According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), more people die in the U.S. from heat than from all other natural disasters combined. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), more than 1,300 deaths per year in the United States are due to extreme heat. Arizona, California and Texas are the three states with the highest burden, accounting for 43% of all heat-related deaths according to the CDC.

Although only 5% of housing in Maricopa County, Arizona, is mobile homes, approximately 30% of indoor heat-related deaths occur in these homes. Thus, the residents of mobile homes in Maricopa County are disproportionately affected by heat. Mobile home residents are extremely exposed to heat due to the high density of mobile home parks, poor construction of dwellings, lack of vegetation, socio-demographic features and not being eligible to get utility and financial assistance.

We researched numerous solutions across different domains that could help build the heat resilience of mobile home residents. As a result we found 50 different solutions for diverse stakeholders, budgets and available resources. The goal of this toolbox is to present these solutions and to explain how to apply them in order to get the most optimal result and build About this Solutions Guide People who live in mobile homes are 6 to 8 times more likely to die of heat-associated deaths. heat resilience for mobile home residents. These solutions were designed as a coordinated set of actions for everyone — individual households, mobile home residents, mobile home park owners, cities and counties, private businesses and nonprofits serving mobile home parks, and other stakeholders — to be able to contribute to heat mitigation for mobile home residents.

When we invest in a collective, coordinated suite of solutions that are designed specifically to address the heat vulnerability of mobile homes residents, we can realize a resilience dividend in maintaining affordable, feasible, liveable housing for the 20 million Americans who choose mobile homes and manufactured housing as their place to live and thrive.

In the face of profound shock and change, individuals, organizations, and communities are seeking new ways to prepare for an uncertain future, their only certainty being that the present trajectory of change will intensify. Pandemics, wildfires, heat waves, hurricanes, flooding, social unrest, economic strife, and a rapidly changing climate system comprise a resounding wake up call: we must reinvent our institutions to think about and act with a resilient mindset. The purpose of the playbook is to support these efforts and build stronger, adaptive, and resilient communities.

Innovation studies provide a framework to reflect on potential solutions to reduce vulnerabilities to shock and stress. Solutions identified in the literature, empirical and theoretical, suggest a critical role is played by different types of innovation in the transition to more resilient and innovative communities. This paper examines the role of innovation for building community resilience.

In his writings over the past decade, Brad Allenby has proposed (at least) 16 principles of sustainable engineering (see references) that are collectively known as the Earth Systems Engineering and Management (ESEM) principles. These principles have merit and applicability in many disciplines and domains of discourse, but are sometimes awkward to use due to the quantity of words required to accurately express their meaning. In light of this, it has become necessary to formulate a simplified list of “abbreviated tags” for ease of reference in conversation and concise writing. This list of tags also makes the principles immediately accessible to those who may want to pursue the more thorough definitions offered by Allenby. The following tags have been proposed for use when a concise phrasing is required. The citation provided after the tag is, in my opinion, the most complete expression of Allenby’s thought on this principle. It can be used when citing the principle in written assignments or publications.

This study seeks to examine how the introduction of residential solid oxide fuel cells (SOFC) will affect urban air quality. Both the life-cycle and operations emissions profiles of an SOFC are compared with the baseload electricity generating technologies that widespread adoption of SOFCs would replace – coal fired, natural gas combined cycle, and nuclear. The monetary impacts from use phase emissions are then assessed in five water-vulnerable cities in which SOFCs would likely be adopted in order to increase local resilience to electricity failures as a result of water shortages. The SOFC system under study is a 1 kWe system of planar design intended for residential CHP. The excess heat from the SOFC is used to heat domestic hot water. Analysis of the SOFC system life-cycle includes raw materials extraction and processing, component manufacturing, SOFC manufacturing, natural gas fuel processing and distribution, SOFC use, as well as energy used in these processes. Life-cycle analysis of the baseload power systems is bounded similarly. Emissions tracked for this study include SOx, NOx, VOCs, PM10, and PM2.5.

Sustainable mobility policy for long-distance transportation services should consider emerging automobiles and aircraft as well as infrastructure and supply chain life-cycle effects in the assessment of new high-speed rail systems. Using the California corridor, future automobiles, high-speed rail and aircraft long-distance travel are evaluated, considering emerging fuel-efficient vehicles, new train designs and the possibility that the region will meet renewable electricity goals. An attributional per passenger-kilometer-traveled life-cycle inventory is first developed including vehicle, infrastructure and energy production components. A consequential life-cycle impact assessment is then established to evaluate existing infrastructure expansion against the construction of a new high-speed rail system. The results show that when using the life-cycle assessment framework, greenhouse gas footprints increase significantly and human health and environmental damage potentials may be dominated by indirect and supply chain components. The environmental payback is most sensitive to the number of automobile trips shifted to high-speed rail, and for greenhouse gases is likely to occur in 20–30 years. A high-speed rail system that is deployed with state-of-the-art trains, electricity that has met renewable goals, and in a configuration that endorses high ridership will provide significant environmental benefits over existing modes. Opportunities exist for reducing the long-distance transportation footprint by incentivizing large automobile trip shifts, meeting clean electricity goals and reducing material production effects.