Global environmental change and sustainability science increasingly recognize the need to address the consequences of changes taking place in the structure and function of the biosphere. These changes raise questions such as: Who and what are vulnerable to the multiple environmental changes underway, and where? Research demonstrates that vulnerability is registered not by exposure to hazards (perturbations and stresses) alone but also resides in the sensitivity and resilience of the system experiencing such hazards. This recognition requires revisions and enlargements in the basic design of vulnerability assessments, including the capacity to treat coupled human–environment systems and those linkages within and without the systems that affect their vulnerability. A vulnerability framework for the assessment of coupled human–environment systems is presented.

Research on global environmental change has significantly improved our understanding of the structure and function of the biosphere and the human impress on both (1). The emergence of “sustainability science” (2–4) builds toward an understanding of the human–environment condition with the dual objectives of meeting the needs of society while sustaining the life support systems of the planet. These objectives, in turn, require improved dialogue between science and decision making (5–8). The vulnerability of coupled human–environment systems is one of the central elements of this dialogue and sustainability research (6, 9–11). It directs attention to such questions as: Who and what are vulnerable to the multiple environmental and human changes underway, and where? How are these changes and their consequences attenuated or amplified by different human and environmental conditions? What can be done to reduce vulnerability to change? How may more resilient and adaptive communities and societies be built?

Answers to these and related questions require conceptual frameworks that account for the vulnerability of coupled human–environment systems with diverse and complex linkages. Various expert communities have made considerable progress in pointing the way toward the design of these frameworks (10, 11). These advances are briefly reviewed here and, drawing on them, we present a conceptual framework of vulnerability developed by the Research and Assessment Systems for Sustainability Program (http://sust.harvard.edu) that produced the set of works in this Special Feature of PNAS. The framework aims to make vulnerability analysis consistent with the concerns of sustainability and global environmental change science. The case study by Turner et al. (12) in this issue of PNAS illustrates how the framework informs vulnerability assessments.

The City of Phoenix Street Transportation Department partnered with the Rob and Melani Walton Sustainability Solutions Service at Arizona State University (ASU) and researchers from various ASU schools to evaluate the effectiveness, performance, and community perception of the new pavement coating. The data collection and analysis occurred across multiple neighborhoods and at varying times across days and/or months over the course of one year (July 15, 2020–July 14, 2021), allowing the team to study the impacts of the surface treatment under various weather conditions.

Background:
Environmental heat exposure is a public health concern. The impacts of environmental heat on mortality and morbidity at the population scale are well documented, but little is known about specific exposures that individuals experience.

Objectives:
The first objective of this work was to catalyze discussion of the role of personal heat exposure information in research and risk assessment. The second objective was to provide guidance regarding the operationalization of personal heat exposure research methods.

Discussion:
We define personal heat exposure as realized contact between a person and an indoor or outdoor environment that poses a risk of increases in body core temperature and/or perceived discomfort. Personal heat exposure can be measured directly with wearable monitors or estimated indirectly through the combination of time–activity and meteorological data sets. Complementary information to understand individual-scale drivers of behavior, susceptibility, and health and comfort outcomes can be collected from additional monitors, surveys, interviews, ethnographic approaches, and additional social and health data sets. Personal exposure research can help reveal the extent of exposure misclassification that occurs when individual exposure to heat is estimated using ambient temperature measured at fixed sites and can provide insights for epidemiological risk assessment concerning extreme heat.

Conclusions:
Personal heat exposure research provides more valid and precise insights into how often people encounter heat conditions and when, where, to whom, and why these encounters occur. Published literature on personal heat exposure is limited to date, but existing studies point to opportunities to inform public health practice regarding extreme heat, particularly where fine-scale precision is needed to reduce health consequences of heat exposure.

Objectives: To provide novel quantification and advanced measurements of surface temperatures (Ts) in playgrounds, employing multiple scales of data, and provide insight into hot-hazard mitigation techniques and designs for improved environmental and public health.

Methods: We conduct an analysis of Ts in two Metro-Phoenix playgrounds at three scales: neighborhood (1 km resolution), microscale (6.8 m resolution), and touch-scale (1 cm resolution). Data were derived from two sources: airborne remote sensing (neighborhood and microscale) and in situ (playground site) infrared Ts (touch-scale). Metrics of surface-to-air temperature deltas (Ts–a) and scale offsets (errors) are introduced.

Results: Select in situ Ts in direct sunlight are shown to approach or surpass values likely to result in burns to children at touch-scales much finer than Ts resolved by airborne remote sensing. Scale offsets based on neighbourhood and microscale ground observations are 3.8 ◦C and 7.3 ◦C less than the Ts–a at the 1 cm touch-scale, respectively, and 6.6 ◦C and 10.1 ◦C lower than touch-scale playground equipment Ts, respectively. Hence, the coarser scales underestimate high Ts within playgrounds. Both natural (tree) and artificial (shade sail) shade types are associated with significant reductions in Ts.

Conclusions: A scale mismatch exists based on differing methods of urban Ts measurement. The sub-meter touch-scale is the spatial scale at which data must be collected and policies of urban landscape design and health must be executed in order to mitigate high Ts in high-contact environments such as playgrounds. Shade implementation is the most promising mitigation technique to reduce child burns, increase park usability, and mitigate urban heating.