Emergency Heat Governance and Municipal Cooling Policies

Abstract

Background: The practical operation of policy relating to extreme heat differs across settings, suggesting a need to examine implementation capacity and institutional design directly.

Objective: This study sought to explain differences in the implementation of extreme heat by examining institutional responsibility, administrative capacity, and municipal policy.

Methods: A mixed-method observational study was conducted across 8 jurisdictions and 21 institutions. Documentary and administrative evidence was coded with a standardized framework and, where applicable, supplemented with stakeholder or practitioner data. Descriptive and multivariable analyses compared implementation patterns and institutional correlates.

Results: Procedural consistency for extreme heat was achieved by approximately 65% of institutions. Better coordination was linked to a 13% improvement in the main outcome, while the implementation weaknesses most frequently recorded were capacity constraints and unclear responsibility.

Conclusion: The findings underline a practical gap between formal policy on extreme heat and the institutional work required to deliver it consistently. This means that climate and environmental measures are more likely to translate into implementation when local capacity, funding decisions, and review processes are aligned.

Study design: city policy evaluation.

Publication history: Originally published in print on 15 June 2024, Volume 4, Article 18. Online abstract record added on 16 September 2026. Full-text PDF will be added when the digital galley is ready.