Review and Critical Analysis of International UHI Studies

Awareness: the bodies that have the potential to influence UHI countermeasure deployment and
enforcement e.g. Environmental Protection Agencies must have the appropriate knowledge and
understanding of the UHI impacts, UHI mitigating technologies and their potential to reduce
UHI impacts in particular reduce the costs, energy use, peak power and related CO2 emissions –
these are likely factors to incentivize the adoption of policies that would seek to increase the
adoption of these technologies. The Government Bodies etc previously discussed are reliant on
studies from research institution such as the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, other
universities and environmental groups to provide them with the appropriate scientific insight to
make decisions on policy and strategy. The papers identify certain gaps in research particularly
around quantifiable benefits of some mitigation measures which makes decision making more
challenging for the Bodies.
Accessibility: N/A
Affordability: the authorities seeking to encourage the large scale implementation of UHI
countermeasures need to have adequate budget to provide demonstration projects and in some
cases incentivize the adoption of UHI technologies that are often more expensive than
conventional alternatives.
Acceptance: the countermeasure benefits must be understood and accepted by all institutional
stakeholders to ensure there is clear scope and coordination between the involved parties and
policies that are developed. This buy‐in and coordination are critical to the rate of uptake and
success of any large scale UHI countermeasure program. The literature indicates that there is a
broad acceptance for the UHIs as an observed phenomenon across most parts of the world;
however, in the US there are still significant steps that remain to be taken to achieve mass
coordination between all relevant stakeholders, in Japan and China it appears that the efforts are
led from the national government and thus they adhere to a more coordinated mandate, although
the rate of urbanization and new developments presents their own challenges to enforcing UHI
countermeasures at large scales.
Primary Barriers:
� Coordination and buy‐in of authorities, no overlap in responsibilities;
� Existence of appropriate institutions;
� Institutions have the appropriate knowledge and tools to enable decision making and
prioritization of UHI;
� Understanding and transferability of other institutional models; and
� Authorities having the appropriate budgets to run large scale mitigation programs.
5.5.4.2 Information Barriers/Catalyst
The five A’s are now examined to identify the barriers associated with the level of information
provision in the market.
Review and Critical Analysis of International UHI Studies
Page 101