weather conditions which are
exacerbated by the reflective, storage, and transportation
characteristics of urban materials and vegetation), sensitivity
(i.e., the extent to which a system or population can absorb
impacts without suffering long-term harm), and adaptive
capacity (the potential of a system or population to modify
its features and behavior so as to better cope with existing
and anticipated stresses). Each component consists of a
set of dynamic, spatially variable indicators, which in turn
are affected by external drivers, such as climate change,
macro-scale socio-economic and environmental stressors and
urbanization trajectories.
For example, the pathway of
urban development (e.g., large-scale urban agglomerations)
can influence urban land use and consequently, the urban
heat island, which affects human exposure to excessive heat
during the day and night. Macro-scale socio-economic
stressors, such as economic downturn, affect sensitivity of
the socio-ecological system, through their impacts on housing,
employment (i.e., decreased neighborhood stability, increased
socio-economic disadvantage, limited household resources for
cooling) and health conditions of individuals (i.e., limited
access to healthcare).

et al 2004, Adger 2006, Cutter et al 2008, Leichenko and
O’Brien 2008, Acosta-Michlik and Rounsevell 2008) and
focuses on societal vulnerability in the context of heat hazard
and human health at the neighborhood scale or the US Census
block group (∼1/4 mi2 , or 65 hectares). The framework
(figure 1) incorporates many of the scientific concepts
published in the natural hazards and climate change literature
and highlights a process of identifying and understanding the
relevant components and indicators of vulnerability of human
health to extreme heat as well as an evaluation of alternative
strategies to manage negative health outcomes.
This framework adds to a growing body of literature on
vulnerability assessments (Turner et al 2003, Eakin and Luers
2006, Patt et al 2008), indicating that societal vulnerability
to urban heat needs to be studied at a local level using topdown and bottom-up spatial scales and scales of decisionmaking. The framework explores relationships of an urban
system using GIS analysis tools, which are a commonly used
by practitioners and the stakeholders. Mapping data to the
local level facilitates ease of use by stakeholders while using
human health as an outcome addresses priorities of public
health officials. Previous heat–health research (Uejio et al
2010) highlighted the need to further delineate differential
vulnerability of urban neighborhoods. Preliminary results
from a case study conducted in Phoenix, Arizona (Wilhelmi
and Hayden 2009) underscore the importance of acquiring
and incorporating local-level, household data in the spatial
analysis. Several recent studies (Johnson et al 2009, Uejio
et al 2010) determined the relative importance of exposure and
sensitivity factors for heat health outcomes, but do not include
population’s adaptive capacity. Research that is specific to
extreme heat and human health (e.g., Klinenberg 2002) and
more generalized approaches to assessing societal vulnerability
(Leichenko and O’Brien 2008) illustrate that adaptive capacity
is critical to an understanding of vulnerability.
3

Environ. Res. Lett. 5 (2010) 014021

O V Wilhelmi and M H Hayden

3.1. Exposure

epidemiological and statistical techniques to understand the
relationship between heat waves, heat-related morbidity, and
mortality and to identify vulnerable groups of people (Smoyer
1998, Chan et al 2001). These case studies demonstrated that
certain groups in the population (e.g., elderly, very young,
obese individuals, people using certain medications, socially
isolated individuals, poor, the mentally ill, those without air
conditioning, outdoor workers) are disproportionately affected
by elevated temperatures (Curriero et al 2002, O’Neill et al
2003, Medina-Ramon et al 2006, O’Neill et al 2005, Kalkstein
and Greene 2007). In the proposed framework, sensitivity
indicators are represented by neighborhood-level quantitative
aggregate demographic data (e.g., per cent of households
living below poverty level) and health conditions (e.g., mental
disability) data.

Intra-urban distribution of heat largely depends on local
climatology and urban meteorology, combined with urban land
use patterns. The term ‘urban heat island’ was introduced
by Manley (1958) and has been extensively used in climate
research primarily to describe warmer temperatures in urban
areas compared to rural surroundings. A temperature gradient
between an urban area and nearby rural land can often reach up
to 10 ◦ C (Oke 1997, Bornstein et al 2006). This phenomenon
is largely attributed to excess heat absorbed and released
from urban non-vegetated surfaces. Within cities, urban core
and commercial districts generally have higher temperatures,
especially during the night, compared to residential and
suburban areas (Brazel et al 2007). As global warming
patterns continue, researchers anticipate increases in the
severity, frequency and duration of extreme heat events (Meehl
and Tebaldi 2004, IPCC 2007). Recent studies on climate
impacts demonstrate that climate change will have differential
consequences in the US at the regional and local scales (IPCC
2007). Meehl and Tebaldi (2004) estimated that areas that
experience the most severe heat events in the present climate,
such as the western and southern US, will have the greatest
increase in heat-wave severity in the second half of the twentyfirst century. They also demonstrated that other areas, such
as the northwest, which currently experiences few heat waves
and is ill prepared to cope with extreme heat, will become
more vulnerable to such events. A combination of existing
urban heat islands and extreme temperatures, either due to local
climate variability (e.g., Phoenix) or due to a heat wave (e.g.,
Chicago) produces a differential distribution of heat in urban
neighborhoods and contributes to the exposure component of
the extreme heat vulnerability framework. Exposure indicators
are represented by quantitative environmental modeled or
measured data that often exist in gridded (e.g., remotely sensed
images or mesoscale weather model outputs) or point (e.g.,
station-based observations) formats.

3.3. Adaptive capacity
Improving health outcomes related to exposure to extreme heat
requires moving beyond the spatial analysis of quantitative
aggregate demographic data toward understanding knowledge,
attitudes and practices (KAP) regarding extreme heat. Because
awareness of extreme heat does not necessarily translate into
action to reduce vulnerability, household-level perceptions of
risk to extreme heat based on home, workplace or recreational
exposure as well as protective behaviors (i.e. avoidance of
heat exposure during the hottest part of the day) need to
be better understood. Documentation of coping mechanisms
such as air conditioning and, in drier climates, evaporative
coolers, air-conditioned transportation, and air-conditioned
shelters in the event of power outages as well as barriers
(i.e. economic constraints) to the use of existing coping
mechanisms are important indicators of vulnerability, yet need
to be collected at the household level. Understanding safety
nets in the form of social networks that connect individuals
to their community resources (people- and place-based)
helps define coping mechanisms through contextualization
of social capital. Smit and Wandel (2006) note that ‘in
the climate change field, adaptations can be considered as
local or community-based adjustments to deal with changing
conditions within the constraints of the broader economic–
social–political arrangements’. This highlights the importance
of scale as internal to the system indicating that what occurs at
the household level also affects the community; this is in turn
influenced by the large-scale forces (e.g., economic downturn)
that shape the ability of individuals to adapt to extreme heat. In
order to associate data on health disparities to a neighborhood
level, it is critical to incorporate the influence of individual
level socio-economic indicators as well as local-level adaptive
capacity/adaptation as determinants of vulnerability to heat
(Pickett and Pearl 2001). Local knowledge systems are
integral to understanding local-level adaptation (IPCC 2007),
and are an understudied dimension of climate change research.
Field research data on individual and household level, both
quantitative (e.g., survey) and qualitative (e.g., interviews)
are necessary for a comprehensive analysis of a population’s
adaptive capacity.

3.2. Sensitivity
There are myriad factors that can influence inequalities and
differential ability to respond to extreme heat, including
material and behavioral constraints and perception of risk.
Perception is often regarded as a precursor to behavior
(D’Andrade 1995), and, as such guides action (Glanz et al
1997). These issues influence sensitivity to extreme heat and
differ spatially by socio-economic status and cultural context.
Vulnerability is not solely dependent on physical proximity to
the source of the hazard, but rather on the interconnectivity
among multi-scale social, cultural, and economic influences
and biophysical location. Neighborhood as well as household
level influences which reflect structural and cultural aspects of
social capital are critical to understanding vulnerability. For
example, those living in urbanized locations may be exposed
to a high environmental heat load, but may also have the
resources to protect themselves against the effects of extreme
heat; conversely, those living in an area with a slightly lower
heat load, may not have the necessary safety nets to withstand
high temperatures. A number of case studies have used
4

Environ. Res. Lett. 5 (2010) 014021

O V Wilhelmi and M H Hayden

adaptation and mitigation strategies.
Community-based
programs have often been viewed as an economical alternative
to government programs. However, the role of government
in coordinating interventions cannot be dismissed—without
a corresponding effort from both the top-down and bottomup, interventions are unlikely to be sustainable (ZielinskiGutierrez and Hayden 2006). Contextualizing vulnerability
can influence the process used to formulate successful
approaches that are targeted locally using resources allocated
according to decisions made at a state or national level. This
process can help with strategies at differing timescales—
whether they involve short-term technological adjustments or
long-term adaptation to climate change.
Integration of quantitative and qualitative data on social
vulnerability and adaptive capacity presents a methodological
advancement in the assessment of vulnerable populations
through geospatial (i.e., Geographic Information Systems, data
mining), statistical and social science (i.e., survey, interviews)
research methods (Wilhelmi and Hayden 2009). In addition,
once typological (i.e., profiles of vulnerable groups) and spatial
patterns of adaptive capacity and vulnerability are understood,
these can be used to better interpret heat stress in other regions,
not as broad homogeneous geographic units, but rather, as
patchwork mosaics of neighborhoods and households within
their regional context. Because urban systems are akin to living
organisms and constantly evolving, this framework emphasizes
an iterative process through integration and updating of
existing knowledge related to social changes, vulnerabilities,
adaptations, and the lessons learned from previous heatwave events. Because of current climate variability and
projected climate change, evolving socio-economic conditions
and adaptation options, the process is, of necessity, iterative.

3.4. Reducing vulnerability to extreme heat
Various combinations of the exposure, sensitivity and adaptive
capacity indicators result in spatially differential negative
impacts on human health. A causal analysis of heat-related
mortality and morbidity allows tracing outward from each
impact to the underlying indicators of vulnerability that
contribute to the resulting impacts. By linking heat health
impacts to possible causal mechanisms on a local level,
the framework provides a mechanism to reduce vulnerability
within a socio-ecological system and affect health impacts,
since it is through responding to its causes that vulnerability
can be effectively addressed (Ribot 1996, Hayes et al
2004). Spatial assessments, common in vulnerability research,
often result in vulnerability index maps, where indices are
constructed as cumulative composites of multiple factors. They
highlight relative vulnerability within an urban boundary, but
do not often provide sufficient information for communities
and policy makers on specific intervention and vulnerability
reduction actions. This framework suggests specific heat
stress adaptation and response strategies to target specific
corresponding indicators of vulnerability (i.e., causes of
impacts, such as lack of resources, social networks or
urban land use) and their relative importance in contributing
to negative health outcomes. This approach requires the
integration of diverse data, both quantitative and qualitative, as
well as flexibility and continuing input from the stakeholders.
Extreme heat mitigation measures and societal adaptation,
which refers to the actual adjustments made to cope with
the stressors, in turn can decrease societal vulnerability
and lessen the negative health impacts from extreme heat.
Current thinking in terms of adaptation and mitigation to
heat stress emphasizes technological interventions such as
improved infrastructure and access to air conditioning (Jones
et al 1982, Semenza et al 1996, McMichael 2000, Klinenberg
2002). However, social and economic inequalities that
exist on a local level (i.e. access to air conditioning, social
isolation) create differential adaptive capacities (McMichael
2000, Klinenberg 2002, O’Brien et al 2004, Harlan et al 2006).
The proposed framework emphasizes that the negative health
outcomes from heat (with and without external drivers) can
be reduced through the coping mechanisms of the individuals,
hazard mitigation actions (e.g., land use planning, communitybased programs, early warning systems) and adaptation to
new conditions through both physical, infrastructure-based and
social measures (Wilhelmi et al 2004, Bernard and Ebi 2001).

5. Conclusions
Social vulnerability to extreme heat can be viewed as
a function of both natural and human systems, which
can be affected by external drivers, (e.g., climate change,
environmental and economic perturbations) coupled with
drivers internal to the system. Negative health outcomes
from heat (with and without external drivers) can be reduced
through the coping mechanisms employed by individuals,
hazard mitigation actions (e.g., land use planning, communitybased programs, early warning systems) and adaptation to
variable conditions through both physical, infrastructurebased and social measures (Wilhelmi et al 2004, Bernard
and Ebi 2001). The extreme heat vulnerability framework
presented in this paper is a step toward including drivers of
vulnerability at multiple scales, connecting people- and placebased vulnerability assessment approaches and enhancing the
ability of communities and stakeholders to develop proactive
programs to mitigate risk and respond efficiently to heat
emergencies.

4. Connecting people and place
To this end, we propose to engage stakeholders from both the
top-down and the bottom-up—this will allow the opportunity
to better understand local-level vulnerability and existing
adaptation toward a goal of targeting limited resources in
order to positively affect health outcomes from extreme heat.
Engagement of stakeholders is not limited to understanding
local-level response to a hazard, but rather challenges the
researcher and public health practitioner to engage the public
at multiple levels, from the household to the state and
national level to ensure the acceptance and validity of proposed

Acknowledgments
The authors are thankful to two anonymous reviewers for their
constructive comments to the earlier version of the manuscript.
5

Environ. Res. Lett. 5 (2010) 014021

O V Wilhelmi and M H Hayden

This work has been conducted at the National Center for
Atmospheric Research (NCAR). NCAR is funded by the
National Science Foundation.

Harlan S L, Brazel A J, Prashad L, Stefanov W L and Larsen L 2006
Neighborhood microclimates and vulnerability to heat stress
Soc. Sci. Med. 63 2847–63
Hayes M J, Wilhelmi O V and Knutson C L 2004 Reducing drought
risk: bridging theory and practice Nat. Hazards Rev. 5 106–13
IPCC 2007 Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ed
S Solomon, D Qin, M Manning, Z Chen, M Marquis,
K B Averyt, M Tignor and H L Miller (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press) p 996
Johnson D P, Wilson J S and Luber G C 2009 Socioeconomic
indicators of heat-related health risk supplemented with
remotely sensed data Int. J. Health Geogr. 8 57
Jones T S et al 1982 Morbidity and mortality associated with the July
1980 heat wave in St Louis and Kansas City, MO J. Am. Med.
Assoc. 247 3327–31
Kalkstein L S and Greene J S 1997 An evaluation of
climate/mortality relationships in large US cities and the
possible impacts of a climate change Environ. Health Perspect.
105 84–93
Kalkstein L S and Greene J S 2007 An Analysis of Potential
Heat-Related Mortality Increases in US Cities under a
Business-as-Usual Climate Change Scenario Online report:
www.environmenttexas.org/uploads/wA/rp/
wArp5arDdy3D1lcnBHsC-A/Heat-Mortality-Report.pdf
Kinney P L, O’Neill M S, Bell M L and Schwartz J 2008 Approaches
for estimating effects of climate change on heat-related deaths:
challenges and opportunities Environ. Sci. Policy 11 87–96
Klinenberg E 2002 Heat Wave: A Social Autopsy of Disaster in
Chicago (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press)
Leichenko R and O’Brien K 2008 Mapping double exposure to
climate change and trade liberalization as an awareness-raising
tool Assessing Vulnerability to Global Environmental Change
ed A G Patt, D Schroter, R J T Klein and A C Vega-Leinert
(Sterling, VA: Earthscan) chapter 8, pp 133–46
Manley G 1958 On the frequency of snowfall in metropolitan
England Quart. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 84 70–2
McGeehin M and Mirabelli M 2001 The potential impacts of climate
variability and change on temperature-related morbidity and
mortality in the United States Environ. Health Perspect.
109 185–9
McGregor G R, Pelling M, Wolf T and Gosling S 2007 Social
impacts of heat-waves Science Report SC020061/SR6 UK
Environment Agency
McMichael A J 2000 The urban environment and health in a world of
increasing globalization: issues for developing countries Bull.
World Health Organ. 78 1117–26
Medina-Ramon M, Zanobetti A, Cavanagh D P and Schwartz J 2006
Extreme temperature and mortality: assessing effect
modification by personal characteristics and specific cause of
death in multi-city case-only analyses Environ. Health Perspect.
114 1331–6
Meehl G A and Tebaldi C 2004 More intense, more frequent, and
longer lasting heat waves in the 21st century Science 305 994–7
O’Brien K et al 2004 Mapping vulnerability to multiple stressors:
climate change and globalization in India Glob. Environ.
Change 14 303–13
O’Brien K L, Eriksen S, Sygna L and Næss L O 2006 Questioning
complacency: climate change impacts, vulnerability and
adaptation in Norway Ambio 35 50–6
Oke T R 1997 Urban climates and global environmental change
Applied Climatology: Principles and Practice ed
R D Thompson and A Perry (London: Routledge) pp 273–87
O’Neill M S, Zanobetti A and Schwartz J 2003 Modifiers of the
temperature and mortality association in seven US cities Am. J.
Epidemiol. 157 1074–82
O’Neill M S, Zanobetti A and Schwartz J 2005 Disparities by race in
heat-related mortality in four US cities: the role of air
conditioning prevalence J. Urban Health 82 191–7

References
Acosta-Michlik L and Rounsevell M 2008 An agent-based
framework for assessing vulnerability futures Assessing
Vulnerability to Global Environmental Change ed A G Patt,
D Schroter, R J T Klein and A C Vega-Leinert (Sterling, VA:
Earthscan) chapter 9, pp 147–71
Adger N 2006 Resilience, vulnerability, and adaptation: a
cross-cutting theme of the international human dimensions
programme on global environmental change Glob. Environ.
Change 16 268–81
Adger N, Brooks N, Bentham G, Agnew M and Eriksen S 2004 New
indicators of vulnerability and adaptive capacity Tyndall Center
for Climate Change Research Technical Report 7 p 122
Bankhoff G, Frerks S and Hillhorst D 2003 Mapping Vulnerability
(Sterling, VA: Earthscan) p 236
Bernard S M and Ebi K L 2001 Comments on the process of the
health impacts assessment component of the national
assessment of the potential consequences of climate variability
and change in the United States Environ. Health Perspect.
109 (Suppl. 2) 177–84
Bornstein R et al 2006 Modeling the effects of land-use/land-cover
modifications on the urban heat island phenomena in Houston,
Texas Final report to David Hitchcock Houston Advanced
Research Center 100pp
Brazel A J, Gober P, Lee S, Grossman-Clarke S, Zehnder J,
Hedquist B and Comparri E 2007 Dynamics and determinants
of urban heat island change (1990–2004) with Phoenix,
Arizona, USA Clim. Res. 33 171–82
Centers for Disease Control (CDC) 2006 Heat-related
deaths—United States, 1999–2003 Mortal. Morb. Weekly Rep.
55 796–8
Chan N Y, Stacey M T, Smith A E, Ebi K L and Wilson T F 2001
An empirical mechanistic framework for heat related illness
Clim. Res. 16 133–43
Curriero F C, Heiner K S, Samet J M, Zeger S L, Strug L and
Patz J A 2002 Temperature and mortality in 11 cities of the
eastern United States Am. J. Epidemiol. 155 80–7
Cutter S L, Barnes L, Berry M, Burton C, Evans E, Tate E and
Webb J 2008 A place-based model for understanding
community resilience to natural disasters Glob. Environ.
Change 18 598–606
D’Andrade R 1995 The Development of Cognitive Anthropology
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
Eakin H and Luers A 2006 Assessing the vulnerability of
social-environmental systems Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour.
31 6.1–30
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2006 Excessive Heat Events
Guidebook. EPA Report www.epa.gov/hiri/about/pdf/
EHEguide final.pdf
Glanz K, Marcus Lewis F and Rimer B K 1997 Theory at a Glance:
A Guide for Health Promotion Practice National Institutes of
Health, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD
Gosling S N, Lowe J A, McGregor G R, Pelling M and
Malamud B D 2009 Associations between elevated atmospheric
temperature and human mortality: a critical review of the
literature Clim. Change 92 299–341
Guest C S, Willson K, Woodward A J, Hennessy K, Kalkstein L S,
Skinner C and McMichael A J 1999 Climate and mortality in
Australia: retrospective study, 1979–90, and predicted impacts
in five major cities in 2030 Clim. Res. 13 1–15
Hajat S, Armstrong B, Baccini M, Biggeri A, Bisanti L, Russo A,
Paldy A, Menne B and Kosatsky T 2006 Impact of high
temperatures on mortality: is there an added heat wave effect?
Epidemiology 17 632–8

6

Environ. Res. Lett. 5 (2010) 014021

O V Wilhelmi and M H Hayden

Spiegel J, Bennett S, Hattersley L, Hayden M H, Kittayapong P,
Nalim S, Wang D, Zielinski-Gutierrez E and Gubler D 2005
Barriers and bridges to prevention and control of dengue: the
need for a social-ecological approach EcoHealth 2 273–90
Turner B L II et al 2003 Illustrating the coupled human-environment
system for vulnerability analysis: three case studies Proc. Natl
Acad. Sci. 100 8080–5
Uejio C K, Wilhelmi O V, Golden J S, Mills D M, Gulino S P and
Samenow J P 2010 Intra-urban societal vulnerability to extreme
heat: the role of the built environment, socioeconomics, and
neighborhood stability Environ. Health Perspect. to be
submitted
US Census Bureau 2000 Census 2000 Online at: http://factfinder.
census.gov/home/saff/main.html? lang=en
UN Habitat Agency 2009 Urbanization: A Turning Point in History
Online at: www.unhabitat.org/downloads/docs/4631 89382
GC%2021%20Urbanization%20a%20Turning%20Point.pdf
Vescovi L, Rebetez M and Rong F 2005 Assessing public health risk
due to extremely high temperature events: climate and social
parameters Clim. Res. 30 71–8
Voelker R 1995 Probe of heat wave deaths under way J. Am. Med.
Assoc. 274 595–6
Wilhelmi O and Hayden M 2009 Bridging social and geo-sciences
data with GIS Eos Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 90 (Fall Mtg
Suppl.) Abstract IN12A-08
Wilhelmi O V, Purvis K L and Harriss R C 2004 Designing a
geospatial information infrastructure for the mitigation of heat
wave hazards in urban areas Nat. Hazards Rev. 5 147–58
Yip F Y, Flanders W D, Wolkin A, Engelthaler D, Humble W,
Neri A, Lewis L, Backer L and Rubin C 2008 The impact of
excess heat events in Maricopa County, Arizona: 2000–2005
Int. J. Biometeorol. 52 765–72
Zielinski-Gutierrez E C and Hayden M H 2006 A model for defining
West Nile virus risk perception based on ecology and proximity
EcoHealth 3 28–34

Patt A G, Schroter D, Klein R J T and Vega-Leinert A C 2008
Assessing Vulnerability to Global Environmental Change
(Sterling, VA: Earthscan) p 258
Pengelly L D, Campbell M E, Cheng C S, Chao F, Gingrich S E and
Macfarlane R 2007 Anatomy of heat waves and mortality in
Toronto: lessons for public health protection Rev. Can. Sante
Publique 98 364–8
Pickett K E and Pearl M 2001 Multi-level analyses of neighbourhood
socio-economic context and health outcomes: a critical review
J. Epidemiol. Commun. Health 55 111–22
Reid C E, O’Neill M S, Gronlund C J, Brines S J, Brown D G,
Diez-Roux A V and Schwartz J 2009 Mapping community
determinants of heat vulnerability Environ. Health Perspect.
117 1730–6
Ribot J C 1996 Climate variability, climate change, and vulnerability:
moving forward by looking back Climate Variability, Climate
Change, and Social Vulnerability in the Semi-Arid Tropics ed
J C Ribot, A R Magalhaes and S S Panagides (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press) pp 1–10
Semenza J C, Rubin C H, Falter K H, Selanikio J D, Flanders W D,
Howe H L and Wilhelm J L 1996 Heat-related deaths during the
July 1996 heat wave in Chicago New Engl. J. Med. 335 84–90
Smit B, Pilifosova O, Burton I, Challenger B, Huq S, Klein R J T and
Yohe G 2001 Adaptation to climate change in the context of
sustainable development and equity Climate Change 2001:
Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of the
Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ed J J McCarthy,
O Canziani, N A Leary, D J Dokken and K S White
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) pp 877–912
Smit B and Wandel J 2006 Adaptation, adaptive capacity, and
vulnerability Glob. Environ. Change 16 282–92
Smoyer K E 1998 Putting risk in its place: methodological
considerations for investigating extreme event health risk Soc.
Sci. Med. 47 1809–24

7