City of Kent, WA: Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard™ (PIRS™) For Heat

Abstract

The combination of climate change and the urban heat island (UHI) effect is increasing the number of dangerously hot days and the need for all communities to plan for urban heat resilience equitably. Urban heat resilience requires an integrated planning approach that coordinates strategies across community plans and uses the best available heat risk information to prioritize heat mitigation strategies for the most vulnerable communities. The Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard™ (PIRS™) for Heat is an approach that communities can use to analyze how heat mitigation policies are integrated into different plans and to identify opportunities to better target heat mitigation policies in high heat risk areas. The PIRS™ for Heat was developed as an extension of the original Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard™, a methodology originally developed by Berke et al. (2015) and then further advanced and translated to planning practice by Malecha et al. (2019), for spatially evaluating networks of plans to reduce vulnerability to hazards. With support from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Climate Program Office’s Extreme Heat Risk Initiative and in partnership with the American Planning Association, PIRS™ for Heat was initially piloted in five geographically diverse U.S. communities, including Baltimore, MD, Boston, MA, Fort Lauderdale, FL, Seattle, WA, and Houston, TX. The rationale, methodology, and findings from the first five cities are published in the guidebook The Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard™ (PIRS™) for Heat: Spatially evaluating networks of plans to mitigate heat. The approach was then applied to a sixth community, the City of Kent, WA. This report summarizes the PIRS™ for Heat results for Kent.

Adapting the process detailed in Malecha et al. (2019), the project team analyzed all policies in each community’s network of plans, including their comprehensive plans, hazard mitigation plans, climate action plans, and climate change adaptation, resilience, or sustainability plans. Policies were only included if they had the potential to impact urban heat, were place-specific and contained a recognizable policy tool. Policies were then scored based on whether they would likely mitigate heat (“+1”), worsen heat (“-1”), or the impact was unclear from the description in the plan (“Unknown”). Scored policies were mapped to relevant census tracts across the communities to evaluate their spatial distribution and the net effect on urban heat. The resulting PIRS™ for Heat scorecard was then compared with physical and social vulnerability data to assess policy alignment with heat risks and to identify opportunities for improved urban heat resilience planning.