The Imperative for Hazard- and Place-Specific Assessment of Heat Vulnerability.

BACKGROUND

Representing vulnerability is crucial for informing targeted interventions, but existing vulnerability conceptualizations are too general for heat hazard-specific and place-specific relevance. Examining the key decision criteria centering around data choices, selection of input variables, methodological approaches, and theoretical conceptualizations are integral to progressing toward hazard-specific and place-specific vulnerability assessment. Moreover, decisions touching on Geographic Information Science (GIScience)-related issues (e.g., the implications of scale choices and accounting for contextual effects) impact how people who are at risk for adverse heat-health outcomes are represented. In turn, these representations influence how critical interventions are implemented. Given the prospects of increases in adverse heat-health outcomes associated with planetary and urban warming, it is crucial to examine how the representation of heat vulnerability can be enhanced for tailored interventions.

OBJECTIVE

This commentary examines the assumptions underpinning the decision criteria for heat vulnerability analysis and identifies associated implications while recommending priority future research. Reorienting general hazard conceptualizations to reflect contextual, heat-specific nuances is crucial for attenuating heat-related health outcomes.

DISCUSSION

Heat vulnerability studies lack consistent decision criteria, which undermines progress toward hazard-specific and place-specific vulnerability relevance. Some of these limitations are attributable to the persistent application of general, all-hazards conceptualizations to hazard-specific studies. Moreover, inconsistent decision criteria undermine the replicability and validity of studies and propagate uncertainty while compromising progress toward standardized, consistent, scalable approaches and testing of existing assumptions that could strengthen heat vulnerability theory. Given GIScience technologies are central to representing spatial patterns of vulnerability, the epistemological foundation of vulnerability theory can be strengthened when GIScience concepts (e.g., the operational scale of social-environmental determinants of health and assumptions underpinning spatial relationships) are considered during vulnerability representation.

CONCLUSION

Examining decision criteria for heat vulnerability assessment is crucial to identifying optimal sets of heat-specific and place-specific risk indicators, thereby enhancing the representation of vulnerability. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP14801.