Data for "Plan evaluation for heat resilience: Complementary methods to comprehensively assess heat planning in Tempe and Tucson, Arizona"

This is the final results of the Plan Quality Evaluation for Heat Resilience and Plan Integration for Resilience ScorecardTM for Heat as applied to the City of Tempe and City of Tucson, Arizona. The Plan Quality Evaluation for Heat Resilience methodology follows best practices for plan content analysis. The assessment has two components: the Quality Principles Evaluation and the Heat Strategies Evaluation. For the Quality Principles Evaluation, we assess whether plans meet 56 criteria spanning seven principles as outlined in Meerow and Woodruff (2020) and Keith and Meerow (2022): goals, fact base, strategies, implementation and monitoring, coordination, public participation, and uncertainty. We code each plan using a binary assessment for all criteria, 1 if the criterion is met in the plan, 0 if it is not. The goals principle examines whether plans have a clear purpose, vision, objectives, and heat-specific aims. The fact base principle reflects the informational basis of the plans, including heat-relevant data. The strategies principle looks for heat-specific actions and whether the costs, co-benefits, and trade-offs of these actions are discussed. The implementation and monitoring principle assesses characteristics that make it likely actions are executed and tracked. The coordination principle examines which stakeholders are involved in the planning process, while the public participation principle focuses on how the broader public was engaged. The uncertainty principle considers whether plans account for future uncertainties, which is critical for climate change planning. The Heat Strategies Evaluation includes 27 subcategory criteria spanning eight categories of heat mitigation and management strategies (Table A2, supplementary material; Keith and Meerow 2022). Criteria are scored a 0 if the plan does not discuss that strategy type, 1 if it does discuss it, and an additional 1 (2 total) if the strategy is explicitly linked to heat. Two researchers independently coded each plan, and the full team then discussed any discrepancies. Following best practices for plan evaluation, we calculated intercoder reliability indicators, including the percent agreement and Krippendorf’s Alpha (Krippendorff 2004, Stevens et al 2014), all of which were well above Stevens et al.’s (2014) recommended minimums for plan evaluations with many, highly distributed items. The Plan Integration for Resilience Scorecard™ (PIRS™) is a method for analyzing the policies, or specific