BMC Public Health (May 2023)

Survey of extreme heat public health preparedness plans and response activities in the most populous jurisdictions in the United States

  • Nicole A. Errett,
  • Cat Hartwell,
  • Juliette M. Randazza,
  • Amruta Nori-Sarma,
  • Kate R. Weinberger,
  • Keith R. Spangler,
  • Yuantong Sun,
  • Quinn H. Adams,
  • Gregory A. Wellenius,
  • Jeremy J. Hess

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-15757-x
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 23, no. 1
pp. 1 – 11

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background Increasingly frequent and intense extreme heat events (EHEs) are indicative of climate change impacts, and urban areas’ social and built environments increase their risk for health consequences. Heat action plans (HAPs) are a strategy to bolster municipal EHE preparedness. The objective of this research is to characterize municipal interventions to EHEs and compare U.S. jurisdictions with and without formal heat action plans. Methods An online survey was sent to 99 U.S. jurisdictions with populations > 200,000 between September 2021 and January 2022. Summary statistics were calculated to describe the proportion of total jurisdictions, as well as jurisdictions with and without HAPs and in different geographies that reported engagement in extreme heat preparedness and response activities. Results Thirty-eight (38.4%) jurisdictions responded to the survey. Of those respondents, twenty-three (60.5%) reported the development of a HAP, of which 22 (95.7%) reported plans for opening cooling centers. All respondents reported conducting heat-related risk communications; however, communication approaches focused on passive, technology-dependent mechanisms. While 75.7% of jurisdictions reported having developed a definition for an EHE, less than two-thirds of responding jurisdictions reported any of the following activities: conducting heat-related surveillance (61.1%), implementing provisions for power outages (53.1%), increasing access to fans or air conditioners (48.4%), developing heat vulnerability maps (43.2%), or evaluating activities (34.2%). There were only two statistically significant (p ≥ .05) differences in the prevalence of heat-related activities between jurisdictions with and without a written HAP, possibly attributable to a relatively small sample size: surveillance and having a definition of extreme heat. Conclusions Jurisdictions can strengthen their extreme heat preparedness by expanding their consideration of at-risk populations to include communities of color, conducting formal evaluations of their responses, and by bridging the gap between the populations determined to be most at-risk and the channels of communication designed to reach them.

Keywords