ORIGINAL

Abstract

Heat is the number one weather-related killer in the United States. As climate change advances, extreme heat will become increasingly frequent and severe; in all emission scenarios, heat waves will increase in frequency, severity, and duration over the century. Many U.S. cities have planned heat adaptations to insulate their populations from heatrelated health impacts. Yet, they fail to protect hundreds of people each year from the dangers of heat. Why have city-wide heat adaptations not been sufficient in preventing heatrelated death? I compared the city-wide heat policies of Phoenix, Chicago, and New York City. Each of these cities has a unique historical climate, but all three use cooling centers as the primary adaptation to protect their residents from extreme heat. I evaluated the accessibility of cooling centers on three dimensions: physical proximity, facility type, and operating hours. My results confirmed that city cooling centers are inaccessible on all three dimensions to much of each city’s population— especially to the most vulnerable people. I argue that cooling centers cannot effectively reduce heat-related mortality when they are physically inaccessible, unsafe for vulnerable people, and sparsely open. My findings imply that, in order to protect their populations from extreme heat, cities must strategically locate and operate cooling centers to improve accessibility for the most vulnerable people. However, other adaptations that reduce climate impacts without contributing to emissions should become a more central component of city-wide heat policy in the future.