Prioritizing urban heat adaptation infrastructure based on multiple outcomes: Comfort, health, and energy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Globally, cities face increasing extreme heat, impacting comfort, health, and energy consumption. Infrastructure-based heat adaptation strategies can improve these outcomes, but each strategy has a unique mix of benefits and drawbacks. Here, we apply an urbanized meteorological model (WRF) with the newly integrated multilayer BEP-Tree street tree model to dynamically downscale Earth System Model projections and a 3-D microclimate model (TUF-Pedestrian) to simulate the street-scale radiation environment impacting pedestrians. We evaluate the performance of five heat adaptation strategies (street trees, cool roofs, green roofs, rooftop photovoltaics (PV), and reflective pavements) during extreme heat events in three cities with contrasting background climates (Toronto, Phoenix, and Miami), under contemporary and end-of-century projected climates, based on three metrics: outdoor heat stress, air conditioning (AC) energy use, and ventilation of vehicular air pollution. No single adaptation strategy improves all three outcomes. While street trees inhibit ventilation, they reduce outdoor heat stress four times more effectively than the next best strategy via shade provision, fully offsetting heat stress increases under a high-emissions end-of-century climate scenario in all cities studied. Cool roofs and green roofs moderately reduce heat stress and energy use. Alternatively, rooftop PV with energy storage can generate sufficient power for space cooling but have marginal effects on heat stress. Reflective pavements are the least effective across metrics. Where the ventilation of street-level emissions is of less concern, our results clearly support the combination of street trees and rooftop PV as a highly complementary and effective means of adaptive mitigation across different climates and neighborhood densities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".