Examining the Optimal Placement of Cooling Centers to Serve Populations at High Risk of Extreme Heat Exposure in 81 US Cities
Examining the Optimal Placement of Cooling Centers to Serve Populations at High Risk of Extreme Heat Exposure in 81 US Cities
复制标题
DOI：
10.1177/00333549221148174
复制
发表时间：
2023-02-01
影响因子：
3.3
通讯作者：
Nori-Sarma, Amruta
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Adams, Quinn H.;Chan, Elana M. G.;Nori-Sarma, Amruta
目的：虽然极端高温会影响任何人的健康，但某些群体受到的影响尤为严重。在城市环境中，冷却中心旨在通过向公众提供空调空间来减少热量暴露。我们研究了居住在冷却中心附近的人口的特征，以及它们如何为社会脆弱性高的地区服务。方法：我们从公开来源中确定了81个美国城市的1402个冷却中心，并分析了与其位置相关的城市热量和社会脆弱性标志。在每个城市中，我们开发了冷却中心访问区域，定义为距离中心0.5英里步行范围内的地理区域，并比较了访问区域内外人口的社会人口特征。我们分析了城市和地理区域的结果，以评估气候相关的区域差异。结果：使用冷却中心的城市之间存在差异，从0.01%（乔治亚州亚特兰大）到63.2%（华盛顿特区）居住在该区域的人口。平均而言，冷却中心位于社会脆弱程度较高的地区，这是由生活在城市热岛的人数、低于贫困的家庭年收入、种族和少数民族地位、低受教育程度和高失业率来衡量的。然而，通道区域对>= 65岁的成年人群的包容性低于对老年人群的包容性。考虑到有很大比例的人无法进入制冷中心，以及预计极端高温事件的频率和严重程度将会增加，我们研究的城市地区目前的制冷中心分布可能不足以保护个人免受极端高温对健康的不利影响，特别是在缺乏降低风险的额外措施的情况下。
Objective: Although extreme heat can impact the health of anyone, certain groups are disproportionately affected. In urban settings, cooling centers are intended to reduce heat exposure by providing air-conditioned spaces to the public. We examined the characteristics of populations living near cooling centers and how well they serve areas with high social vulnerability. Methods: We identified 1402 cooling centers in 81 US cities from publicly available sources and analyzed markers of urban heat and social vulnerability in relation to their locations. Within each city, we developed cooling center access areas, defined as the geographic area within a 0.5-mile walk from a center, and compared sociodemographic characteristics of populations living within versus outside the access areas. We analyzed results by city and geographic region to evaluate climate-relevant regional differences. Results: Access to cooling centers differed among cities, ranging from 0.01% (Atlanta, Georgia) to 63.2% (Washington, DC) of the population living within an access area. On average, cooling centers were in areas that had higher levels of social vulnerability, as measured by the number of people living in urban heat islands, annual household income below poverty, racial and ethnic minority status, low educational attainment, and high unemployment rate. However, access areas were less inclusive of adult populations aged >= 65 years than among populations aged Conclusion: Given the large percentage of individuals without access to cooling centers and the anticipated increase in frequency and severity of extreme heat events, the current distribution of centers in the urban areas that we examined may be insufficient to protect individuals from the adverse health effects of extreme heat, particularly in the absence of additional measures to reduce risk.