Built Environment, Urban Systems, and Cities

Meridith M. Fry; Eric K. Chu; Jayajit Chakraborty; So-Min Cheong; Christopher Clavin; Makena Coffman; David M. Hondula; David Hsu; Viniece L. Jennings; Jesse M. Keenan; Ann Kosmal; Tischa A. Muñoz-Erickson; Na’Taki Osborne Jelks

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Previous Chapter

View All Figures

Next Chapter

The built environment and cities are major drivers of climate change. Urban development patterns can exacerbate climate impacts, such as increases in heat and flooding, with risks unevenly distributed across populations. Cities across the country are reducing emissions, adapting to impacts, and collaborating on more inclusive planning and governance, although long-term efforts can be hampered by resource and capacity constraints.

The built environment includes human-made or modified landscapes, structures, and infrastructure systems that bring together people, services, and economic activities. This chapter focuses on the built environment found in and around cities and suburbs across the country, where most Americans live and work. Cities and urban areas are also a key part of the country’s culture, nature, and historical heritage. The choices that we make today in cities, suburbs, and the built environment to address climate change will affect the livelihoods, well-being, and quality of life for all Americans in the future.

Authors

Federal Coordinating Lead Author: Meridith M. Fry, US Environmental Protection Agency
Chapter Lead Author: Eric K. Chu, University of California, Davis
Chapter Authors: Jayajit Chakraborty, University of Texas at El Paso; So-Min Cheong, Texas A&M University; Christopher Clavin, National Institute of Standards and Technology (until October 2022); Makena Coffman, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, Department of Urban and Regional Planning; David M. Hondula, City of Phoenix, Arizona; David Hsu, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Viniece L. Jennings, Agnes Scott College; Jesse M. Keenan, Tulane University; Ann Kosmal, US General Services Administration; Tischa A. Muñoz-Erickson, USDA Forest Service, International Institute of Tropical Forestry; Na’Taki Osborne Jelks, Spelman College

Contributors

Technical Contributors: Kristin Baja, Urban Sustainability Directors Network; Michele Barbato, University of California, Davis; Joyce Coffee, Climate Resilience Consulting; Juan F. Fung, National Institute of Standards and Technology; Adrienne I. Greve, California Polytechnic State University; Kevin R. Gurney, Northern Arizona University; Mathew Hauer, Florida State University; Joe Krolak, US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration; Victoria L. Ludwig, US Environmental Protection Agency; A. Marissa Matsler, US Environmental Protection Agency, Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education; Sara Meerow, Arizona State University; Chandana Mitra, Auburn University; Kimberly L. Mueller, National Institute of Standards and Technology; Christopher J. Narducci, ICF; Daniel S. Sharar-Salgado, US Department of Transportation; Hua Shi, US Geological Survey, Earth Resources Observation and Science Center/ASRC Federal Data Solutions; Yating Zhang, National Institute of Standards and Technology
Review Editor: Austin N. Glass, University of Michigan
USGCRP Coordinators: Aaron M. Grade, US Global Change Research Program / ICF; Allyza R. Lustig, US Global Change Research Program / ICF

Recommended Citation

Chu, E.K., M.M. Fry, J. Chakraborty, S.-M. Cheong, C. Clavin, M. Coffman, D.M. Hondula, D. Hsu, V.L. Jennings, J.M. Keenan, A. Kosmal, T.A. Muñoz-Erickson, and N.T.O. Jelks, 2023: Ch. 12. Built environment, urban systems, and cities. In: Fifth National Climate Assessment. Crimmins, A.R., C.W. Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock, Eds. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA. https://doi.org/10.7930/NCA5.2023.CH12

Download citation: BibTeX | RIS

Climate change has multiple and compounding effects on cities and the built environment. Cities and urban areas are notable drivers of climate change through the creation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from human consumption and land-use change (KM 12.1). Attributes of the built environment also influence local and regional climates, which are further impacted by climate change. Across the country, cities face rising temperatures and sea levels, as well as changes in extreme events such as droughts, wildfires, extreme precipitation, flooding, and heatwaves (KM 12.2). Climate change is projected to have cascading effects on critical energy, transportation, communication, and supply chain systems (Chs. 5, 13, 18; Focus on Risks to Supply Chains). Climate projections also show demographic and land-use changes and uneven distribution of climate change risk (Chs. 2, 3). Urban infrastructure will be further strained by climate change unless effective GHG mitigation and climate adaptation actions are undertaken.

Many city governments are planning for short- and medium-term climate risks to protect their economies and the well-being of communities and residents (KM 12.3). These plans involve forward-looking infrastructure designs, land use and zoning, building codes, decision support tools, and services to ensure residents’ quality of life. However, implementation of these actions is uneven and limited in scale and often lacks long-term vision (Chs. 31, 32), and not all city governments recognize the inequities experienced by overburdened communities. Persistent gaps in the provision of health services, housing, food, transportation, employment opportunities, and green spaces put already-overburdened communities at a greater risk of adverse climate impacts.

The recent growth in the number of local and community-led approaches points toward the potential for more inclusive planning and implementation of climate actions (KM 12.4). Still, without evidence-based strategies to evaluate climate actions, cities risk investing in infrastructures and built environment systems that lock in future urban GHG emissions, underperform or have shortened life spans, and exacerbate adverse climate risks to overburdened communities.

Urban Areas Are Major Drivers of Climate Change

Consumption of food, energy, water, and materials is a major driver of global climate change, and these consumption activities are disproportionately concentrated in urban and suburban areas .

Human consumption and economic activity in urban and suburban areas across the country contribute a significant portion of total US GHG emissions and other air pollutants.¹^,²^,³ The precise proportion of emissions from urban areas depends on their definition as well as the attribution of emissions from consumption (upstream), waste (downstream), and the import and export of goods and services (indirect emissions) to urban areas.⁴^,⁵ Emissions are also unevenly distributed among cities, with the largest 10 cities plus the top 5% of suburbs accounting for more than half of all emissions in the country.⁶

Cities have large GHG emissions in absolute terms (i.e., total emissions). Approximately 70% of urban GHG emissions come from building energy consumption, fuel for transport, industry, electricity supply, and construction (Figure 12.1).⁵^,⁷^,⁸ While high population densities in urban areas may correspond to lower per capita emissions, this metric usually does not capture the full extent of indirect emissions and consumption by urban residents as well as spatial variation within urban areas.³^,⁹

Two panels, each showing maps of the contiguous US, Alaska, and Hawaii as well as boxes showing data for the US Caribbean and US-Affiliated Pacific Islands, illustrate annual fossil fuel greenhouse gas emissions from built environment systems, as described in the text and caption. The left panel, titled “total emissions,” shows emissions for points on the maps, with values ranging from less than or equal to 0.5 (small pale yellow circle) to greater than 300 (large blue circle) million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. Most of Western US, Alaska, and Hawaii show emissions in the 0.5 range. The exceptions are large urban areas, particularly in California and some agricultural regions, which show emissions of up to 300 or more. The eastern US generally shows higher rates, up to 300 million metric tons or more, with the highest rates in urban areas in Texas, Southern Florida, the upper Midwest, and the Eastern Seaboard. Emissions for the US Caribbean and US-affiliated Pacific Islands (represented by colored squares just above the legend) are mostly in the 0.5 to 1.5 range, though Puerto Rico emissions are greater than 10 million metric tons. The right panel, titled “Per capita emissions,” shows emissions in metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, ranging from less than or equal to 15 metric tons (small pale yellow circle) to greater than or equal to 300 metric tons (large blue circle). Per capita emissions are highest in the Northern and Southern Great Plains, with the highest rates—300 metric tons or more—in western and southern Texas. High rates are also high for western parts off the Southeast and for the Midwest. Alaska, the US Caribbean, Hawaii, and the US-Affiliated Pacific Islands have low per capita emissions, generally less than 20 metric tons.

Urban and suburban areas contribute the majority of total greenhouse gas emissions through their consumption and populations.

Figure 12.1. The maps show the total (a) and per capita (b) emissions, measured in millions of metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂-eq) and metric tons of CO₂-eq per person, respectively. Total GHG emissions across the country are concentrated in cities and suburban areas. However, per capita emissions levels of urban and suburban residents are relatively lower compared to rural areas, although measurements usually omit indirect emissions by urban residents or the variations in their consumption levels. Emissions sources included are from electricity and natural gas used by residential, commercial, and industrial buildings, together with gasoline and diesel fuel used by on-road transportation, but do not include consumption of food, water, and materials. Data for the 50 states plus DC are by county or county equivalent for the year 2016. Data for Palau (PW), Guam (GU), Republic of the Marshall Islands (MH), Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), American Sāmoa (AS), US Virgin Islands (VI), and Puerto Rico (PR) are territory-wide—all for the year 2019 except FSM, whose data is from 2017. Commensurate data for the Northern Mariana Islands (MP) is not available. Figure credit: University of California, Davis; Northern Arizona University; NOAA NCEI; and CISESS NC.

Total emissions from urban areas may continue to grow with urban population. Figure 12.2 illustrates projected changes in US population to 2100 for urban and rural areas. Higher incomes and lower population densities relate to higher residential energy use, including transportation GHG emissions.¹⁰^,¹¹ All of these observations indicate that if urban areas continue to grow in population, extent, and level of wealth as expected, their total emissions will also increase unless these linkages can be changed through mitigation.

Urban areas constitute a significant majority of the total US population in all future scenarios.

Figure 12.2. Panel (a) shows projected changes in urban (including suburban) and rural population in the US from 2020 to 2100 based on Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs), along with modeled scenario uncertainties in shaded areas. SSPs describe potential futures of greenhouse gas emissions and economic development, so the range of uncertainty is bounded by the overall impact of climate interventions over time. Panel (b) shows the proportional split between urban and rural populations based on an average SSP scenario. It shows that the proportion of urban population is expected to increase over time. Such a trend highlights the importance of reducing emissions in urban areas and the built infrastructure systems that concentrate in and around cities. Demographic data are available only for the 50 states plus DC and not available for the US Caribbean or US-Affiliated Pacific Islands. More extensive discussions of regional data availability constraints can be found in Chapters 23 and 30. Figure credit: University of California, Davis; Florida State University; Massachusetts Institute of Technology; NOAA NCEI; and CISESS NC.

Attributes of the Built Environment Exacerbate Climate Impacts, Risks, and Vulnerabilities

Urban development patterns can exacerbate climate change impacts such as increases in heat and flooding . Climate change is amplifying existing loads and stressors on the built environment, and this is expected to continue . Urban areas face elevated risk as both people and the built environment are exposed to climate hazards, and these risks are distributed unevenly across the population .

Urban development patterns—resulting from past decisions about urban land use—significantly influence local and regional environments (Ch. 6), and these patterns can exacerbate the local effects of climate change. Depending on the type of built environment, both urban growth and land-use change have impacted and will continue to impact surface and ambient air temperature,¹²^,¹³^,¹⁴^,¹⁵^,¹⁶^,¹⁷ local and regional humidity,¹⁸^,¹⁹ wind patterns,²⁰ precipitation,²¹^,²²^,²³ flooding (KM 4.1),²⁴^,²⁵^,²⁶ dispersion of air pollutants,²²^,²⁷ intensity of storm surges, and amount of sea level rise.²⁸ Figure 12.3 shows several examples of common built environment types—also termed local climate zones (LCZs)—found in cities and suburbs across the country.

A table-like infographic with text, illustrations, and photos of urban areas show urban climate zones (abbreviated LCZ) and built environment typologies and morphologies, as described in the text and caption. The top row shows category LCZ1, compact high rise, with an illustration of densely clustered tall buildings and photographs of downtown Seattle and downtown Chicago. The second row shows category LCZ2, compact mid-rise, with an illustration of densely clustered 3- to 7-story buildings and photographs of Washington, DC, and Charleston, South Carolina. The third row shows category LCZ3, compact low-rise, with an illustration of tightly clustered 2- to 4-story buildings and photographs of Jacksonville, Florida, and Anchorage, Alaska. The fourth row shows category LCZ6, open low-rise, with an illustration of a suburban cul-de-sac with single-family homes on large lots with lawns and trees, as well as photographs of Salt Lake City and Tucson. The bottom row shows category LCZ10, heavy industry, with an illustration of factory buildings and photographs of Long Beach, California, and Texas City, Texas.

Cities across the US include multiple types of built environments, ranging from dense urban cores to much less dense suburbs.

Figure 12.3. This figure illustrates five examples of a land-use and land-cover classification scheme called local climate zones (LCZs).²⁹ The scheme includes 10 classes and assumes that neighborhoods of the same LCZ are similar in their ability to modify urban climate and are different from neighborhoods of other LCZs. Residents living and working in more compact neighborhoods with a high density of mid- and high-rise buildings are more likely to experience urban heat islands, as buildings retain heat and prevent ventilation. Industrial areas also see higher temperatures because of the lack of shade from tree cover and the ways dark pavement or asphalt can trap heat. The examples shown in this figure are for illustrative purposes only. Adapted from Masson et al. 2020³⁰ [CC BY 4.0]. Photo credits: (Seattle) july7th/E+; (Chicago) Arial_Bold/iStock; (Washington, DC) Lingbeek/E+; (Charleston) Kruck20/iStock; (Jacksonville) Art Wager/E+; (Anchorage and Tucson) Jacob Boomsma/iStock; (Salt Lake City) olaser/iStock; (Long Beach) Jorge Villalba/iStock; (Texas City) Art Wager/iStock. All photos via Getty Images.

Changes in design, form, and mass of buildings and configurations of streets, open green spaces, and water features—as well as their interactions—have direct effects on urban temperature and energy demand (Figure 12.4).⁵^,³¹^,³²^,³³ For example, average daytime land surface temperatures in Las Vegas are approximately 3.6°F (2°C) higher in areas classified as heavy industry than those classified as high-rise. Nighttime air temperatures, in particular, are expected to be higher across many urban areas due to radiant heat and heat conductance from buildings (Figure 12.5).³⁴^,³⁵

A bar chart shows the local effects of different factors on warming or cooling in urban areas, on a range from negative 6 to positive 4 degrees Fahrenheit, as described in the text and caption. A hatched portion of each bar indicates how the effects of each factor vary depending on the local climate. City geometry (building density, city layout, height, and size) has a warming effect of slightly more than 2 degrees, with local variation of plus or minus about one additional degree. Heat from human activities (domestic/industrial heating) has a warming effect of just under 2 degrees, with local variation of plus or minus about 0.5 degrees. The heat-retaining properties of buildings and road materials have a warming effect of just over 1 degree, with local variation of plus or minus about 1 degree. Water (seas, rivers, lakes, and irrigation) have a cooling effect of nearly 2 degrees, with local variation of plus or minus about 0.5 degrees. Vegetation (parks, forests, gardens) has a cooling effect of about 3 degrees, with local variation of plus or minus about 3 degrees. Text notes that cities often lack vegetation and water.

Different aspects of the built environment affect temperatures in urban areas.

Figure 12.4. Cities are often warmer than their surroundings because of the urban heat island effect—the prevalence of higher air temperatures in urban areas because of the overall density of buildings, heat absorbed and emitted by buildings and asphalt, and heat from commercial, industrial, and household activities. The hatched portions of the bars show how the effects of warming or cooling of each factor vary depending on the local climate context. For example, vegetation has a stronger cooling effect in temperate and warm climates. Adapted with permission from FAQ 10.2, Figure 1 of Doblas-Reyes et al. 2021.³⁶

Line graph is superimposed on an illustration of a landscape with rural areas at far left and right, suburban areas at center left and right, and downtown and other urban areas at center, with cars and roadway in the foreground. The y-axis is labeled “late afternoon temperature,” with values from 85 to 92 degrees Fahrenheit on the left y-axis and 30 to 33 degrees Celsius on the right y-axis. The dashed line shows that temperatures are generally lowest in rural areas, warmer in suburban areas, somewhat cooler in urban park areas, even warmer in urban residential areas, and warmest in downtown areas. Temperature ranges are as follows: rural and rural farmland, 85 degrees Fahrenheit. Suburban residential, about 87 degrees. Commercial and urban residential, between 88 and 89 degrees. Park, about 86.5 degrees. Downtown, 92 degrees.

Urban heat islands are most prominent in dense downtown areas with little access to open space.

Figure 12.5. The figure illustrates temperature fluctuations across natural and built environments in a typical late afternoon in the summertime. Downtown areas with dense high-rise buildings experience the heat island effect because concrete and asphalt absorb and retain heat. Waste heat from cars, air-conditioning, and other human activities also contribute to the heat island effect. Cooler temperatures are found around urban parks, green spaces, open land, and in suburbs and rural areas. The temperature lines are shown for illustrative purposes and do not represent the climate in a particular city. Figure credit: ©Heat Island Group, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Adapted with permission.

Climate change creates negative and cascading effects on the built environment, with many infrastructure systems either projected or observed to be at risk of failing.³⁷^,³⁸^,³⁹^,⁴⁰ Temperature extremes also increase the energy demand of buildings as well as GHG emissions and air pollution.⁴¹ Flooding overwhelms stormwater systems,⁴² corrodes structures, scours foundations, and worsens indoor air quality through mold and bacteria.⁴³ Flooding can also inundate critical digital communication and internet infrastructure.⁴⁴^,⁴⁵^,⁴⁶ In addition, extreme heat and precipitation reduce the life expectancy of road pavements and tarmac surfaces (Ch. 13), and wildfire smoke reduces the life expectancy of heating, air-conditioning, ventilation, and filtration systems.⁴⁷

Art × Climate

Abhijeet Shrivastava
Cities and Climate Change
(2022, charcoal)

Artist’s statement: This artwork portrays a city ravaged by the devastating effects of climate change. Floodwaters and debris have taken over the streets, while plumes of smoke from wildfire fill the air. It serves as a stark warning of the potential consequences if we fail to address the root causes of these hazards and protect our communities from their impact. I am passionately dedicated to tackling these challenges head-on and call on all of us to take urgent action to mitigate the effects of climate change before it's too late.

View the full Art × Climate gallery.

Artworks and artists’ statements are not official Assessment products.

Many infrastructure systems across the country are deteriorating and at the end of their intended useful life, and many of these are not designed to cope with additional loading due to climate change.⁴⁸^,⁴⁹ Climate change has significant structural implications for buildings,⁵⁰^,⁵¹ as well as different risks to public, historic, and cultural assets.⁵²^,⁵³ Many model building codes have incorporated some hazard mitigation and climate adaptation elements; however, there remains insufficient progress in incorporating these standards at the state and local levels and in developing comprehensive architectural, design, and engineering codes and standards that enable adaptation to a wide variety of climate impacts.⁴⁸^,⁵⁴^,⁵⁵^,⁵⁶^,⁵⁷^,⁵⁸

Long-term climate uncertainties will also affect future construction and maintenance of dams, levees, bridges, stormwater systems, electrical distribution systems, and building enclosures, as well as the protection of historic assets.⁵⁹^,⁶⁰^,⁶¹^,⁶²^,⁶³ Impairment, damage, and failure across infrastructure systems are often not monitored, evaluated, or publicly disclosed within the context of climate change.⁶⁴ New stressors such as human migration (KMs 20.3, 28.4, 30.3),⁶⁵ supply chain disruptions (Focus on Risks to Supply Chains),⁶⁶^,⁶⁷^,⁶⁸ and the COVID-19 pandemic (Focus on COVID-19 and Climate Change) all highlight the interdependent vulnerabilities of infrastructure.

Observed and anticipated climate changes disproportionately burden low-wealth communities, groups that are historically excluded from decision-making, and individuals with lower educational access (Ch. 20; KM 9.2).⁶⁹^,⁷⁰^,⁷¹ Low-wealth neighborhoods are more exposed to heat extremes (Figure 12.6; Ch. 15),⁷²^,⁷³^,⁷⁴ where hot weather leads not only to physical discomfort for many people but also higher rates of illness and death.⁷⁵^,⁷⁶^,⁷⁷ Flood risk across the country is expected to increase disproportionately for census tracts with higher Black and Hispanic populations.⁷⁸^,⁷⁹ These disproportionate impacts are in part a consequence of exclusionary development practices such as redlining. Exclusionary housing practices—which persist today—leave overburdened communities with lower access to heat-reduction strategies such as urban trees and green space, as well as to broader economic and social resources.⁷³^,⁸⁰

Another example of the uneven impact of climate change on the built environment is the deteriorating indoor air quality experienced by people living in neighborhoods with substandard housing. This includes exposure to allergens such as mold and dust ⁸¹ and pollutants such as carbon dioxide ⁸² and nitrogen dioxide.⁸³ In wildfire-prone regions, indoor air quality is additionally compromised by smoke (Ch. 28; Focus on Western Wildfires). There are also potential negative mental health outcomes from decreases in social interaction and physical activity when people are confined indoors to avoid temperature extremes.⁸⁴

Three maps and three scatter plots show average maximum land surface temperature and its relationship to median household income for three cities. Panels (a), (b), and (c) show land surface temperatures in 2020 for, respectively, Atlanta, Houston, and Minneapolis. A legend shows temperature from a low of 63 degrees Fahrenheit (blue) to a high of 127 degrees (red). The Atlanta map shows values in the urban center in the range of 90 to 110 degrees, falling down to the 60s in the city’s periphery. Houston shows considerably higher values, with large areas in the 120s, again with cooler areas on the outer fringes of the map. Minneapolis is considerably cooler, with some values in the 100° range but far more areas in the 60° to 80° range, especially in western and northern parts of the city. Panels (d), (e), and (f) are scatterplots for, respectively, Atlanta, Houston, and Minneapolis, with median household income from $20,000 to $260,000 on the x-axis. Black dots show individual data points, and red lines show the estimated trend analysis. In Atlanta, the average maximum land surface temperature falls from over 100 degrees Fahrenheit for incomes of $20,000 to about 95 degrees for incomes of $260,000. In Houston, the average maximum land surface temperature falls from over 110 degrees for incomes of $20,000 to about 105 degrees for incomes of $260,000. In Minneapolis, the average maximum land surface temperature falls from about 104 degrees for incomes of $20,000 to about 85 degrees for incomes of $260,000.

Lower-income urban neighborhoods experience higher surface temperatures.

Figure 12.6. The figure shows the spatial distribution of maximum land surface temperature (LST) in 2020 for Atlanta (a), Houston (b), and Minneapolis (c). Graphs (d), (e), and (f) depict the relationship between maximum LST and median household income across census tracts in each city (see also Figure A4.4). A statistical trend analysis (the Theil-Sen estimator) returns negative values for all three cities, indicating that LST decreases as income increases (solid red line). Dashed red lines indicate the 95% confidence interval, meaning that the true slope of the trend is expected to fall within this range. Note that LST is measured at ground level and may differ from surface air temperature, which is measured at a height of 2 meters. Portions of this figure include intellectual property of Esri and its licensors and are used under license. Copyright © 2020 Esri and its licensors. All rights reserved. Figure credit: University of California, Davis; University of Texas at El Paso; Massachusetts Institute of Technology; City of Phoenix, Arizona; US Geological Survey.

Climate change impacts in urban areas are costly because of the density of infrastructure, people, and services (Ch. 19).⁸⁵^,⁸⁶^,⁸⁷ Estimates of projected annual losses vary widely based on data available and the full range of scenarios applied.⁸⁸^,⁸⁹^,⁹⁰ A more detailed assessment of the ways extreme events and climate impacts are attributed to human activities can be found in Key Messages 3.3 and 3.5. Consistent with federal guidance,⁸⁹ annual loss estimates are assessed ranging from a middle-of-the-road scenario, where GHG emissions trends do not shift markedly from historic development patterns, to a path of more rapid technical progress and increasing resource intensiveness. Quantifying annual losses according to this range can support decision-making at the local level.⁹⁰

For urban drainage systems across the contiguous US, for example, projected average annual loss estimates range from $5 to $6.8 billion in 2090, while annual losses to electricity demand and supply systems are estimated to be $4.1–$11.2 billion in 2090 (in 2022 dollars, undiscounted).⁸⁶ For transportation infrastructure, average annual losses are estimated to range from $9.8 to $24.3 billion for roads and $620 million to $1.2 billion for bridges in 2090 (in 2022 dollars, undiscounted).⁸⁶ Costs are concentrated in the eastern half of the contiguous US due to a higher density of transportation infrastructure.⁹¹ However, in one western state alone—Alaska—the projected annual costs of repairing, rehabilitating, or reconstructing the damage to built infrastructure from climate change could range from $100 to $207 million in 2090 (in 2022 dollars, undiscounted).⁸⁶

Coastal counties and communities across the country are home to 123 million people (40% of total population; Ch. 9).⁸⁵^,⁹² In the contiguous US, if no adaptation efforts are taken, estimates of average annual losses to coastal properties range from $112 to $146 billion in 2090 (in 2022 dollars, undiscounted).⁸⁶ Estimates of the value of coastal property at risk of inundation across the contiguous US range from $17 to $582 billion (in 2022 dollars, undiscounted).⁸⁵ Regions where risks to coastal properties are highest include the Southeast and Northeast Atlantic coast and Southeast Gulf coast.⁸⁵ Coastal property losses on the Southeast Atlantic coast are estimated to be nearly $692 billion per year by 2090 without adaptation (in 2022 dollars, undiscounted), with southeast Florida representing more than 80% of the total losses in the region.⁹¹

Homeowners, renters, stewards of cultural assets, investors, and actuaries now have greater access to information disclosing climate risks.⁹³^,⁹⁴^,⁹⁵ This information is critical for assessing, appraising, and managing climate risks to the built environment.⁸⁵ For example, real estate markets are responding to climate risk with adjustments to property values⁹⁶^,⁹⁷^,⁹⁸^,⁹⁹^,¹⁰⁰ and changes in mortgage lending practices.⁹⁴^,¹⁰¹ Increasing awareness and belief in climate change can shape the degree to which land and property values account for climate risks.⁹⁸^,¹⁰² Awareness of climate change is also associated with less housing construction in high-risk areas.¹⁰³

Urban Environments Create Opportunities for Climate Mitigation and Adaptation

Cities across the country are working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to adverse climate impacts . Some states and cities are integrating climate considerations into relevant codes, standards, and policies. However, the pace, scale, and scope of action are not yet sufficient to avoid the worst impacts, given the magnitude of observed and projected climate changes .

The number of city-level GHG emissions-reduction and climate adaptation actions continues to grow (Figure 32.20),¹⁰⁴^,¹⁰⁵ although actions are concentrated among wealthier and more populous cities with resources to do more.⁷⁴^,¹⁰⁶^,¹⁰⁷^,¹⁰⁸ Federal initiatives to aid city-level efforts include the US Climate Resilience Toolkit, a guide for planning, funding, and implementing resilience efforts;¹⁰⁹ the National Integrated Heat Health Information System, an interagency portal for supporting communication, capacity building, and decision-making around heat;¹¹⁰ funding opportunities such as FEMA’s Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program; and community development block grants that consider climate risks in projects that affect low-wealth communities.

As of March 2023, 25,500 local governments and 246 Tribal governments had updated hazard mitigation and resilience plans,¹¹¹ although not all explicitly address climate risks.¹¹² Several hundred local jurisdictions have drafted climate action plans that specifically include GHG emissions inventories and reduction targets.¹⁰⁴

City governments and residents have numerous options to lower GHG emissions and adapt to climate impacts (Table 12.1; Figures 31.1, 32.21). Urban temperature and energy demand can be reduced through physical changes in the built environment. For instance, cities can adopt or initiate certification programs to reduce building emissions, such as using the Phius standard for passive buildings¹¹³ or the International Code Council’s 2020 National Green Building Standard.¹¹⁴ Cities are also using new technologies such as machine learning, remote sensing, social media, and crowdsourced initiatives to gather more climate information and reduce GHG emissions.¹¹⁵^,¹¹⁶^,¹¹⁷^,¹¹⁸^,¹¹⁹^,¹²⁰^,¹²¹

Table 12.1. Examples of Mitigation and Adaptation Options in Cities and Built Environments

These examples of mitigation and adaptation options are drawn from published sources or from other NCA5 chapters. Examples are illustrative and do not represent a comprehensive list. A longer discussion of potential greenhouse gas emissions reductions by mitigation actions can be found in Chapter 32 (see Figure 32.22). Option categories are adapted from Carmin et al. 2015; IPCC 2022, 2022; and Dodman et al. 2022.¹²²^,¹²³^,¹²⁴^,¹²⁵

Societal Options	Examples
Programs and services	Climate action planning, disaster management and response, housing provision, public health services, environmental monitoring
Economics and finance	Social safety nets, insurance products, public finance mechanisms (such as bonds) (Box 12.1)
Communication and decision support	Early warning systems, hazard vulnerability assessments, health awareness training, risk assessments, civic partnerships, regional collaboratives

Building Options	Examples
Energy performance	Energy-efficient building retrofits, on- and off-site renewable energy production and use,¹²⁶ community/shared solar, energy-efficient lighting and appliances, monitoring and benchmarking,¹²⁷ grid-interactive buildings (see Ch. 5)
Codes and standards	Building ventilation;⁷¹ cool and evaporative roofs;¹²⁸ vegetated roofs;¹²⁹ risk-reduction standards; resilient construction materials;¹³⁰^,¹³¹ electrification, energy efficiency, and other GHG emissions reductions¹³²

Land-Use and Ecosystem Options	Examples
Gray infrastructure	High albedo/reflective pavements, coastal protection (such as seawalls), dams, flood controls, drainage (see Ch. 9)
Natural, green, and blue infrastructure	Urban ecosystems and biodiversity, street trees, greenery, coastal wetlands and dune systems
Land management	Zoning to reduce impact exposure and support GHG emissions mitigation,¹³³ co-location of development with low-GHG transportation and technologies,¹³⁴ reduced encroachment on natural lands, fire management, land restoration
Migration and relocation	Managed retreat (see Chs. 9, 16, 29, 31)
Resource use	Improved water supply, reduced emissions from waste and wastewater

Urban Transport Options	Examples
Electric/fuel-efficient vehicles	Electric vehicle charging networks,¹³⁵ purchase and operation incentives,¹³⁶^,¹³⁷^,¹³⁸ GHG and air pollution emissions standards (Ch. 13)
Transit, active transport	Active transport infrastructure provision (see Ch. 13), safety and comfort measures

Many of the examples highlighted in Table 12.1 have mitigation and adaptation co-benefits.¹³⁹^,¹⁴⁰^,¹⁴¹^,¹⁴²^,¹⁴³ Figure 12.7 illustrates select co-benefits associated with storing and sequestering carbon, preserving habitat and biodiversity, and improving water, air, and soil quality in urban areas (trade-offs are discussed in KM 12.4).

Infographic shows the potential adaptation and mitigation benefits of integrating natural infrastructure elements into cities, as described in the text and caption. A legend identifies both mitigation benefits—sequester and store carbon, reduce building energy use, reduce municipal water use, and facilitate active mobility—and adaptation benefits: reduce heat stress, reduce flooding, improve health, improve air quality, and promote biodiversity. The infographic identifies the following seven infrastructure strategies: green walls, greenways, street trees, urban forests, green roofs, urban agriculture/gardens, and blue spaces. All of these strategies produce all four of the mitigation benefits identified in the legend, except for green walls and urban agriculture, which do not facilitate active mobility. Greenways, street trees, and urban forests produce all of the five adaptation co-benefits. Green walls, green roofs, and blue spaces produce all of the adaptation co-benefits with the exception of promoting biodiversity. Urban agriculture/gardens produce two adaptation co-benefits: improving health and promoting biodiversity.

Natural infrastructure in cities provides climate mitigation and adaptation benefits.

Figure 12.7. The figure illustrates the potential benefits (in no particular order) of integrating natural infrastructure strategies—also termed green, blue, or nature-based solutions—within the built environment. Nature-based, green, and blue infrastructure options are strategically planned interconnected sets of natural and constructed ecosystems, spaces with vegetation or waterscapes, and other landscape features that provide important greenhouse gas mitigation and climate adaptation functions, as well as improve human well-being, biodiversity, and ecosystem health. This figure shows examples of how urban forests and street trees can sequester and store carbon while simultaneously reducing building energy demand. Reducing municipal water use can provide a mitigation benefit by decreasing energy use in wastewater treatment plants. Adapted with permission from Figure 8.18a of Lwasa et al. 2022.¹⁴⁴

Natural and nature-based solutions—of both “green” terrestrial vegetation and “blue” marine or aquatic varieties—can have GHG mitigation and climate adaptation co-benefits (Ch. 8).¹³^,¹⁴⁵^,¹⁴⁶ Many nature-based solutions target extreme heat and flood hazards. Notable examples include the use of urban forestry practices to promote mature-tree shading to reduce urban heat island impacts.⁷⁴^,⁷⁷^,¹⁴⁷ Green roofs and green walls can reduce heat stress, increase stormwater runoff retention,¹⁴⁸ and lower building energy demand.¹⁴⁹^,¹⁵⁰^,¹⁵¹^,¹⁵² City governments and communities can draw on different green and nature-based solutions—as well as traditional “gray” interventions—ranging from urban parks to green roofs and porous pavements (Figure 12.8).¹⁵³ All of these solutions require sufficient investment in design, construction, and long-term maintenance, as well as consideration of trade-offs (e.g., water consumption for tree planting), to realize their full GHG mitigation and/or climate adaptation potential.

Cities have diverse options for climate adaptation and mitigation.

Figure 12.8. The figure illustrates various built environment options that consist of green, blue, and nature-based components. Examples, which are for illustrative purposes only, highlight how city governments, communities, and residents can draw on diverse options to adapt to climate impacts, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and sequester carbon in the built environment: (a) remnant forest in Forest Park, Portland, Oregon; (b) urban agriculture in Chicago; (c) bioswale in Portland, Oregon; (d) wetlands at Bayou Bienvenue Wetland Triangle, New Orleans; (e) urban park in Boston; (f) street trees in Miami; (g) green roof in Arlington, Virginia; (h) porous pavement in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Photo credits: (a) Ari Weil via Flickr [CC BY 2.0]; (b) Linda N. via Flickr [CC BY 2.0]; (c, d) ©Annie Marissa Matsler; (e) Kelly Sikkema via Unsplash; (f) Faith Crabtree via Unsplash; (g) Arlington County via Flickr [CC BY-SA 2.0]; (h) Aaron Volkening via Flickr [CC BY 2.0].

Forward-looking designs and governance solutions that consider joint social, ecological, and technological systems (SETS) can better anticipate and respond to future climate change (Figure 12.9).¹⁵⁴^,¹⁵⁵^,¹⁵⁶^,¹⁵⁷^,¹⁵⁸ Such an approach assesses the vulnerability of urban infrastructure and standardizes design methods to account for future climate risks.¹⁵⁹^,¹⁶⁰ This approach also highlights the need to think across ecological, social, and technological components of the built environment to provide GHG mitigation or climate adaptation benefits, in addition to equitably protecting public health, safety, and welfare⁵⁷^,⁶²^,¹⁵⁴^,¹⁵⁷ for communities that have been overburdened and underserved based on a historical lack of infrastructure investment.¹⁶¹ Forward-looking designs can also prevent cities from locking in building technologies, land uses, infrastructure plans, and transportation choices based on past GHG emissions levels (Chs. 13, 32).⁶⁰

An infographic shows the interplay of social, ecological, and technological components in urban infrastructure systems, as described in the text and caption. At top is a box labeled Social Components containing the terms Utility Customers, Farmers, and Communities. At bottom left is a box labeled Ecological Components containing the terms Precipitation, Natural Aquifer Recharge, and Biodiversity. At bottom right is a box labeled Technological Components containing the terms Pumps, Treatment Plants, and Reservoirs. Connecting the Social Components and Ecological Components boxes is a two-way arrow labeled Social-Ecological Interactions, under which are the terms Tourism and Recreation and Water Quality. Connecting the Social Components and Technological Components boxes is a two-way arrow labeled Social-Technological Interactions, under which are the terms Utility Cost Burdens and Underserved Communities. Connecting the Technological Components and Ecological Components boxes is a two-way arrow labeled Ecological-Technological Interactions, under which are the terms Nature-Based Flood Control, Watershed Management, and Urban Runoff.

Urban infrastructure involves joint social, ecological, and technological systems. All face risks from climate change individually and in interconnected ways.

Figure 12.9. This figure is an example using water and wastewater systems to highlight the social, ecological, and technological interdependencies of infrastructure. Urban ecosystems (such as waterbodies), built infrastructure (such as pipelines and pumps), and social systems (such as residents) are impacted by climate change individually. Climate change also affects the interactions between these systems, such as when flooding overwhelms pipelines and disrupts service to utilities and/or increases utility costs for consumers. Forward-looking climate actions that consider these interactions—such as how improvements in water infrastructure affect the urban ecosystem and level of access by underserved communities—can lead to more effective and equitable outcomes. Adapted with permission from Markolf et al. 2018.¹⁵⁶

Despite a growing number of actions, city governments remain slow to mitigate GHG emissions, adapt to climate impacts, and reduce the negative effects of urbanization on the local and regional climate.⁷⁴^,¹⁰³^,¹⁰⁴^,¹⁶²^,¹⁶³^,¹⁶⁴^,¹⁶⁵^,¹⁶⁶ Actions can be hampered by the long duration of planning and decision-making processes,¹⁶⁷^,¹⁶⁸ ambiguity around what counts as climate action,¹⁶⁵^,¹⁶⁶ financial constraints (Box 12.1), government staff turnover, difficulties with public buy-in, and gaps in knowledge and awareness.¹⁶³^,¹⁶⁹^,¹⁷⁰ These barriers constrain the ability of cities to plan for long-term and complex climate challenges (Ch. 18), such as extreme heat and drought,¹⁷¹ or to effectively evaluate planning progress.⁶¹ Smaller cities and communities generally have fewer resources and less capacity to deal with these challenges.⁷⁴^,¹⁰⁶^,¹⁰⁷^,¹⁰⁸

To bridge these barriers, cities can pursue partnerships with governments at all levels, sectors, Tribal communities, utilities, and local residents (Table 12.2).¹⁰⁶^,¹⁷⁰^,¹⁷² One example is the National Building Performance Standards Coalition, a nationwide group that promotes GHG emissions reduction, electrification, and social equity goals in building performance programs.¹⁷³ Some cities have appointed chief resilience officers¹⁶³ and chief heat officers.¹⁷¹ Cities also develop relationships with university researchers and city-to-city networks.¹⁰⁷^,¹⁷⁴^,¹⁷⁵^,¹⁷⁶^,¹⁷⁷ There is growing evidence of policy diffusion and learning across cities, metropolitan regions, and states.¹⁰⁵^,¹⁷⁸^,¹⁷⁹^,¹⁸⁰^,¹⁸¹^,¹⁸²^,¹⁸³

Box 12.1. Financing Climate Action in Local Governments

Local governments can both fund and finance climate actions.¹⁸⁴ Climate change also poses new fiscal risks such as declining revenues and taxes from properties and businesses located in high-risk areas.⁷⁹^,¹⁶²^,¹⁸⁵^,¹⁸⁶^,¹⁸⁷ While the number of financial programs, tools, and incentives has grown, structural barriers and lack of capacity remain obstacles for many cities and communities (Ch. 19).¹⁸⁴ External funding options are limited since most states allocate less than 1% of their operating budgets to climate actions, although some notable exceptions include New Hampshire (4.9% in 2015), Delaware (3.3% in 2015–2016), and Missouri (3.1% in 2016).¹⁸⁵ Some cities—such as those that are part of the Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact¹⁸⁸—are pooling their resources with neighboring jurisdictions, but managing these funds is challenging.¹⁰⁶ Many infrastructure providers also have limited ability to pass on additional costs of climate change through user fees and assessments.¹⁸⁹

Cities are increasingly utilizing public and private financing models to invest in climate action.¹⁹⁰ Because climate investments are seen to reduce physical and policy risks, they benefit cities by improving their creditworthiness.¹⁹¹^,¹⁹² At the same time, a shift toward private financing models results in competing infrastructure obligations and credit constraints, which limit city governments’ planning capacities.¹⁹³ For instance, overburdened and underinvested communities face increased risk exposure when markets are unwilling to finance local risk-reduction infrastructure.¹⁹⁴ Despite these limitations, financial markets are moving forward with mitigation and adaptation investment strategies and products across diverse asset classes, including green bonds.¹⁹⁵^,¹⁹⁶^,¹⁹⁷

Community-Led Actions Signal a Shift Toward Equitable Climate Governance

There is varying progress in considering who benefits from, or bears the burden of, local climate actions . The emergence of local and community-led approaches—coupled with increasing collaboration among city, Tribal, state, and federal governments—indicates a movement toward more inclusive planning and implementation of climate actions .

Urban planning has made progress on including overburdened and underinvested communities, including those that have been historically excluded from decision-making. However, progress on advancing social equity and inclusion has been slow, uneven, and lacking in scale.¹⁶⁶^,¹⁹⁸^,¹⁹⁹^,²⁰⁰ Approaches for evaluating the social impact of climate actions are also generally lacking (KM 31.3).²⁰¹^,²⁰²^,²⁰³ These gaps raise questions about not only the efficiency and effectiveness of local planning and investments but also the distribution of the cost burdens associated with climate actions.²⁰⁴

Cities are confronting difficult decisions around how to fairly and equitably distribute the benefits and burdens of GHG mitigation and climate adaptation investments and actions. Social equity and justice are important considerations when evaluating potential trade-offs between GHG mitigation, climate adaptation, and urban development. For example, floodplain restoration can reduce property damage and promote development in adjacent areas,¹⁴⁰^,²⁰⁵ but it can also shift flood risks from one location to another.²⁰⁶^,²⁰⁷ If risks are shifted to burden frontline communities, low-wealth populations sometimes relocate to equally high-risk areas.²⁰⁸ Similarly, urban heat planning can reduce excess heat stress and promote physical comfort in indoor and outdoor spaces by retrofitting buildings and by designing active landscapes.¹⁶⁵^,²⁰⁹^,²¹⁰^,²¹¹^,²¹² While high-quality building retrofits can improve comfort and indoor air quality, poor-quality building retrofits that simply seal off buildings to minimize infiltration can worsen indoor air quality by creating higher levels of trapped indoor air pollutants.²¹³ The health effects of indoor air pollution on building occupants pose additional risks to groups that have previously received poorer healthcare services and have lived in historically redlined neighborhoods.²¹⁴^,²¹⁵

Just as with traditional gray infrastructure, the political, economic, and governance processes behind implementing green and blue infrastructure and nature-based solutions can result in social inequity and exclusion, although more research is needed to empirically measure how and how much these inequities and exclusions occur. For instance, efforts to cool streets by planting trees or creating flood barriers that also serve as parks can increase the amenity value of properties and lead to gentrification and displacement.¹⁵³^,²¹⁶ Climate gentrification may also arise from greater consumer demand for housing in lower-risk areas.²¹⁷ This highlights the need to address trade-offs between responding to climate change and social equity.

Pursuing inclusive and equitable climate governance can be a way to combat historic underinvestment and limited access to efficient, healthy, and affordable services and infrastructure in cities. Grassroots, community-led, and participatory actions are being documented across some cities, many of which draw on a city’s civic and social infrastructure as well as residents’ interest in pursuing zero-carbon, climate-resilient, and socially equitable development (Table 12.2). These actions tend to prioritize distributional strategies, such as sharing benefits and burdens more fairly, rather than inclusive efforts that recognize the needs, values, and knowledge of communities that have been historically excluded from decision-making or future generations more generally.¹⁶⁹^,¹⁷⁸^,¹⁹⁹^,²⁰⁴^,²¹⁸^,²¹⁹

Table 12.2. Examples of Local and Community-Led Actions

Examples of local and community-led actions are sourced from an assessment of published examples. Cities, local communities, and residents can draw on more community-led actions and forward-looking planning processes, as well as pursue collaborations with other city, Tribal, state, and federal governments. Examples are illustrative and do not represent a comprehensive list.

Category	Examples
Community-Led Planning and Implementation	Neighborhood heat action plans co-created with the community²²⁰ Neighborhood resilience hubs that support community development and resources for emergency response²²¹ Virtual platforms to connect overburdened communities across the country
Inclusive and Forward-Looking Urban Planning	Equity training for city staff and decision-makers, e.g., the US Department of Housing and Urban Development Citizen Participation and Equitable Engagement Toolkit²²² Plans with focus on youth, gender, and racial inclusion¹⁶⁹ Reallocation of funds to support community engagement Scenario planning,¹¹²^,²²³ games,¹⁷⁵^,²²⁴ and future visioning²²⁵
Multilevel Collaboration	Cross-Tribal networks²²⁶ Collaboration with nongovernmental organizations²²⁷ Creation of new leadership and coordinating roles¹⁷¹ Expansion of public participation opportunities¹⁶⁹^,²¹⁸

Art × Climate

Ellen Anderson
Cheryl
(2021, oil on canvas)

Artist’s statement: Cheryl is a very real person in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. She works at a social services non-profit and is a member of our gay community. I painted her to show her confidence and triumph over urban challenges. This painting depicts the density of urban life and the spirit of the individual in it. The power of the individual, for climate change, social change, and personal change is embodied in this painting.

View the full Art × Climate gallery.

Artworks and artists’ statements are not official Assessment products.

Competing resource, capacity, and policy demands from across other local, Tribal, state, and federal entities can constrain the scope, scale, and pace of efforts to further fair and equitable GHG mitigation and climate adaptation. Such challenges could be addressed through future actions that prioritize long-term planning, new technologies, and radically different infrastructure designs, as well as through better understanding of how shifts in society and culture can help create a more socially just, inclusive, and equitable built environment.

Process Description

Chapter 12 authors were selected according to three criteria. The first criterion was necessary disciplinary expertise as identified through the public call for comment on the Fifth National Climate Assessment (NCA5) draft prospectus—which called for social scientists, engineers, economists, architects, and urban ecologists/climate scientists—together with an initial visioning exercise by the chapter lead author based on reflections of key gaps and opportunities highlighted in NCA4. The second criterion was representation of diverse institutional affiliations, including those from the Federal Government and academia, as well as those with practitioner experience. A final criterion was recognition of diverse life and career stages, personal histories and backgrounds, and regional and geographic representation. The application of all three criteria led chapter leadership to select 11 individuals (three federal and eight academic) who encompassed early-career and senior professional stages and represented diverse disciplinary, personal, and geographical backgrounds.

The authors collected references through extensive searches on web platforms, including Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. The search focused on peer-reviewed scientific literature, working papers, and technical reports published since NCA4 to identify core areas of knowledge advancement since 2018. The literature search focused on eight topical areas: 1) urban and regional climate models and scenarios; 2) physical impacts and risks to the built environment; 3) sector-specific economic and human costs in the built environment; 4) social, ecological, and spatial vulnerabilities in the urban environment; 5) urban mitigation and adaptation options; 6) urban social equity and justice; 7) urban governance and decision-making; and 8) metrics and indicators. This led to a literature database of more than 600 sources. The author team then evaluated the sources to generate key themes and messages, which were then used to compile the four Key Message sections.

The public engagement process for Chapter 12 occurred in two phases. First, the chapter Zero Order Draft (ZOD) was publicly released through a Federal Register announcement in January 2022. The ZOD then proceeded through a six-week public commenting period. Detailed responses to these public comments were completed by the deadline of May 27, 2022. Second, the chapter ZOD went through one public engagement workshop on January 14, 2022. The workshop was attended by approximately 160 participants representing community groups, private-sector stakeholders, interested individuals, academic institutions, and nonprofits, as well as government scientists across local, state, and federal levels. The objective of the workshop was to provide participants an opportunity to exchange ideas with the author team on chapter key topics, share resources, and give feedback on issues of importance to the chapter topics.

Efforts to synthesize and assess literature were conducted in a collaborative and iterative manner, with extensive redrafting and revision efforts by all chapter authors. The approach was guided by the extensive literature database as well as chapter authors’ own disciplinary expertise. The chapter team held weekly meetings throughout the drafting phase, with specific Key Message teams separately meeting nearly as frequently to discuss, draft, and revise specific sections of the chapter text. Additionally, extensive dialogues with other NCA5 chapter authors and 17 technical contributors held throughout 2022 and the spring of 2023 helped to ensure the comprehensiveness and representativeness of topics covered in the chapter.

Finally, the chapter Fourth Order Draft (4OD) went through a 12-week public review and commenting period between November 2022 and January 2023. This was accompanied by an extensive peer review conducted by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). Detailed responses to both public and NASEM comments on the chapter 4OD were completed and approved by the chapter’s review editor by April 28, 2023.

KEY MESSAGES

KEY MESSAGE 12.1

Urban Areas Are Major Drivers of Climate Change

Consumption of food, energy, water, and materials is a major driver of global climate change, and these consumption activities are disproportionately concentrated in urban and suburban areas .

Read about Confidence and Likelihood

Description of Evidence Base

The evidence base for Key Message 12.1 draws on an extensive literature—based on diverse quantitative, geospatial, remote sensing, and different modeling methodologies—assessing how land-use, economic development, and human settlement patterns have affected and will continue to affect local and regional climate processes. Recent research highlights how the consumption of food, energy, and materials in urban areas is a driver of global climate change.¹^,²^,³ Key Message 12.1 builds on established assessments produced in the Second State of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR2), published in 2018. It specifically builds on Chapter 4, “Understanding Urban Carbon Fluxes,” in SOCCR2⁵ by highlighting the science behind the role of urban areas as primary sources (i.e., responsible for a large proportion) of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions across North America.⁶

Key Message 12.1 draws on scientific evidence behind cities as drivers of climate change. A significant amount of research across the fields of urban ecology, energy studies, climate modeling, physical geography, and engineering shows that urban and suburban areas contribute approximately 75% of total global GHG emissions,¹ although this is distributed unequally, as the 100 largest cities account for 18% of global GHG emissions.³ As in the literature, Key Message 12.1 categorizes GHG emissions into Scope 1, 2, or 3 emissions. Scope 1 and 2 emissions refer to direct GHG emissions associated with fuel combustion in industrial or transportation sectors and direct emissions attributed to the energy for heating and cooling, respectively.⁴^,⁵ The scientific evidence additionally illustrates various approaches to accounting for indirect emissions—that is, Scope 3 emissions—which are incurred through the purchase of goods and services, distribution of goods and services through supply chains, and waste generated in operations of built environment assets. Studies note that across all these different forms of emissions, it is necessary to think beyond the physical boundaries of urban areas.³

Major Uncertainties and Research Gaps

There are uncertainties pertaining to the calculation of different sources of GHG emissions within the built environment, as well as difficulties in geographically bounding the “urban” area.⁴^,⁵ Comprehensive accounting of GHG emissions from cities and urban systems includes Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions, but the data challenges of consistent attribution of emissions to individual cities are very high.³^,⁹ For example, there is evidence that cities are underreporting their own GHG emissions due to incomplete or missing data.² Attributing GHG emissions to cities and suburban areas requires apportioning emissions across multiple systems with multiple conceptual boundaries, including, but not limited to, spatial and territorial boundaries; useful lifetime and utilization of particular built environment systems; fixed and variable costs; ownership and decision-making; embodied emissions in material consumption and flows; and additional indirect effects and interactions between stages of use.

As in all forecasting, projecting future carbon emissions from cities and urban systems is inherently challenging because of considerable uncertainty about future trends and their interactions. Research into where and how the urban population will grow; what technologies will be available and put into use; and how people decide to build, maintain, and live within cities all depend on the interaction of future economic, social, technological, policy, and climate trends that cannot be known with complete certainty.

Description of Confidence and Likelihood

The available recent scientific evidence documenting the role of built environment systems and urban areas as drivers of climate change is extensive (e.g., Gurney et al. 2018⁵), hence the attribution of very high confidence. The scientific evidence attributing GHG emissions to land-use change, economic and industrial development, and human settlement patterns¹^,²^,³^,¹²^,¹³^,¹⁴^,¹⁵^,¹⁶^,¹⁷ is virtually certain. This likelihood assessment reflects a near scientific consensus that urban and suburban areas—through fossil fuel–driven industrial production, economic growth, transportation, and human consumption—contribute a majority of total global GHG emissions.

KEY MESSAGE 12.2

Attributes of the Built Environment Exacerbate Climate Impacts, Risks, and Vulnerabilities

Read about Confidence and Likelihood

Description of Evidence Base

The evidence base for Key Message 12.2 draws on the extensive scientific literature documenting both observed and projected future natural, physical, and atmospheric trends associated with the effects of climate change on the built environment. There is broad scientific consensus that local and regional climate change in and near urban areas across the country will be affected by changes in land use, development, and human settlement patterns.⁵^,³¹^,³²^,³³ The Key Message assesses the extensive literature on impacts to surface and ambient air temperature,¹²^,¹³^,¹⁴^,¹⁵^,¹⁶^,¹⁷ local and regional humidity,¹⁸^,¹⁹ wind patterns,²⁰ precipitation,²¹^,²²^,²³ flooding,²⁴^,²⁵^,²⁶ dispersion of air pollutants,²²^,²⁷ and intensity of storm surges and sea level rise.²⁸

Literature from the fields of urban planning, geography, ecology, architecture, and engineering all note that the design, form, and mass of buildings and the configuration of streets and open spaces, together with their interaction, have a profound influence on urban climates.⁵^,³¹^,³²^,³³ In particular, urban systems directly add sensible heat to the environment via radiant heat and heat conductance from buildings,³⁵ and this is illustrated in Figures 12.4 and 12.5. There is significant research noting how extreme weather events such as landfalling hurricanes, heatwaves, and storm surges attributed to climate change have increasingly affected densely populated urban communities and their built infrastructure, as well as the ecosystems on which they depend.²⁰

Key Message 12.2 assesses the scientific evidence on how climate change is posing risks to built environment systems and urban communities. Extensive evidence documents the increasing number of disasters as well as their increasing damage costs (Figure A4.5)⁸⁷ Recent scientific efforts—such as Martinich and Crimmins (2019), CBO (2019), and EPA (2021)⁸⁵^,⁸⁶^,²²⁸—seek to quantify the potential damages across diverse built environments, including the property and housing sectors, for projections based on multiple scenarios (e.g., RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 in the examples noted above) to the end of the 21st century. Sea level rise and increases in the frequency of hot days and extreme temperatures are key climate risks for cities documented extensively in the literature.

Key Message 12.2 also assesses US dollar estimates of projected annual damages in 2090 to different built environment sectors. Such quantitative estimates vary widely depending on the scenario applied to calculate future costs. As consistent with recent IPCC Assessment Reports and federal guidance, this chapter applies commonly used scenarios, including SSP2-4.5, which corresponds to a mid-range path of GHG emissions, and SSP5-8.5, which represents a high-end resource-intensive development path (KM 3.3).⁸⁹^,²²⁹ Although there continues to be debate on the likelihood of a high-end GHG emissions scenario,⁸⁸ it is still common practice to quantify the full range of potential damages to infrastructure to support decision-making, especially for those tasked with making more near-term decisions (2050 or sooner).⁹⁰

The Key Message assesses scientific research into the amplification of risks across built environment systems through compounding and cascading events.³⁷^,³⁸^,³⁹^,⁴⁰ As most infrastructure systems are designed for current climate conditions and are not built to withstand future climate projections, extensive evidence documents how the additional loads and stressors on infrastructure systems attributed to climate change—especially when combined with the operational constraints of infrastructure—lead to cascading impacts across the built environment and connected systems.³⁹ The extensive evidence assessed in Key Message 12.2 also shows how cities and urban systems will spatially concentrate risks due to current levels of infrastructure deficits, unequal exposure of people and assets, and high levels of socioeconomic inequalities.⁸⁵^,⁸⁷ There is clear evidence that climate change also poses substantial financial risks to real estate assets,²³⁰ while low-wealth communities are often less able to respond to climate change impacts or recover from exposure to extreme temperatures and natural disasters.⁶⁹^,⁷⁰ This Key Message responds to a larger (and growing) literature assessing climate vulnerability of urban residents,⁷⁰^,²¹⁵^,²¹⁹ particularly noting that frontline, overburdened, and low-wealth communities are often disproportionately affected by climate extremes.

Multiple emerging stressors highlight additional intersecting vulnerabilities in the urban built environment. Research has documented an increasing general awareness of climate risks by infrastructure managers, property developers, stewards of heritage sites, and urban residents.⁹³^,⁹⁴^,⁹⁵^,¹⁰⁰^,¹⁰³ This increasing awareness about climate risks is associated with less housing construction in high-risk areas. Key Message 12.2 therefore draws on the expansion in professional training, certification, guidance, assessment of existing land use, building codes and standards, risk communication, and efforts to define climate temporal and spatial resolution information needs.

Major Uncertainties and Research Gaps

The speed, geographic distribution, and extent to which key climate stressors will change over the intended service life of the built environment is uncertain, as is the burden of these impacts on urban communities. Changes in stressors and levels of burden are already observed and documented,³⁷^,³⁸^,³⁹^,⁴⁰ but uncertainties depend on the rate of global climate change as well as regional and many local and site-specific factors, such as changes in urban population, social inequalities, and the broader economy.

It is also unknown how extensive changes in engineering design practices and management of infrastructure systems will change in response to—and in efforts to adapt to—changing climate stressors. Engineering and architectural design professionals typically focus on weather extremes,⁴⁸^,⁵⁴^,⁵⁵^,⁵⁶^,⁵⁷^,⁵⁸ which are projected with more uncertainty compared to changes in average conditions. Actions to account for future climate impacts depend on the ways decision-makers evaluate the costs and benefits of implementing different infrastructure designs. It is unknown how different infrastructure systems will function under changing climate conditions and what the anticipated effects on urban systems and cities will be. Another gap in understanding is whether the pace and scale of changes in architectural and engineering design practice associated with the built environment and infrastructure systems are sufficient to address the pace and scale of expected climate change impacts.

Finally, there remain gaps in understanding of the market response in locations currently exposed and sensitive to climate shocks and stressors. The extent to which US financial markets can pursue innovations that provide anticipatory investment and appraisal services within the global market is unknown. Similarly, the way in which the design and construction market can innovate to provide these services to the global market is unknown.

Description of Confidence and Likelihood

There is scientific consensus that the increased rates of urbanization have significantly transformed the land use and land cover of cities across the US, contributing to the general degradation of the urban and regional climates.³¹^,³² The extensive scientific evidence evaluates how, for many urban areas, these processes will be significant and potentially dominant drivers of changes of urban climate over the remainder of this century.³⁴ The evidence therefore points to very high confidence in the role of climate change in exacerbating and amplifying loads on the built environment as well as imposing additional burdens on urban communities and infrastructure systems. There is also scientific consensus on how climate change poses additional risks to infrastructure systems. The literature describes, in virtually certain terms, that cities concentrate risks given current levels of infrastructure deficits, unequal exposure of people and assets, and high levels of socioeconomic inequalities.³⁷^,³⁸^,³⁹^,⁴⁰ Climate impacts are virtually certain to disproportionately burden low-wealth communities, groups that have been historically excluded from decision-making, and individuals with lower educational access.⁶⁹^,⁷⁰^,⁷¹ The extensiveness of scientific evidence supporting these observations therefore gives the third statement of this Key Message an assessment of very high confidence.

KEY MESSAGE 12.3

Urban Environments Create Opportunities for Climate Mitigation and Adaptation

Read about Confidence and Likelihood

Description of Evidence Base

Key Message 12.3 assesses scientific evidence of observed progress in mitigating GHG emissions and adapting to adverse climate impacts among cities across the country. Research shows that the technology or changes necessary for carbon neutrality are generally available and known to cities. Research has highlighted the growing number of cities that recognize the need to establish GHG-reduction targets; however, this research also shows that many lag behind these targets in implementation¹⁰⁴^,¹⁰⁵ or have broad efforts to reduce GHG emissions that tend to be similar. Since NCA4, more scientific evidence has pointed to cities planning to build resilience and adapt to climate change.¹¹¹^,¹¹² Research continues to note that efforts to enable GHG mitigation and climate adaptation, as well as efforts to realize their co-benefits remain difficult to implement.¹⁶²

Recent scientific evidence documents how an increasing number of states and cities are considering climate risks in their relevant codes, standards, and policies, although such progress is not yet sufficient. For instance, there are emerging building standards, codes, and designs to enable forward-looking and anticipatory approaches to planning and designing for climate change across different built environment and infrastructure types.⁶²^,¹⁵⁴^,¹⁵⁷ Many city governments are also exploring strategies to protect infrastructure against sea level rise in the near and long term.

Example actions that are rapidly gaining popularity are nature-based solutions,¹³^,¹⁴⁵^,¹⁴⁶^,¹⁵³ including those illustrated in Figures 12.7 and 12.8. Since NCA4, there has been a marked increase in the scientific literature documenting climate actions that utilize natural materials and processes to help protect infrastructure against different kinds of extreme risk.¹⁴⁶ An increasing number of quantitative, qualitative, and case study–based research has focused on nature-based solutions such as marshes, mangroves, dunes, beach nourishment, and several other types of natural structures (see Figure 12.8). Table 12.1 synthesizes some examples of GHG mitigation and climate adaptation actions in cities and the built environment that are sourced from published examples or from other NCA5 chapters.

Key Message 12.3 assesses the scientific evidence in quantifying a range of economic, health, and environmental co-benefits from mitigation and adaptation actions in cities and built environment systems.¹³⁹^,¹⁴¹ Since NCA4, there is now a better understanding of how climate co-benefits are distributed across a community—in particular among overburdened and underserved communities—and how they can help to reduce gaps in uptake by increasing adaptive capacity while addressing historical disparities.¹⁴²^,¹⁴³

Major Uncertainties and Research Gaps

Despite recent advances in scientific research on the different ways climate change efforts are integrated into planning processes, land-use controls, building designs, and financing mechanisms, there is still a lot to learn about how people modify their activity patterns in response to weather and climate. The scientific evidence on attributing individual and collective behavior change to specific experiences of climate change is still uncertain. Research gaps also exist in understanding specific policy changes in response to climate priorities, including the role of leadership, learning, and diffusion of ideas. Much of this research is based on single-case studies that are difficult to scale up and generalize. Of the larger-scale quantitative analyses that are available, many continue to show varying explanations. This research highlights different challenges. For example, one challenge is the definitional ambiguity regarding what counts as climate action.¹⁶³^,¹⁶⁵^,¹⁶⁶ Meerow and Keith (2022)⁷⁴ also document barriers related to human and financial resources and political will, while Barrage and Furst (2019)¹⁰³ note the prevalence of climate denialism.

Description of Confidence and Likelihood

Extensive scientific research representing diverse disciplines reflects high confidence in the continued growth in the number of city-level GHG emissions mitigation and climate adaptation plans found across the country. There has also been a large increase in scientific research documenting the drivers of climate action uptake in cities, with many quantitative and qualitative studies representing diverse regions and geographies.¹⁰⁵^,¹⁷⁹^,¹⁸⁰^,¹⁸¹^,¹⁸²^,¹⁸³

Despite the growth in number of plans in recent years, the empirical evidence also shows that the implementation of mitigation and adaptation actions in cities and local governments remains behind. As such, even though there is near certainty that city-level climate plans are being drafted and released, the data show that it is only likely that city governments and urban residents are employing an increasing variety of tools and strategies to enable implementation on the ground. Research notes how this difference can be attributed to the reality that planning processes and implementation of efforts are context-dependent, meaning the drivers and incentives of action are tied to local political, social, economic, and ecological factors.⁷⁴^,¹⁰³^,¹⁰⁴^,¹⁶²^,¹⁶³^,¹⁶⁴^,¹⁶⁵^,¹⁶⁶ Therefore, given the assessment of this emerging literature, it is virtually certain and there is very high confidence that the scope, scale, and pace of actions are not enough given the magnitude of observed and projected climate impacts of built environments and urban systems.⁷⁴^,¹⁰³^,¹⁰⁴^,¹⁶²^,¹⁶³^,¹⁶⁴^,¹⁶⁵^,¹⁶⁶

KEY MESSAGE 12.4

Community-Led Actions Signal a Shift Toward Equitable Climate Governance

Read about Confidence and Likelihood

Description of Evidence Base

The scientific evidence on urban climate change efforts highlights a growing concern over how their potential benefits and burdens will be borne by society.¹⁶⁹^,¹⁷⁸^,¹⁹⁹^,²⁰⁴^,²¹⁹ In response, Key Message 12.4 assesses scientific evidence on the social equity implications of climate change planning efforts. Recently there have been increasing efforts to document the inherent inequalities in how climate actions are planned, designed, and implemented in local contexts, especially where cities across the country already see high levels of social and economic inequality.¹⁶⁶^,¹⁶⁹^,¹⁹⁸^,¹⁹⁹^,²⁰⁰ More research on community-based, community-led, and bottom-up strategies has also emerged to better recognize the needs of urban frontline and overburdened communities,¹⁷⁸ including Black, Hispanic/Latino/Latinx, Pacific Islander, Alaska Native, and Indigenous communities,²²⁶ as well as low-wealth groups.

Key Message 12.4 documents moderate but growing scientific evidence of inclusive planning and implementation approaches.²²⁰^,²²¹ For some overburdened communities, the pursuit of equitable climate action can be a strategy to address historic underinvestments and to mobilize access to more healthcare and affordable urban services and infrastructure. Fiack et al. (2021)²⁰⁴ find that social equity climate adaptation is present on the local level, based on 22 of 100 largest cities in the country. Many local governments are also actively collaborating with local stakeholders¹⁰⁶^,¹⁰⁷ for a wide variety of climate impacts, from extreme heat to sea level rise.

Table 12.2 illustrates several examples of shifts in urban climate governance toward local and community-led planning and implementation. Local governments that embed equity into their GHG mitigation and climate adaptation plans can focus on transforming process and shifting power and capacities to communities. Much scientific evidence shows that climate action plans are created and implemented when cities experience greater climate vulnerability and have active resident support and where governments have other related plans in place.¹⁰⁷^,¹⁸¹ Still, a lot of scientific evidence suggests that participatory approaches remain challenging. For example, Sarzynski (2018)²¹⁸ showed how, in Baltimore, resilience has been limited to government actions and the city has had difficulty getting the community buy into their responsibility. Stults and Larsen (2020),¹¹² in analyzing 44 US local climate adaptation plans, found that none used local scenario planning or robust strategies.

Major Uncertainties and Research Gaps

For Key Message 12.4, the major sources of uncertainty pertain to the specific drivers of inequality (especially in urban communities that experience housing insecurity, lower pay, and lower socioeconomic indicators) associated with the implementation of specific GHG emissions mitigation and climate adaptation actions, as well as the uncertainties surrounding the long-term social impacts of climate-driven inequalities. Although there is ample empirical research documenting how climate change decision-making processes often do not consider frontline populations, overburdened communities, Indigenous Peoples, and groups historically excluded from decision-making,¹⁶⁶^,¹⁶⁹^,¹⁹⁸^,¹⁹⁹^,²⁰⁰ the literature disagrees on whether specific climate change actions directly contribute to producing more burden on particular groups, such as through displacement. There is also considerable uncertainty around whether and how growing considerations of inclusion and fairness actually lead to more just and equitable outcomes on the ground.

Description of Confidence and Likelihood

Despite a notable shift in scientific research toward socially equitable and fair climate change actions, Key Message 12.4 notes with high confidence that actual progress in inclusive planning and implementation on the ground remains variable.¹⁶⁶^,¹⁹⁸^,¹⁹⁹^,²⁰⁰ This assessment is based on scientific research published since NCA4 showing the increasing uptake of social equity and justice ideas in climate change plans and policies across cities and regions. Many of these plans and policies identify socioeconomic vulnerabilities and heightened risks experienced by frontline communities, but research shows that they fall short in incorporating social equity and justice priorities into the design and implementation of mitigation and adaptation efforts.¹⁶⁹^,¹⁷⁸^,¹⁹⁹^,²⁰⁴^,²¹⁹ Some notable exceptions include larger cities or cities that have recent experience with extreme impacts, hence the assessment that implementation remains variable across the US.

Over the past several years, research in social sciences has broadly critiqued the way city-level plans have approached social equity and inclusion in climate plans. Research shows progress in documenting how climate change decision-making processes very likely do not include historically excluded populations, overburdened communities, and Indigenous Peoples. This research also notes the roles of civil society, nongovernmental organizations, social movements, and others in enabling more inclusive climate actions. Similarly, the literature documents an increasing number of partnerships across levels of government and between sectors to support decision-making and implementation.¹⁰⁶^,¹⁰⁷^,¹⁶⁹^,¹⁷⁰^,¹⁷¹^,¹⁷²^,¹⁷⁴^,¹⁷⁵^,¹⁷⁶^,¹⁷⁷^,²¹⁸^,²²⁷ With this growing body of literature, the Key Message notes with high confidence the growing number of participatory, community-led, and broadly inclusive decision-making arrangements found across the US, as well as how these arrangements are likely being considered in conjunction with traditional planning processes.

Gurney, K.R., J. Liang, R. Patarasuk, Y. Song, J. Huang, and G. Roest, 2020: The Vulcan version 3.0 high-resolution fossil fuel CO₂ emissions for the United States. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 125 (19), e2020JD032974. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020jd032974
Gurney, K.R., J. Liang, G. Roest, Y. Song, K. Mueller, and T. Lauvaux, 2021: Under-reporting of greenhouse gas emissions in U.S. cities. Nature Communications, 12 (1), 553. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-20871-0
Seto, K.C., G. Churkina, A. Hsu, M. Keller, P.W.G. Newman, B. Qin, and A. Ramaswami, 2021: From low- to net-zero carbon cities: The next global agenda. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 46 (1), 377–415. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-050120-113117
de Chalendar, J.A., J. Taggart, and S.M. Benson, 2019: Tracking emissions in the US electricity system. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116 (51), 25497–25502. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1912950116
Gurney, K.R., P. Romero-Lankao, S. Pincetl, M. Betsill, M. Chester, F. Creutzig, K. Davis, R. Duren, G. Franco, S. Hughes, L. R. Hutyra, C. Kennedy, R. Krueger, P. J. Marcotullio, D. Pataki, D. Sailor, and K.V.R. Schäfer, 2018: Ch. 4. Understanding urban carbon fluxes. In: Second State of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR2): A Sustained Assessment Report. Cavallaro, N., G. Shrestha, R. Birdsey, M. A. Mayes, R. G. Najjar, S. C. Reed, P. Romero-Lankao, and Z. Zhu, Eds. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, 189–228. https://doi.org/10.7930/soccr2.2018.ch4
Moran, D., K. Kanemoto, M. Jiborn, R. Wood, J. Többen, and K.C. Seto, 2018: Carbon footprints of 13,000 cities. Environmental Research Letters, 13 (6), 064041. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aac72a
C40 Cities, 2018: Consumption-Based GHG Emissions of C40 Cities. C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group. https://www.c40knowledgehub.org/s/article/Consumption-based-GHG-emissions-of-C40-cities?language=en_US
Song, K., S. Qu, M. Taiebat, S. Liang, and M. Xu, 2019: Scale, distribution and variations of global greenhouse gas emissions driven by U.S. households. Environment International, 133, 105137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.105137
Wiedmann, T., G. Chen, A. Owen, M. Lenzen, M. Doust, J. Barrett, and K. Steele, 2021: Three-scope carbon emission inventories of global cities. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 25 (3), 735–750. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13063
Goldstein, B., D. Gounaridis, and J.P. Newell, 2020: The carbon footprint of household energy use in the United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117 (32), 19122–19130. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1922205117
Jones, C.M., S.M. Wheeler, and D.M. Kammen, 2018: Carbon footprint planning: Quantifying local and state mitigation opportunities for 700 California cities. Urban Planning, 3 (3), 35–51. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v3i2.1218
Ghandehari, M., T. Emig, and M. Aghamohamadnia, 2018: Surface temperatures in New York City: Geospatial data enables the accurate prediction of radiative heat transfer. Scientific Reports, 8 (1), 2224. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-19846-5
Howe, D.A., J.M. Hathaway, K.N. Ellis, and L.R. Mason, 2017: Spatial and temporal variability of air temperature across urban neighborhoods with varying amounts of tree canopy. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 27, 109–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.07.001
Kim, S.W. and R.D. Brown, 2021: Urban heat island (UHI) variations within a city boundary: A systematic literature review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 148, 111256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111256
Parida, B.R., S. Bar, D. Kaskaoutis, A.C. Pandey, S.D. Polade, and S. Goswami, 2021: Impact of COVID-19 induced lockdown on land surface temperature, aerosol, and urban heat in Europe and North America. Sustainable Cities and Society, 75, 103336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.103336
Tsoka, S., K. Tsikaloudaki, T. Theodosiou, and D. Bikas, 2020: Urban warming and cities’ microclimates: Investigation methods and mitigation strategies—A review. Energies, 13 (6), 1414. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13061414
Wimberly, M.C., J.K. Davis, M.V. Evans, A. Hess, P.M. Newberry, N. Solano-Asamoah, and C.C. Murdock, 2020: Land cover affects microclimate and temperature suitability for arbovirus transmission in an urban landscape. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, 14 (9), e0008614. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0008614
Crum, S.M. and G.D. Jenerette, 2017: Microclimate variation among urban land covers: The importance of vertical and horizontal structure in air and land surface temperature relationships. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, 56 (9), 2531–2543. https://doi.org/10.1175/jamc-d-17-0054.1
Sarangi, C., Y. Qian, J. Li, L.R. Leung, T.C. Chakraborty, and Y. Liu, 2021: Urbanization amplifies nighttime heat stress on warmer days over the US. Geophysical Research Letters, 48 (24), e2021GL095678. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021gl095678
Cao, Q., Y. Liu, M. Georgescu, and J. Wu, 2020: Impacts of landscape changes on local and regional climate: A systematic review. Landscape Ecology, 35 (6), 1269–1290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-020-01015-7
Liu, J. and D. Niyogi, 2020: Identification of linkages between urban heat Island magnitude and urban rainfall modification by use of causal discovery algorithms. Urban Climate, 33, 100659. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2020.100659
Schmid, P.E. and D. Niyogi, 2017: Modeling urban precipitation modification by spatially heterogeneous aerosols. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, 56 (8), 2141–2153. https://doi.org/10.1175/jamc-d-16-0320.1
Shepherd, J.M., S.J. Burian, M. Jin, C. Liu, and B. Johnson, 2020: Ch. 29. Two decades of urban hydroclimatological studies have yielded discovery and societal benefits. In: Satellite Precipitation Measurement. Advances in Global Change Research. Levizzani, V., C. Kidd, D.B. Kirschbaum, C.D. Kummerow, K. Nakamura, and F.J. Turk, Eds. Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 1055–1072. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35798-6_29
Hodgkins, G.A., R.W. Dudley, S.A. Archfield, and B. Renard, 2019: Effects of climate, regulation, and urbanization on historical flood trends in the United States. Journal of Hydrology, 573, 697–709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.03.102
Jacobs, J.M., L.R. Cattaneo, W. Sweet, and T. Mansfield, 2018: Recent and future outlooks for nuisance flooding impacts on roadways on the U.S. East Coast. Transportation Research Record, 2672 (2), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198118756366
Wing, O.E.J., P.D. Bates, A.M. Smith, C.C. Sampson, K.A. Johnson, J. Fargione, and P. Morefield, 2018: Estimates of present and future flood risk in the conterminous United States. Environmental Research Letters, 13 (3), 034023. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaac65
Jiang, Z., B.C. McDonald, H. Worden, J.R. Worden, K. Miyazaki, Z. Qu, D.K. Henze, D.B.A. Jones, A.F. Arellano, E.V. Fischer, L. Zhu, and K.F. Boersma, 2018: Unexpected slowdown of US pollutant emission reduction in the past decade. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115 (20), 5099–5104. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1801191115
Song, X.-P., M.C. Hansen, S.V. Stehman, P.V. Potapov, A. Tyukavina, E.F. Vermote, and J.R. Townshend, 2018: Global land change from 1982 to 2016. Nature, 560 (7720), 639–643. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0411-9
Stewart, I.D. and T.R. Oke, 2012: Local climate zones for urban temperature studies. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 93 (12), 1879–1900. https://doi.org/10.1175/bams-d-11-00019.1
Masson, V., A. Lemonsu, J. Hidalgo, and J. Voogt, 2020: Urban climates and climate change. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 45 (1), 411–444. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-012320-083623
IPCC, 2018: Global Warming of 1.5°C. an IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5°C Above Pre-Industrial Levels and Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts To Eradicate Poverty. Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield, Eds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157940
Qian, Y., T.C. Chakraborty, J. Li, D. Li, C. He, C. Sarangi, F. Chen, X. Yang, and L.R. Leung, 2022: Urbanization impact on regional climate and extreme weather: Current understanding, uncertainties, and future research directions. Advances in Atmospheric Sciences, 39 (6), 819–860. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-021-1371-9
Webb, B., 2017: The use of urban climatology in local climate change strategies: A comparative perspective. International Planning Studies, 22 (2), 68–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563475.2016.1169916
Georgescu, M., P.E. Morefield, B.G. Bierwagen, and C.P. Weaver, 2014: Urban adaptation can roll back warming of emerging megapolitan regions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111 (8), 2909–2914. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1322280111
Oke, T.R., G. Mills, A. Christen, and J.A. Voogt, 2017: Urban Climates. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139016476
Doblas-Reyes, F.J., A.A. Sörensson, M. Almazroui, A. Dosio, W.J. Gutowski, R. Haarsma, R. Hamdi, B. Hewitson, W.-T. Kwon, B.L. Lamptey, D. Maraun, T.S. Stephenson, I. Takayabu, L. Terray, A. Turner, and Z. Zuo, 2021: Ch. 10. Linking global to regional climate change. In: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou, Eds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 1363–1512. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896.012
Clark, S.S., M.V. Chester, T.P. Seager, and D.A. Eisenberg, 2019: The vulnerability of interdependent urban infrastructure systems to climate change: Could Phoenix experience a Katrina of extreme heat? Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructure, 4 (1), 21–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/23789689.2018.1448668
Habel, S., C.H. Fletcher, T.R. Anderson, and P.R. Thompson, 2020: Sea-level rise induced multi-mechanism flooding and contribution to urban infrastructure failure. Scientific Reports, 10 (1), 3796. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-60762-4
Okour, Y., N.B. Rajkovich, and M. Bohm, 2019: Balancing adaptation and mitigation in the building sector of New York State. In: Handbook of Climate Change Resilience. Leal Filho, W., Ed. Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71025-9_124-1
Stone Jr., B., E. Mallen, M. Rajput, C.J. Gronlund, A.M. Broadbent, E.S. Krayenhoff, G. Augenbroe, M.S. O’Neill, and M. Georgescu, 2021: Compound climate and infrastructure events: How electrical grid failure alters heat wave risk. Environmental Science & Technology, 55 (10), 6957–6964. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c00024
Williams, A., L. McDonogh-Wong, and J.D. Spengler, 2020: The influence of extreme heat on police and fire department services in 23 U.S. cities. GeoHealth, 4 (11), e2020GH000282. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020gh000282
Cook, L.M., S. McGinnis, and C. Samaras, 2020: The effect of modeling choices on updating intensity-duration-frequency curves and stormwater infrastructure designs for climate change. Climatic Change, 159 (2), 289–308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02649-6
Rajkovich, N.B., M.E. Tuzzo, N. Heckman, K. Macy, E. Gilman, M. Bohm, and H.-R. Tanner, 2018: Climate Resilience Strategies for Buildings in New York State. Report Number 18-11. New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, Albany, NY. https://ap.buffalo.edu/content/dam/ap/PDFs/NYSERDA/Climate-Resilience-Strategies-for-Buildings.pdf
Argyroudis, S.A., S.A. Mitoulis, E. Chatzi, J.W. Baker, I. Brilakis, K. Gkoumas, M. Vousdoukas, W. Hynes, S. Carluccio, O. Keou, D.M. Frangopol, and I. Linkov, 2022: Digital technologies can enhance climate resilience of critical infrastructure. Climate Risk Management, 35, 2212–0963. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2021.100387.
Balogun, A.-L., D. Marks, R. Sharma, H. Shekhar, C. Balmes, D. Maheng, A. Arshad, and P. Salehi, 2020: Assessing the potentials of digitalization as a tool for climate change adaptation and sustainable development in urban centres. Sustainable Cities and Society, 53, 101888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101888
Durairajan, R., C. Barford, and P. Barford, 2018: Lights out: Climate change risk to Internet infrastructure. Proceedings of the Applied Networking Research Workshop, Montreal, QC, Canada. Association for Computing Machinery, 9–15. https://doi.org/10.1145/3232755.3232775
ASHRAE, 2021: Planning Framework for Protecting Commercial Building Occupants from Smoke During Wildfire Events. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, 17 pp. https://www.ashrae.org/File%20Library/Technical%20Resources/COVID-19/Planning-Framework-for-Protecting-Commercial-Building-Occupants-from-Smoke-During-Wildfire-Events.pdf
ASCE, 2021: A Comprehensive Assessment of America’s Infrastructure: 2021 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure. American Society of Civil Engineers. https://infrastructurereportcard.org/
Lopez-Cantu, T. and C. Samaras, 2018: Temporal and spatial evaluation of stormwater engineering standards reveals risks and priorities across the United States. Environmental Research Letters, 13 (7), 074006. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aac696
Esmaeili, M. and M. Barbato, 2021: Predictive model for hurricane wind hazard under changing climate conditions. Natural Hazards Review, 22 (3), 04021011. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)nh.1527-6996.0000458
Pant, S. and E.J. Cha, 2019: Wind and rainfall loss assessment for residential buildings under climate-dependent hurricane scenarios. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 15 (6), 771–782. https://doi.org/10.1080/15732479.2019.1572199
Dawson, T., J. Hambly, A. Kelley, W. Lees, and S. Miller, 2020: Coastal heritage, global climate change, public engagement, and citizen science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117 (15), 8280–8286. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1912246117
Hambrecht, G. and M. Rockman, 2017: International approaches to climate change and cultural heritage. American Antiquity, 82 (4), 627–641. https://doi.org/10.1017/aaq.2017.30
AIA, 2022: Scalable Climate Action. American Institute of Architects, 28 pp. https://content.aia.org/sites/default/files/2022-03/21_10_EX_Scalable_Climate_Action_v03.pdf
ASLA, 2018: Smart Policies for a Changing Climate: The Report and Recommendations of the ASLA Blue Ribbon Panel on Climate Change and Resilience. American Society of Landscape Architects. https://www.asla.org/uploadedfiles/cms/about__us/climate_blue_ribbon/climate%20interactive3.pdf
IFMA, 2020: Adapting to Climate Change for FM Professionals. International Facility Management Association. https://knowledgelibrary.ifma.org/adapting-to-climate-change-for-fm-professionals/
International Code Council, 2021: 2021 International Building Code (IBC). International Code Council. https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/ibc2021p1
Rastogi, P., A. Laxo, L.D. Cecil, and D. Overbey, 2022: Projected climate data for building design: Barriers to use. Buildings and Cities, 3 (1), 111–117. https://doi.org/10.5334/bc.145
Ayyub, B.M., Ed. 2018: Climate-Resilient Infrastructure: Adaptive Design and Risk Management. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784415191
Chester, M.V., B.S. Underwood, and C. Samaras, 2020: Keeping infrastructure reliable under climate uncertainty. Nature Climate Change, 10 (6), 488–490. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0741-0
Lopez-Cantu, T., A.F. Prein, and C. Samaras, 2020: Uncertainties in future U.S. extreme precipitation from downscaled climate projections. Geophysical Research Letters, 47 (9), e2019GL086797. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019gl086797
Patterson, M., 2022: Ch. 14. Resilience by design: Building facades for tomorrow. In: Rethinking Building Skins. Gasparri, E., A. Brambilla, G. Lobaccaro, F. Goia, A. Andaloro, and A. Sangiorgio, Eds. Woodhead Publishing, 359-375. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-822477-9.00002-4
Underwood, B.S., G. Mascaro, M.V. Chester, A. Fraser, T. Lopez-Cantu, and C. Samaras, 2020: Past and present design practices and uncertainty in climate projections are challenges for designing infrastructure to future conditions. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 26 (3), 04020026. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)is.1943-555x.0000567
Ray, P., N.B. Rajkovich, M.E. Tuzzo, M. Bohm, and B. Roberts, 2018: Regional Costs of Climate-Related Hazards for the New York State Building Sector. Report Number 18-11b. New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, Albany, NY. https://archplan.buffalo.edu/content/dam/ap/PDFs/NYSERDA/Regional-Costs-of-Climate-Related-Hazards.pdf
Maxim, A. and E. Grubert, 2021: Effects of climate migration on town-to-city transitions in the United States: Proactive investments in civil infrastructure for resilience and sustainability. Environmental Research: Infrastructure and Sustainability, 1 (3), 031001. https://doi.org/10.1088/2634-4505/ac33ef
Gomez, M., A. Mejia, B.L. Ruddell, and R.R. Rushforth, 2021: Supply chain diversity buffers cities against food shocks. Nature, 595 (7866), 250–254. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03621-0
Sarkis, J., M.J. Cohen, P. Dewick, and P. Schröder, 2020: A brave new world: Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic for transitioning to sustainable supply and production. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 159, 104894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104894
Simchi-Levi, D. and E. Simchi-Levi, 2020: We need a stress test for critical supply chains. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2020/04/we-need-a-stress-test-for-critical-supply-chains
Bezgrebelna, M., K. McKenzie, S. Wells, A. Ravindran, M. Kral, J. Christensen, V. Stergiopoulos, S. Gaetz, and S.A. Kidd, 2021: Climate change, weather, housing precarity, and homelessness: A systematic review of reviews. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18 (11), 5812. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18115812
Bixler, R.P., E. Yang, S.M. Richter, and M. Coudert, 2021: Boundary crossing for urban community resilience: A social vulnerability and multi-hazard approach in Austin, Texas, USA. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 66, 102613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102613
Hsu, A., G. Sheriff, T. Chakraborty, and D. Manya, 2021: Disproportionate exposure to urban heat island intensity across major US cities. Nature Communications, 12 (1), 2721. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-22799-5
Gabbe, C.J., G. Pierce, E. Petermann, and A. Marecek, 2021: Why and how do cities plan for extreme heat? Journal of Planning Education and Research, 0739456X211053654. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456x211053654
Hoffman, J.S., V. Shandas, and N. Pendleton, 2020: The effects of historical housing policies on resident exposure to intra-urban heat: A study of 108 US urban areas. Climate, 8 (1), 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli8010012
Meerow, S. and L. Keith, 2022: Planning for extreme heat. Journal of the American Planning Association, 88 (3), 319–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2021.1977682
Fragomeni, M.B.A., S. Bernardes, J.M. Shepherd, and R. Rivero, 2020: A collaborative approach to heat response planning: A case study to understand the integration of urban climatology and land-use planning. Urban Climate, 33, 100653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2020.100653
Gronlund, C.J., K.P. Sullivan, Y. Kefelegn, L. Cameron, and M.S. O'Neill, 2018: Climate change and temperature extremes: A review of heat- and cold-related morbidity and mortality concerns of municipalities. Maturitas, 114, 54–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2018.06.002
Lin, J. and R.D. Brown, 2021: Integrating microclimate into landscape architecture for outdoor thermal comfort: A systematic review. Land, 10 (2), 196. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10020196
Titus, J.G., 2023: Population in floodplains or close to sea level increased in US but declined in some counties—Especially among black residents. Environmental Research Letters, 18 (3), 034001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/acadf5
Wing, O.E.J., W. Lehman, P.D. Bates, C.C. Sampson, N. Quinn, A.M. Smith, J.C. Neal, J.R. Porter, and C. Kousky, 2022: Inequitable patterns of US flood risk in the Anthropocene. Nature Climate Change, 12 (2), 156–162. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01265-6
Harlan, S.L., P. Chakalian, J. Declet-Barreto, D.M. Hondula, and G.D. Jenerette, 2019: Ch. 2. Pathways to climate justice in a desert metropolis. In: People and Climate Change: Vulnerability, Adaptation, and Social Justice. Reyes Mason, L. and J. Rigg, Eds. Oxford University Press, 23–50. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190886455.003.0002
Eguiluz-Gracia, I., A.G. Mathioudakis, S. Bartel, S.J.H. Vijverberg, E. Fuertes, P. Comberiati, Y.S. Cai, P.V. Tomazic, Z. Diamant, J. Vestbo, C. Galan, and B. Hoffmann, 2020: The need for clean air: The way air pollution and climate change affect allergic rhinitis and asthma. Allergy, 75 (9), 2170–2184. https://doi.org/10.1111/all.14177
Karnauskas, K.B., S.L. Miller, and A.C. Schapiro, 2020: Fossil fuel combustion is driving indoor CO₂ toward levels harmful to human cognition. GeoHealth, 4 (5), e2019GH000237. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019gh000237
Lebel, E.D., C.J. Finnegan, Z. Ouyang, and R.B. Jackson, 2022: Methane and NOx emissions from natural gas stoves, cooktops, and ovens in residential homes. Environmental Science & Technology, 56 (4), 2529–2539. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c04707
Evans, G.W., 2019: Projected behavioral impacts of global climate change. Annual Review of Psychology, 70 (1), 449–474. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103023
EPA, 2021: Climate Change and Social Vulnerability in the United States: A Focus on Six Impacts. EPA 430-R-21-003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.epa.gov/cira/social-vulnerability-report
Martinich, J. and A. Crimmins, 2019: Climate damages and adaptation potential across diverse sectors of the United States. Nature Climate Change, 9 (5), 397–404. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0444-6
Shi, L. and S. Moser, 2021: Transformative climate adaptation in the United States: Trends and prospects. Science, 372 (6549), 8054. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abc8054
Hausfather, Z. and G.P. Peters, 2020: Emissions—The ‘business as usual’ story is misleading. Nature, 577 (7792), 618–620. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-00177-3
OSTP, 2023: Selecting Climate Information to Use in Climate Risk and Impact Assessments: Guide for Federal Agency Climate Adaptation Planners. White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Washington, DC. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/guide-on-selecting-climate-information-to-use-in-climate-risk-and-impact-assessments.pdf
Schwalm, C.R., S. Glendon, and P.B. Duffy, 2020: RCP8.5 tracks cumulative CO₂ emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117 (33), 19656–19657. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2007117117
Neumann, J.E., P. Chinowsky, J. Helman, M. Black, C. Fant, K. Strzepek, and J. Martinich, 2021: Climate effects on US infrastructure: The economics of adaptation for rail, roads, and coastal development. Climatic Change, 167 (3), 44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03179-w
Hauer, M.E., E. Fussell, V. Mueller, M. Burkett, M. Call, K. Abel, R. McLeman, and D. Wrathall, 2020: Sea-level rise and human migration. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, 1 (1), 28–39. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-019-0002-9
Goldstein, A., W.R. Turner, J. Gladstone, and D.G. Hole, 2019: The private sector’s climate change risk and adaptation blind spots. Nature Climate Change, 9 (1), 18–25. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0340-5
Keenan, J.M. and J.T. Bradt, 2020: Underwaterwriting: From theory to empiricism in regional mortgage markets in the U.S. Climatic Change, 162 (4), 2043–2067. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-020-02734-1
Owen, R., 2019: Actuaries are paying attention to climate data. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 100 (1), S5–S8. https://doi.org/10.1175/bams-d-18-0293.1
Bakkensen, L.A. and L. Barrage, 2022: Going underwater? Flood risk belief heterogeneity and coastal home price dynamics. The Review of Financial Studies, 35 (8), 3666–3709. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhab122
Beck, J. and M. Lin, 2020: The impact of sea level rise on real estate prices in coastal Georgia. Review of Regional Studies, 50 (1), 43–52. https://doi.org/10.52324/001c.11643
Bernstein, A., M.T. Gustafson, and R. Lewis, 2019: Disaster on the horizon: The price effect of sea level rise. Journal of Financial Economics, 134 (2), 253–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2019.03.013
Hino, M. and M. Burke, 2021: The effect of information about climate risk on property values. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 118 (17), e2003374118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2003374118
Kim, S.K. and R.B. Peiser, 2020: The implication of the increase in storm frequency and intensity to coastal housing markets. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 13 (3), e12626. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12626
Duanmu, J., Y. Li, M. Lin, and S. Tahsin, 2022: Natural disaster risk and residential mortgage lending standards. Journal of Real Estate Research, 44 (1), 106–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/08965803.2021.2013613
Baldauf, M., L. Garlappi, and C. Yannelis, 2020: Does climate change affect real estate prices? Only if you believe in it. The Review of Financial Studies, 33 (3), 1256–1295. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhz073
Barrage, L. and J. Furst, 2019: Housing investment, sea level rise, and climate change beliefs. Economics Letters, 177, 105–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2019.01.023
Markolf, S.A., I.M. Azevedo, M. Muro, and D.G. Victor, 2020: Pledges and Progress: Steps Toward Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions in the 100 Largest Cities Across the United States. The Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/fp_20201022_ghg_pledges_v4.pdf
Woodruff, S.C., 2022: Coordinating plans for climate adaptation. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 42 (2), 218–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456x18810131
Kalesnikaite, V., 2019: Keeping cities afloat: Climate change adaptation and collaborative governance at the local level. Public Performance & Management Review, 42 (4), 864–888. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2018.1526091
Rai, S., 2020: Policy adoption and policy intensity: Emergence of climate adaptation planning in U.S. states. Review of Policy Research, 37 (4), 444–463. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12383
Siders, A.R. and J.M. Keenan, 2020: Variables shaping coastal adaptation decisions to armor, nourish, and retreat in North Carolina. Ocean & Coastal Management, 183, 105023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.105023
U.S. Federal Government, 2014: U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit [Website]. http://toolkit.climate.gov
NIHHIS, 2022: National Integrated Heat Health Information System [Website]. https://www.heat.gov
FEMA, 2023: Hazard Mitigation Plan Status. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, accessed July 6, 2023. https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/risk-management/hazard-mitigation-planning/status
Stults, M. and L. Larsen, 2020: Tackling uncertainty in US local climate adaptation planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 40 (4), 416–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456x18769134
Phius, 2022: Phius Standards [Website]. https://www.phius.org/standards
NGBS, 2022: The NGBS Green Promise. National Green Building Standard. https://www.ngbs.com/the-ngbs-green-promise
Gong, F.-Y., Z.-C. Zeng, F. Zhang, X. Li, E. Ng, and L.K. Norford, 2018: Mapping sky, tree, and building view factors of street canyons in a high-density urban environment. Building and Environment, 134, 155–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.02.042
González, J.E., P. Ramamurthy, R.D. Bornstein, F. Chen, E.R. Bou-Zeid, M. Ghandehari, J. Luvall, C. Mitra, and D. Niyogi, 2021: Urban climate and resiliency: A synthesis report of state of the art and future research directions. Urban Climate, 38, 100858. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2021.100858
Grêt-Regamey, A., M. Switalski, N. Fagerholm, S. Korpilo, S. Juhola, M. Kyttä, N. Käyhkö, T. McPhearson, M. Nollert, T. Rinne, N. Soininen, T. Toivonen, A. Räsänen, E. Willberg, and C.M. Raymond, 2021: Harnessing sensing systems towards urban sustainability transformation. npj Urban Sustainability, 1 (1), 40. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42949-021-00042-w
Liang, J., J. Gong, J. Sun, J. Zhou, W. Li, Y. Li, J. Liu, and S. Shen, 2017: Automatic sky view factor estimation from Street View photographs—A big data approach. Remote Sensing, 9 (5), 411. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs9050411
Masson, V., W. Heldens, E. Bocher, M. Bonhomme, B. Bucher, C. Burmeister, C. de Munck, T. Esch, J. Hidalgo, F. Kanani-Sühring, Y.-T. Kwok, A. Lemonsu, J.-P. Lévy, B. Maronga, D. Pavlik, G. Petit, L. See, R. Schoetter, N. Tornay, A. Votsis, and J. Zeidler, 2020: City-descriptive input data for urban climate models: Model requirements, data sources and challenges. Urban Climate, 31, 100536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2019.100536
Middel, A., J. Lukasczyk, R. Maciejewski, M. Demuzere, and M. Roth, 2018: Sky view factor footprints for urban climate modeling. Urban Climate, 25, 120–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2018.05.004
Middel, A., J. Lukasczyk, S. Zakrzewski, M. Arnold, and R. Maciejewski, 2019: Urban form and composition of street canyons: A human-centric big data and deep learning approach. Landscape and Urban Planning, 183, 122–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.12.001
Carmin, J., K. Tierney, E. Chu, L.M. Hunter, J.T. Roberts, and L. Shi, 2015: Ch. 6. Adaptation to climate change. In: Climate Change and Society: Sociological Perspectives. Dunlap, R.E. and R.J. Brulle, Eds. Oxford University Press, 164–198. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199356102.003.0006
Dodman, D., B. Hayward, M. Pelling, V. Castan Broto, W. Chow, E. Chu, R. Dawson, L. Khirfan, T. McPhearson, A. Prakash, Y. Zheng, and G. Ziervogel, 2022: Ch. 6. Cities, settlements and key infrastructure. In: Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Pörtner, H.-O., D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, and B. Rama, Eds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 907–1040. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009325844.008
IPCC, 2022: Summary for policymakers. In: Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Pörtner, H.-O., D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, and B. Rama, Eds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 3–33. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009325844.001
IPCC, 2022: Summary for policymakers. In: Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Shukla, P.R., J. Skea, R. Slade, A. Al Khourdajie, R. van Diemen, D. McCollum, M. Pathak, S. Some, P. Vyas, R. Fradera, M. Belkacemi, A. Hasija, G. Lisboa, S. Luz, and J. Malley, Eds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157926.001
Zhang, Y. and M. Ayyub Bilal, 2020: Electricity system assessment and adaptation to rising temperatures in a changing climate using Washington metro area as a case study. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 26 (2), 04020017. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)is.1943-555x.0000550
Hsu, D., T. Meng, A. Han, and D. Suh, 2019: Further opportunities to reduce the energy use and greenhouse gas emissions of buildings. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 39 (3), 315–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456x17739674
Zhang, Y. and B.M. Ayyub, 2020: Projecting heat waves temporally and spatially for local adaptations in a changing climate: Washington D.C. as a case study. Natural Hazards, 103 (1), 731–750. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-020-04008-6
Smalls-Mantey, L. and F. Montalto, 2021: The seasonal microclimate trends of a large scale extensive green roof. Building and Environment, 197, 107792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.107792
Kumar, N., M. Barbato, and R. Holton, 2018: Feasibility study of affordable earth masonry housing in the U.S. Gulf Coast Region. Journal of Architectural Engineering, 24 (2), 04018009. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)ae.1943-5568.0000311
Reda Taha, M., M. Ayyub Bilal, K. Soga, S. Daghash, D. Heras Murcia, F. Moreu, and E. Soliman, 2021: Emerging technologies for resilient infrastructure: Conspectus and roadmap. ASCE-ASME Journal of Risk and Uncertainty in Engineering Systems, Part A: Civil Engineering, 7 (2), 03121002. https://doi.org/10.1061/ajrua6.0001134
Skillington, K., R.H. Crawford, G. Warren-Myers, and K. Davidson, 2022: A review of existing policy for reducing embodied energy and greenhouse gas emissions of buildings. Energy Policy, 168, 112920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.112920
Hurlimann, A., S. Moosavi, and G.R. Browne, 2021: Urban planning policy must do more to integrate climate change adaptation and mitigation actions. Land Use Policy, 101, 105188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105188
Zhang, H., J. Peng, R. Wang, J. Zhang, and D. Yu, 2021: Spatial planning factors that influence CO₂ emissions: A systematic literature review. Urban Climate, 36, 100809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2021.100809
Slowik, P. and N. Lutsey, 2018: The Continued Transition to Electric Vehicles in U.S. Cities. International Council on Clean Transportation, Washington, DC. https://theicct.org/publication/the-continued-transition-to-electric-vehicles-in-u-s-cities/
Jenn, A., J.H. Lee, S. Hardman, and G. Tal, 2020: An in-depth examination of electric vehicle incentives: Consumer heterogeneity and changing response over time. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 132, 97–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2019.11.004
Jenn, A., K. Springel, and A.R. Gopal, 2018: Effectiveness of electric vehicle incentives in the United States. Energy Policy, 119, 349–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.04.065
Wee, S., M. Coffman, and S. La Croix, 2018: Do electric vehicle incentives matter? Evidence from the 50 U.S. states. Research Policy, 47 (9), 1601–1610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.05.003
Fung, J.F., J.F. Helgeson, D.H. Webb, C.M. O'Fallon, and H. Cutler, 2021: Does resilience yield dividends? Co-benefits of investing in increased resilience in Cedar Rapids. Economic Systems Research, 33 (3), 336–362. https://doi.org/10.1080/09535314.2020.1798359
Kondo, K., L. Mabon, Y. Bi, Y. Chen, and Y. Hayabuchi, 2021: Balancing conflicting mitigation and adaptation behaviours of urban residents under climate change and the urban heat island effect. Sustainable Cities and Society, 65, 102585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102585
Negev, M., L. Zea-Reyes, L. Caputo, G. Weinmayr, C. Potter, and A. de Nazelle, 2022: Barriers and enablers for integrating public health cobenefits in urban climate policy. Annual Review of Public Health, 43 (1), 255–270. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-052020-010820
Sethi, M., 2020: Ch. 17. Climate co-benefits in rapidly urbanizing emerging economies: Scientific and policy imperatives. In: Ancillary Benefits of Climate Policy: New Theoretical Developments and Empirical Findings. Buchholz, W., A. Markandya, D. Rübbelke, and S. Vögele, Eds. Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 301–324. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30978-7_17
Sharifi, A., 2021: Co-benefits and synergies between urban climate change mitigation and adaptation measures: A literature review. Science of The Total Environment, 750, 141642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141642
Lwasa, S., K.C. Seto, X. Bai, H. Blanco, K.R. Gurney, S. Kilkiş, O. Lucon, J. Murakami, J. Pan, A. Sharifi, and Y. Yamagata, 2022: Ch. 8. Urban systems and other settlements. In: IPCC, 2022: Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Shukla, P.R., J. Skea, R. Slade, A. Al Khourdajie, R. van Diemen, D. McCollum, M. Pathak, S. Some, P. Vyas, R. Fradera, M. Belkacemi, A. Hasija, G. Lisboa, S. Luz, and J. Malley, Eds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 861–952. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157926.010
Ward, S., C. Staddon, L. De Vito, A. Zuniga-Teran, A.K. Gerlak, Y. Schoeman, A. Hart, and G. Booth, 2019: Embedding social inclusiveness and appropriateness in engineering assessment of green infrastructure to enhance urban resilience. Urban Water Journal, 16 (1), 56–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/1573062x.2019.1633674
Webb, B., B. Dix, S. Douglass, S. Asam, C. Cherry, and B. Buhring, 2019: Nature-Based Solutions for Coastal Highway Resilience: An Implementation Guide. FHWA-HEP-19-042. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington DC. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sustainability/resilience/ongoing_and_current_research/green_infrastructure/implementation_guide/
Keith, L. and S. Meerow, 2022: Planning for Urban Heat Resilience. PAS Report 600. American Planning Association, 99 pp. https://www.planning.org/publications/report/9245695/
Zheng, X., Y. Zou, A.W. Lounsbury, C. Wang, and R. Wang, 2021: Green roofs for stormwater runoff retention: A global quantitative synthesis of the performance. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 170, 105577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105577
Besir, A.B. and E. Cuce, 2018: Green roofs and facades: A comprehensive review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 82, 915–939. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.09.106
Jamei, E., H.W. Chau, M. Seyedmahmoudian, and A. Stojcevski, 2021: Review on the cooling potential of green roofs in different climates. Science of The Total Environment, 791, 148407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148407
Susca, T., 2019: Green roofs to reduce building energy use? A review on key structural factors of green roofs and their effects on urban climate. Building and Environment, 162, 106273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106273
Wong, N.H., C.L. Tan, D.D. Kolokotsa, and H. Takebayashi, 2021: Greenery as a mitigation and adaptation strategy to urban heat. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, 2 (3), 166–181. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-020-00129-5
Matsler, A.M., 2019: Making ‘green’ fit in a ‘grey’ accounting system: The institutional knowledge system challenges of valuing urban nature as infrastructural assets. Environmental Science & Policy, 99, 160–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.05.023
Chester, M., B.S. Underwood, B. Allenby, M. Garcia, C. Samaras, S. Markolf, K. Sanders, B. Preston, and T.R. Miller, 2021: Infrastructure resilience to navigate increasingly uncertain and complex conditions in the Anthropocene. npj Urban Sustainability, 1 (1), 4. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42949-021-00016-y
Mahmoud, H., 2020: Barriers to gauging built environment climate vulnerability. Nature Climate Change, 10 (6), 482–485. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0742-z
Markolf, S.A., M.V. Chester, D.A. Eisenberg, D.M. Iwaniec, C.I. Davidson, R. Zimmerman, T.R. Miller, B.L. Ruddell, and H. Chang, 2018: Interdependent infrastructure as linked social, ecological, and technological systems (SETSs) to address lock-in and enhance resilience. Earth's Future, 6 (12), 1638–1659. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018ef000926
Mehvar, S., K. Wijnberg, B. Borsje, N. Kerle, J.M. Schraagen, J. Vinke-de Kruijf, K. Geurs, A. Hartmann, R. Hogeboom, and S. Hulscher, 2021: Review article: Towards resilient vital infrastructure systems—Challenges, opportunities, and future research agenda. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 21 (5), 1383–1407. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-21-1383-2021
WUCA, 2021: Leading Practices in Climate Adaptation. Water Utility Climate Alliance. https://www.wucaonline.org/adaptation-in-practice/leading-practices
Lopez-Cantu, T., M.K. Webber, and C. Samaras, 2022: Incorporating uncertainty from downscaled rainfall projections into climate resilience planning in U.S. cities. Environmental Research: Infrastructure and Sustainability, 2 (4), 045006. https://doi.org/10.1088/2634-4505/ac8a6c
OWP, 2022: Analysis of Impact of Nonstationary Climate on NOAA Atlas 14 Estimates: Assessment Report. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service, Office of Water Prediction. https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/pfds/files25/NA14_Assessment_report_202201v1.pdf
Chang, H., A. Pallathadka, J. Sauer, N.B. Grimm, R. Zimmerman, C. Cheng, D.M. Iwaniec, Y. Kim, R. Lloyd, T. McPhearson, B. Rosenzweig, T. Troxler, C. Welty, R. Brenner, and P. Herreros-Cantis, 2021: Assessment of urban flood vulnerability using the social-ecological-technological systems framework in six US cities. Sustainable Cities and Society, 68, 102786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.102786
Deetjen, T.A., J.P. Conger, B.D. Leibowicz, and M.E. Webber, 2018: Review of climate action plans in 29 major U.S. cities: Comparing current policies to research recommendations. Sustainable Cities and Society, 41, 711–727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.06.023
Fastiggi, M., S. Meerow, and T.R. Miller, 2021: Governing urban resilience: Organisational structures and coordination strategies in 20 North American city governments. Urban Studies, 58 (6), 1262–1285. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098020907277
Hsu, A. and R. Rauber, 2021: Diverse climate actors show limited coordination in a large-scale text analysis of strategy documents. Communications Earth & Environment, 2 (1), 30. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-021-00098-7
Koutra, S., M. Balsells Mondejar, and V. Becue, 2022: The nexus of ‘urban resilience’ and ‘energy efficiency’ in cities. Current Research in Environmental Sustainability, 4, 100118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crsust.2021.100118
Woodruff, S., A.O. Bowman, B. Hannibal, G. Sansom, and K. Portney, 2021: Urban resilience: Analyzing the policies of U.S. cities. Cities, 115, 103239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103239
Boswell, M.R., A.I. Greve, and T.L. Seale, 2019: Climate Action Planning: A Guide to Creating Low-Carbon, Resilient Communities. Island Press, Washington, DC, 365 pp. https://doi.org/10.5822/978-1-61091-964-7
Landis, J.D., D. Hsu, and E. Guerra, 2019: Intersecting residential and transportation CO₂ emissions: Metropolitan climate change programs in the age of Trump. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 39 (2), 206–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456x17729438
Chu, E.K. and C.E.B. Cannon, 2021: Equity, inclusion, and justice as criteria for decision-making on climate adaptation in cities. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 51, 85–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2021.02.009
Patterson, J.J., 2021: More than planning: Diversity and drivers of institutional adaptation under climate change in 96 major cities. Global Environmental Change, 68, 102279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102279
Keith, L., S. Meerow, D.M. Hondula, V.K. Turner, and J.C. Arnott, 2021: Deploy heat officers, policies and metrics. Nature, 598 (7879), 29–31. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-02677-2
Hughes, S., E.K. Chu, and S.G. Mason, Eds., 2018: Climate Change in Cities: Innovations in Multi-Level Governance. 1st ed. The Urban Book Series. Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 378 pp. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65003-6
National BPS Coalition, 2021: The National Building Performance Standards Coalition. Institute for Market Transformation. https://nationalbpscoalition.org
Bellinson, R. and E. Chu, 2019: Learning pathways and the governance of innovations in urban climate change resilience and adaptation. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 21 (1), 76–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908x.2018.1493916
Keeler, A.G., D.E. McNamara, and J.L. Irish, 2018: Responding to sea level rise: Does short-term risk reduction inhibit successful long-term adaptation? Earth's Future, 6 (4), 618–621. https://doi.org/10.1002/2018ef000828
Solecki, W., G.C. Delgado Ramos, D. Roberts, C. Rosenzweig, and B. Walsh, 2021: Accelerating climate research and action in cities through advanced science-policy-practice partnerships. Npj Urban Sustainability, 1 (1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42949-021-00015-z
Woodruff, S.C., 2018: City membership in climate change adaptation networks. Environmental Science & Policy, 84, 60–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.03.002
Cannon, C., E. Chu, A. Natekal, and G. Waaland, 2023: Translating and embedding equity-thinking into climate adaptation: An analysis of US cities. Regional Environmental Change, 23 (1), 30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-023-02025-2
Fink, J.H., 2019: Contrasting governance learning processes of climate-leading and -lagging cities: Portland, Oregon, and Phoenix, Arizona, USA. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 21 (1), 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908x.2018.1487280.
Hsu, D., 2022: Straight out of Cape Cod: The origin of community choice aggregation and its spread to other states. Energy Research & Social Science, 86, 102393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102393
Hui, I., G. Smith, and C. Kimmel, 2019: Think globally, act locally: Adoption of climate action plans in California. Climatic Change, 155 (4), 489–509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02505-7
Leffel, B., 2022: Toward global urban climate mitigation: Linking national and polycentric systems of environmental change. Sociology of Development, 8 (1), 111–137. https://doi.org/10.1525/sod.2021.0018
Miao, Q., 2019: What affects government planning for climate change adaptation: Evidence from the U.S. states. Environmental Policy and Governance, 29 (5), 376–394. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1866
Moser, S.C., J.A. Ekstrom, J. Kim, and S. Heitsch, 2019: Adaptation finance archetypes: Local governments’ persistent challenges of funding adaptation to climate change and ways to overcome them. Ecology and Society, 24 (2), 28. https://doi.org/10.5751/es-10980-240228
Gilmore, E.A. and T. St.Clair, 2018: Budgeting for climate change: Obstacles and opportunities at the US state level. Climate Policy, 18 (6), 729–741. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2017.1366891
Javadi, S. and A.-A. Masum, 2021: The impact of climate change on the cost of bank loans. Journal of Corporate Finance, 69, 102019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2021.102019
Shi, L. and A.M. Varuzzo, 2020: Surging seas, rising fiscal stress: Exploring municipal fiscal vulnerability to climate change. Cities, 100, 102658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102658
Young, S.A., K.C. Lindeman, and S.R. Fowler, 2022: Climate adaptation and risk preparedness in Florida’s East Coast cities: Views of municipal leaders. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2022.2125369
Cousins, J.J. and D.T. Hill, 2021: Green infrastructure, stormwater, and the financialization of municipal environmental governance. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 23 (5), 581–598. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908x.2021.1893164
Klein, J., M. Araos, A. Karimo, M. Heikkinen, T. Ylä-Anttila, and S. Juhola, 2018: The role of the private sector and citizens in urban climate change adaptation: Evidence from a global assessment of large cities. Global Environmental Change, 53, 127–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.09.012
Painter, M., 2020: An inconvenient cost: The effects of climate change on municipal bonds. Journal of Financial Economics, 135 (2), 468–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2019.06.006
Rashidi, K., M. Stadelmann, and A. Patt, 2019: Creditworthiness and climate: Identifying a hidden financial co-benefit of municipal climate adaptation and mitigation policies. Energy Research & Social Science, 48, 131–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.09.021
Chung, C.S., 2020: Rising tides and rearranging deckchairs: How climate change is reshaping infrastructure finance and threatening to sink municipal budgets. Georgetown Enviornmental Law Review, 32 (2), 165–226. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3452590
Bigger, P. and N. Millington, 2020: Getting soaked? Climate crisis, adaptation finance, and racialized austerity. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space, 3 (3), 601–623. https://doi.org/10.1177/2514848619876539
Giglio, S., B. Kelly, and J. Stroebel, 2021: Climate finance. Annual Review of Financial Economics, 13 (1), 15–36. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-financial-102620-103311
Jinga, P., 2021: Ch. 16. The increasing importance of environmental, social and governance (ESG) investing in combating climate change. In: Environmental Management. Tiefenbacher, J.P., Ed. IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.98345
Partridge, C. and F.R. Medda, 2020: The evolution of pricing performance of green municipal bonds. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 10 (1), 44–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2019.1661187
Angelo, H., K. MacFarlane, J. Sirigotis, and A. Millard-Ball, 2022: Missing the housing for the trees: Equity in urban climate planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 0739456X211072527. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456x211072527
Meerow, S., P. Pajouhesh, and T.R. Miller, 2019: Social equity in urban resilience planning. Local Environment, 24 (9), 793–808. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2019.1645103
Shi, L., 2021: From progressive cities to resilient cities: Lessons from history for new debates in equitable adaptation to climate change. Urban Affairs Review, 57 (5), 1442–1479. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087419910827
Berrang-Ford, L., A.R. Siders, A. Lesnikowski, A.P. Fischer, M.W. Callaghan, et al., 2021: A systematic global stocktake of evidence on human adaptation to climate change. Nature Climate Change, 11 (11), 989–1000. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01170-y
Olazabal, M., M. Ruiz de Gopegui, E.L. Tompkins, K. Venner, and R. Smith, 2019: A cross-scale worldwide analysis of coastal adaptation planning. Environmental Research Letters, 14 (12), 124056. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab5532
Owen, G., 2020: What makes climate change adaptation effective? A systematic review of the literature. Global Environmental Change, 62, 102071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102071
Fiack, D., J. Cumberbatch, M. Sutherland, and N. Zerphey, 2021: Sustainable adaptation: Social equity and local climate adaptation planning in U.S. cities. Cities, 115, 103235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103235
Johnson, K.A., O.E.J. Wing, P.D. Bates, J. Fargione, T. Kroeger, W.D. Larson, C.C. Sampson, and A.M. Smith, 2020: A benefit–cost analysis of floodplain land acquisition for US flood damage reduction. Nature Sustainability, 3 (1), 56–62. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0437-5
Gourevitch, J.D., R.M. Diehl, B.C. Wemple, and T.H. Ricketts, 2022: Inequities in the distribution of flood risk under floodplain restoration and climate change scenarios. People and Nature, 4 (2), 415–427. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10290
Parton, L.C. and S.J. Dundas, 2020: Fall in the sea, eventually? A green paradox in climate adaptation for coastal housing markets. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 104, 102381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2020.102381
Dundon, L.A. and M. Abkowitz, 2021: Climate-induced managed retreat in the U.S.: A review of current research. Climate Risk Management, 33, 100337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2021.100337
Katavoutas, G., H.A. Flocas, and A. Matzarakis, 2015: Dynamic modeling of human thermal comfort after the transition from an indoor to an outdoor hot environment. International Journal of Biometeorology, 59 (2), 205–216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-014-0836-2
Stone Jr., B., K. Lanza, E. Mallen, J. Vargo, and A. Russell, 2023: Urban heat management in Louisville, Kentucky: A framework for climate adaptation planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 43 (2), 346–358. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456x19879214
Sun, K., M. Specian, and T. Hong, 2020: Nexus of thermal resilience and energy efficiency in buildings: A case study of a nursing home. Building and Environment, 177, 106842. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.106842
Zhao, Q., C. Dickson, J. Thornton, P. Solís, and E.A. Wentz, 2020: Articulating strategies to address heat resilience using spatial optimization and temporal analysis of utility assistance data of the Salvation Army Metro Phoenix. Applied Geography, 122, 102241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2020.102241
Ortiz, M., L. Itard, and P.M. Bluyssen, 2020: Indoor environmental quality related risk factors with energy-efficient retrofitting of housing: A literature review. Energy and Buildings, 221, 110102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110102
Jessel, S., S. Sawyer, and D. Hernández, 2019: Energy, poverty, and health in climate change: A comprehensive review of an emerging literature. Frontiers in Public Health, 7, 357. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2019.00357
Thomas, K., R.D. Hardy, H. Lazrus, M. Mendez, B. Orlove, I. Rivera-Collazo, J.T. Roberts, M. Rockman, B.P. Warner, and R. Winthrop, 2019: Explaining differential vulnerability to climate change: A social science review. WIREs Climate Change, 10 (2), e565. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.565
Tedesco, M., J.M. Keenan, and C. Hultquist, 2022: Measuring, mapping, and anticipating climate gentrification in Florida: Miami and Tampa case studies. Cities, 131, 103991. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.103991
Aune, K.T., D. Gesch, and G.S. Smith, 2020: A spatial analysis of climate gentrification in Orleans Parish, Louisiana post-Hurricane Katrina. Environmental Research, 185, 109384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2020.109384
Sarzynski, A., 2018: Ch. 6. Multi-level governance, civic capacity, and overcoming the climate change “adaptation deficit” in Baltimore, Maryland. In: Climate Change in Cities: Innovations in Multi-Level Governance. Hughes, S., E.K. Chu, and S.G. Mason, Eds. Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 97-120. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65003-6_6
van den Berg, H.J. and J.M. Keenan, 2019: Dynamic vulnerability in the pursuit of just adaptation processes: A Boston case study. Environmental Science & Policy, 94, 90–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.12.015
Guardaro, M., M. Messerschmidt, D.M. Hondula, N.B. Grimm, and C.L. Redman, 2020: Building community heat action plans story by story: A three neighborhood case study. Cities, 107, 102886. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102886
Baja, K., 2021: Ch. 6. Resilience hubs: Shifting power to communities through action. In: Climate Adaptation and Resilience Across Scales: From Buildings to Cities. Rajkovich, N.B. and S.H. Holmes, Eds. Routledge, New York, 21. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003030720
HUD, 2023: Citizen Participation & Equitable Engagement (CPEE) Toolkit. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, accessed August 3, 2023. https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/cdbg-dr/cpee-toolkit/introduction/
Woodruff, S.C., S. Meerow, M. Stults, and C. Wilkins, 2022: Adaptation to resilience planning: Alternative pathways to prepare for climate change. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 42 (1), 64–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456x18801057
Chu, E., T. Schenk, and J. Patterson, 2018: The dilemmas of citizen inclusion in urban planning and governance to enable a 1.5°C climate change scenario. Urban Planning, 3 (2), 128–40. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v3i2.1292.
Iwaniec, D.M., N.B. Grimm, T. McPhearson, M. Berbés-Blázquez, E.M. Cook, and T.A. Muñoz-Erickson, 2021: Ch. 1. A framework for resilient urban futures. In: Resilient Urban Futures. Hamstead, Z.A., D.M. Iwaniec, T. McPhearson, M. Berbés-Blázquez, E.M. Cook, and T.A. Muñoz-Erickson, Eds. Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63131-4_1
STACCWG, 2021: The Status of Tribes and Climate Change Report. Marks-Marino, D., Ed. Northern Arizona University, Institute for Tribal Environmental Professionals, Flagstaff, AZ. http://nau.edu/stacc2021
Rudge, K., 2021: Participatory climate adaptation planning in New York City: Analyzing the role of community-based organizations. Urban Climate, 40, 101018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2021.101018
CBO, 2019: Expected Costs of Damage from Hurricane Winds and Storm-Related Flooding. Congressional Budget Office. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/55019
IPCC, 2023: Summary for policymakers. In: Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Lee, H. and J. Romero, Eds. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland, 1-34. https://doi.org/10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647.001
Clayton, J., A. Devine, and R. Holtermans, 2021: Beyond building certification: The impact of environmental interventions on commercial real estate operations. Energy Economics, 93, 105039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2020.105039

Previous Chapter

View All Figures

Next Chapter

Likelihood

Virtually Certain	Very Likely	Likely	As Likely as Not	Unlikely	Very Unikely	Exceptionally Unlikely
99%–100%	90%–100%	66%–100%	33%–66%	0%–33%	0%–10%	0%–1%

Confidence Level

Very High	High	Medium	Low
Strong evidence (established theory, multiple sources, well-documented and accepted methods, etc.) High consensus	Moderate evidence (several sources, some consistency, methods vary and/or documentation limited, etc.) Medium consensus	Suggestive evidence (a few sources, limited consistency, methods emerging, etc.) Competing schools of thought	Inconclusive evidence (limited sources, extrapolations, inconsistent findings, poor documentation and/or methods not tested, etc.) Disagreement or lack of opinions among experts

Looking for U.S. government information and services?

Visit USA.gov

INTRODUCTION

Urban Areas Are Major Drivers of Climate Change

Attributes of the Built Environment Exacerbate Climate Impacts, Risks, and Vulnerabilities

Urban Environments Create Opportunities for Climate Mitigation and Adaptation

Community-Led Actions Signal a Shift Toward Equitable Climate Governance

TRACEABLE ACCOUNTS

Process Description

KEY MESSAGES

KM 12.1

Urban Areas Are Major Drivers of Climate Change

Description of Evidence Base

Major Uncertainties and Research Gaps

Description of Confidence and Likelihood

KM 12.2

Attributes of the Built Environment Exacerbate Climate Impacts, Risks, and Vulnerabilities

Description of Evidence Base

Major Uncertainties and Research Gaps

Description of Confidence and Likelihood

KM 12.3

Urban Environments Create Opportunities for Climate Mitigation and Adaptation

Description of Evidence Base

Major Uncertainties and Research Gaps

Description of Confidence and Likelihood

KM 12.4

Community-Led Actions Signal a Shift Toward Equitable Climate Governance

Description of Evidence Base

Major Uncertainties and Research Gaps

Description of Confidence and Likelihood

REFERENCES

Likelihood

Confidence Level