Evaluation of eligible papers. UHIR (urban heat island reduction); PP (pocket parks); IP (interim plazas); POPs (privately owned public spaces); GIS (geographic information systems).
| Criteria | Number of papers that met criteria | Select examples |
|---|---|---|
| Identification of urban greening/forestry/other nature-based solution for climate change-amplified heat mitigation with quantifiable benefits | 40 | Hopkins et al. 2022 (Houston, TX, USA): Expert stakeholders (landscape architects, state foresters, local tree planting nonprofits, and tree enthusiasts) identified native tree species from the City of Houston Tree and Shrub Ordinance based on climate-related ecosystem services including carbon sequestration, air pollution absorption, water absorption, and heat island reduction. Trees were ranked based on measures such as canopy size for UHIR effects. |
| Maghrabi et al. 2021 (Jeddah, Saudia Arabia): This study assessed resident perceptions of the role of green space in climate change mitigation. The study found that 85% of the residents surveyed believe that green spaces play a “crucial” role in climate change mitigation strategies, including temperature regulation and reduction in the urban heat island effect. | ||
| Rosso et al. 2024 (New York City, NY, USA): This study compared the heat mitigation benefits of different “tactical urban pocket parks”, including (a) PP, which have greenery, water bodies/fountains, varied furniture, shade, and are separated from the street; (b) IP, which are plazas that can be eventually transformed into permanent plazas and which have different pavement or color material than the street, furniture, lighting, artwork, and some green cover; and (c) POPs, which are “outdoor and indoor spaces provided for public enjoyment by private owners” with shaded and sunny areas visible from the street. The air temperature was found to be cooler in all parks taken together, but heat mitigation was found to be higher in PPs and POPs. IPs instead experienced higher temperatures than the surrounding streets in general. | ||
| Association between objective heat-related health outcomes/health equity and urban greening interventions | 5 | Hopkins et al. 2022 (Houston, TX, USA): Using GIS, the health department stakeholders created maps depicting areas of Houston in the upper quartile for rate of cardiac arrest and asthma attacks; the upper quartile of the proportion of census tract that flooded during hurricane Harvey; the upper quartile for air pollutants; and the upper quartile for temperature. The result of the mapping identified locations in the city to be selected as tree planting locations due to environmental justice and health equity need. |
| Rathmann et al. 2020 (Augsburg, Germany): This study explored the human well-being cooling benefits of urban greening using both subjective well-being logs and objective human physiological data (i.e., blood pressure readings) in an urban forest in Germany. The result of this study demonstrated significant positive effects of urban greening on human physiological measures (e.g., reduction in heart rate). | ||
| Huanchun et al. 2021 (Beijing, China): This study conducted a simulation of potential green space in Beijing to optimize the reduction of the impact of the urban heat island effect on respiratory disease, cardiovascular disease, and emotional health. The resulting planning strategy for green space recommended a layout of “three vertical and four horizontal corridors encompassed in one ring”. | ||
| Sustainable and ongoing community engagement and/or community co-creation | 5 | Hopkins et al. 2022 (Houston, TX, USA): First, a “leading environmental non-profit group” engaged the Houston Health Department to discuss native tree species and associated benefits with public health, working together to choose locations of interest. Next, additional partners were engaged across multiple other sectors, including other environmental groups, businesses, and industry partners. This engagement was done through “a series of meetings, a luncheon, lectures, webinars, video and in-person forums, and on-site tree species demonstrations”. |
| Nabhan et al. 2020 (Great Sonoran Desert, USA/Mexico): This study demonstrated examples of culturally diverse youth programs focused on ecological restoration or urban regreening activities. These programs offered opportunities for ecopsychology and other health/ecology researchers to work with youth and better evaluate the impacts of naturebased interventions on human and ecosystem health. | ||
| Oosterbroek et al. 2024 (Maastricht, The Netherlands): This study provided an example of participatory design of urban green space in neighborhoods with low economic and health indicator scores through engagement with older-aged and youth residents. The process included choosing a set of health effects to assess and how to assess them, orienting community members on a neighborhood walk, conducting a first design session with the community, iterating with experts and participant self-assessments, and finally reporting the results to local decision makers. |