Overview:

Summary: Leading tours and workshops at interventions with demonstrated success can build support for scaling solutions, generate community enthusiasm, build partnerships, and celebrate accomplishments.

Implementation: Pilot solutions to demonstrate the impact of interventions and raise awareness about heat issues. Lead community workshops and trainings on the intervention sites.

Considerations for Use: For greatest imapct, select pilot neighborhoods that may have high vulnerability to heat and low access to public cooling resources like vegetation and public space.

• Policy Levers:
  
  
  Awareness and EngagementGovernments may design and operate programs with the goal of increasing awareness and engagement among constituents or stakeholder groups about the risks and opportunities of extreme heat.
• Trigger Points:
  
  
  No-regrets actions (low cost/low effort but substantial benefit)Interventions that are relatively low-cost and low effort (in terms of requisite dependencies) but have substantial environmental and/or social benefits.
• Intervention Type:
  Communications/Outreach
• Sectors:
  Disaster Risk Management  , Informal Settlements, Public Health

Impact:

• Target Beneficiaries:
  Heat-vulnerable communities, Residents
• Phase of Impact:
  Risk reduction and mitigation
• Metrics:
  Number of projects scaled

Case Studies:

• Phoenix Maricopa County Participatory Planning process (UNEP, Pg 166)

Implementation:

• Intervention Scale:
  City, State/Province
• Authority and Governance:
  City government, State/provincial government
• Implementation Timeline:
  Medium-term (3-9 Years)
• Implementation Stakeholders:
  CBOs, City government, Public
• Funding Sources:
  Grants and philanthropy, Public investment
• Capacity to Act:
  High, Low, Medium

Benefits:

• Cost-Benefit:
  Low
• Public Good:
  High
• GHG Reduction:
  N/A
• Co-benefits (Climate/Environmental):
  N/A
• Co-benefits (Social):
  Build community capacity, Build social cohesion, Improve human health