London Heat Reduction Plan: Greening, Policy, and Warnings

Words: 4950 Pages: 18

Executive Summary

This comprehensive project plan presents a strategic and practical solution to increasing temperatures in the city of London. The three proposals presented are promotion of a standardised greening strategy for existing projects, establishment of a development policy for new infrastructure and creation of heatwave warning systems. Through a comparative review of these options, the first option was selected due to its practicality and optimal outcome.

The proposed project plan will be implemented for a period of seven years at a cost of £4.8 million. The work breakdown structure indicates that the project has four implementation phases that run concurrently. The only major risks identified in the project plan are delay and operational challenges. Stakeholder matrix suggests that the plan will face minimal rejection since it caters for the interests of all parties.

Proposals for Developing and Adapting to Increasing Temperatures in the City of London

In order to create a plan for managing increasing temperatures in the city of London, it is imperative to examine the current city-wide planning approach, collaborative framework among stakeholders and the decision makingprocess (Musco 2016). Moreover, there is a need to integrate a holistic thinking to proactively manage the risks posed by increasing temperatures in order to design a sustainable climate-proofing system (Rannow and Neubert 2014). In order to manage the heatwave risk, the city of London should consider implementing the following proposals.

Option 1: The department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) in collaboration with other stakeholders should create and institutionalise comprehensive overheating standards applicable for public, workplace and home facilities, including public transport, schools and healthcare premises (McDonald 2015).
Option 2: The GLA, developers and London Boroughs should put in place policies aimed at controlling new infrastructural development to ensure that these projects reduce and minimise further intensification of the city’s urban heat island (UHI) impact (Yamagata and Maruyama 2016). This means that there should be a clear plan on approval of appropriate construction and design in private and public projects within the city of London.
Option 3: There should be a comprehensive short and long-term plan to accommodate the needs of vulnerable persons, especially children, older people and people with pre-existing illness through a multiagency emergency planning centre equipped with the latest gadgets for tracking and monitoring the rising temperatures (Konvitz 2016). For instance, the current emergency planning agencies, such as London Resilience, Health Protection Agency, local authorities and Primary Care Trust should be merged into a multiagency UHI management team (Gotham and Greenberg 2014). This multiagency should then create a tested and coordinated plan for reducing the potential impacts of heat waves within the city of London.

Option Appraisal and Recommendation

Option 1: Promotion of Standardised Greening of Existing Projects

Although high temperatures are not a serious challenge in London at present, the ever rising global warming might increase the city’s UHI. In order to address this challenge, London City might consider a policy paper on green roofing and cool roofing in all existing projects across London (Fleming et al. 2018). The policy should recommend installation of green roofs in old buildings that are compatible and make it a mandatory requirement for any new construction project.

Green roofs have the potential of insulation during winter and reduction of overheating during summer. In buildings that are not structurally sound to accommodate green roofing, the campaign should focus on encouraging owners to install cool roofs (Watt and Hunt 2018). Borrowing from the success story of Camden and Newark cities, deciduous trees along the streets will provide shade during summer (Seltenrich 2016). Moreover, a mixture of deciduous and conifer trees will effectively reduce the negative effects of wind tunnels along the street. These trees should be planted at the right place while putting into account factors such as shading during summer, root penetration and longevity.

The proposed standardisation of green projects in the city of London should take at least 7 years for existing infrastructure. The timeline runs concurrently for all the activities. This period is adequate for passing relevant laws, establishing institutions and rolling out a public campaign or mobilising resources. As captured in table 1, the timeline is subdivided into implementation stages. This proposal is projected to cost between 4.5 and 4.8 million pounds.

The costing was based on conservative values of similar projects that have been executed in other cities such as Tokyo (Fleming et al. 2018). The only risk associated with this proposal is limited or lack of Stakeholder cooperation, especially among the private developers and residents of London. However, this risk is minimal and might only affect 10% of the project. As captured in table 1, the risk mitigation process will involve a well organised public campaign to enlighten the stakeholders on the benefits of this project.

Table 1: Summary of cost, timeline and risks associated with option 1.

Activity	Cost	Alignment to Brief Risk	Comment	Timeline
Creation and equipping Urban Heat Island Action Area (UHIAA)	1 million pounds	Encourage private-public partnership with stakeholders for general acceptance and participation	The UHIAA will have the mandate of implementing these proposals	Two years to accommodate relevant legislative and structural implementation
Green and Cool Roofing Subsidies for Existing Projects	2 million pounds	Optimal public participation to avoid rejection	This has a potential of reducing temperatures by up to 30%.	5 years
Creation of Wind/Ventilation Channels/Tunnels	1 million pounds	Optimal public participation to avoid rejection	This will optimise air flow within the city and bring about cooling effect	7 years
Green Walling Subsidies for Existing Projects	500,000 pounds	Optimal public participation to avoid rejection	This will reduce the energy used in cooling buildings and low temperatures	3 years
Planting of Trees Along the Streets	300,000 pounds	Optimal public participation to avoid rejection	Provide shade during summer and lower the temperatures	2 years
Total	4.8 million pounds

Option 2: Standardisation of New Infrastructural Development

There is a need for the city of London to pass the relevant legislative framework to ensure that new projects adhere to the cool city regulations. This means that the UHI guidelines should be transformed into a green policy for any new project coming up in London. For instance, it is imperative for the stakeholders to adapt a multi-institutional approach in approval, subsidising and monitoring new projects (Benmarhnia et al 2016).

This option has no timeline since it will be a permanent legislative policy for controlling new projects across the city of London. In order to make the proposal effective, star ratings will apply for different types of projects, depending on their density, purpose and location. As captured in table 2, the cost of legislation, putting in place institutions and subsidising the construction activities is estimated at 4 million pounds. The only risk associated with this option is limited or lack of general endorsement by the stakeholders (Fleming et al. 2018). However, this risk is minimal since new projects will enjoy subsidies.

Table 2: Summary of cost, timeline and risks associated with option 2.

Activity	Cost	Alignment to Brief Risk	Comment	Timeline
Creation and equipping aUrban Heat Island Action Area (UHIAA)	1 million pounds	Encourage private-public partnership with stakeholders for general acceptance and participation	The UHIAA will have the mandate of implementing these proposals	Two years to accommodate relevant legislative and structural implementation
Green Standards for all new projects	1 million pounds	Optimal public participation to avoid rejection	This has a potential of reducing temperatures by up to 30%.	Unlimited timeline
Green Walling Subsidies for New Projects	2 million pounds	Optimal public participation to avoid rejection	This will reduce the energy used in cooling buildings and low temperatures	Unlimited
Total	4 million pounds

Option 3: Establishment of Heat Warning Systems

The city of London should advance the progress made by the UK National Heatwave Plan to ensure that its intervention strategies are effective and sustainable in short and long-term. The proposed improvements in the current Heat Health Warning System (HHWS) will require a multi-agency collaboration (Mamadouh and Wageningen 2017). Therefore, the HHWS proposed will be modified to address the needs of the homeless population via the Primary Care Trusts (PCTs), establish cool centres(air-conditioned public places) in the event of a heatwaveand setup a buddy system where home with ventilation may accommodate the vulnerable during a heatwave.

Moreover, the action plan will also include institutionalisation of guidelines for modifying the existing building to minimise high indoor temperatures (Alberti 2016). As captured in table 3, the cost of this option is estimated at 5 million pounds with a timeline of 5 years. The only risk associated with this plan is limited funding. However, a budget of 5 million pounds is adequate for a basic model.

Table 3: Summary of cost, timeline and risks associated with option 3.

Activity	Cost	Alignment to Brief Risk	Comment	Timeline
Creation and equipping cool centres across London	2 million pounds	Encourage private-public partnership with stakeholders for general acceptance and participation	Offer free and unlimited access during heatwave	Two years to accommodate relevant legislative and structural implementation
Setup buddy system	1 million	Optimal public participation to avoid rejection	This has a potential of absorbing up to 20% of vulnerable population during heatwave	Unlimited timeline since the government has to put in place a database
Guidelines to modify existing buildings and thereafter inspection	2 million pounds	Optimal public participation to avoid rejection	This will reduce the temperatures in public and private buildings	2 years of implementation and 2 years of certification
Total	5 million pounds

Comparative Review of the Three Options

A comprehensive comparative review was performed for the three options in order to select the most effective in making London a cool city. The review examined the cost implications, benefits and risks as captured in table 4.

Table 4: Selecting the best option.

Options	Cost	Benefits and Rationale	Risks	Practicality	Comment
Option 1	€4.8 million	Immediate heat reduction and general cooling upon completion since its impact will be felt across the city	Minimal participation and legal challenges	A multi-agency private-public partnership makes the project very practical	The best option
Option 2	€4 million	New structures will adhere to the cool city standards, thus, reducing the UHI in London. However, new projects are not very many in London	Minimal participation and legal challenges	There are few new projects that have the capacity of altering the temperatures in London	Good option
Option 3	€5 million	Heat warning systems keep the city alert and prepared to react before the situation turns into a disaster. However, it only reacts rather than prevent	Limited funding	Very practical but is more of a reactionary policy rather than a preventive measure	Better option

Table 5: Scorecard Comparison.

Variable.	Weighing factor (1 to 5)	Option 1: Promotion of Standardised Greening of Existing Projects		Option 2: Standardisation of New Infrastructural Development		Option 3: Establishment of Heat Warning Systems
Variable.	Weighing factor (1 to 5)	Score (1 to 10)	Weighted score	Score (1 to 10)	Weighted score	Score (1 to 10)	Weighted score
Risks (Lowest)	4	8	32	7	28	6	24
Cost Implication	4	8	32	9	36	5	20
Implementation Time (shortest)	3	6	18	7	21	9	27
Short-term Benefits	3	7	21	5	15	6	18
Long-term Benefits	4	9	36	6	24	5	20
TOTAL			139		124		109

Project Plan: Option 1

Based on a comparative review and scorecard of the three options, the first option was picked due to its high magnitude of impact and practicality on offering preventive and sustainable solution to increasing temperatures in the city of London.

Scope

Based on the analysis of the three scenarios, option 1 was selected as the best plan for reducing increasing temperatures in the city of London. The proposed project aims at remodelling the existing infrastructural development, the creation of wind tunnels and the planting of trees to reduce temperatures in the city. The objective of the project is to ensure that the city of London has a sustainable, practical and effective heat management system within 7 years. Therefore, the project deliverables are the establishment of an Urban Heat Island Action Area (UHIAA), green and cool roofing support, logistical execution of wind tunnels and planting of trees.

Each deliverable will be reviewed against the set timeline and progress (Nagendra 2016). The primary considerations and assumptions are a fixed budget of 5 million pounds, adequate qualified personnel and full support by all the stakeholders. Critical success factors are completion within the pre-set timeline and at least the 80% success rate. The project management will use the 360 degree feedback criterion to track these success factors.

Project Objectives

Create a natural cooling system within London that would reduce heat during summer seasons.
Create an organization that would further develop and promote the use of greenery within the city landscape.
Create a series of public spaces that contribute to the visual style of London and address its ecological problems.
Collaborate with the London government to find funding and implement the idea.
Identify, prevent or mitigate risks that could arise in relation to project implementation.
Ensure effective communication among stakeholders.
Allocate roles and responsibilities in a manner that ensures flawless project execution.
Implement various tools to assist project development and assessment of its results.

Project Deliverables

Construction ventilation/wind channels.
Construction of green roofs and planting street greenery that creates vital public spaces.
Establishment of UHIAA that ensures public-private partnership in the sphere of urban development.
Establishment of a project team which includes London government as the key stakeholder, funding source, and manager.
Creation of a risk assessment tool that includes actions to address, prevent, and mitigate them.
Establishment of organization breakdown structure, stakeholder management plan, and chart of team member responsibilities.
Development of quality control measurements and assign them to team members.

Project Assumptions

Within the framework of this project, it could be reasonable to assume that the London government and the mayor will be interested in financing this project. The reason for this is the fact that the project is aligned with London Environment Strategy (Greater London Authority, 2018). The second assumption is that it will be possible to receive extensive public support and establish public-private cooperation due to the fact that the project proposes a positive change to the city’s environment. In addition, it could be assumed that London would greatly benefit from such a project and its success will foster other similar initiatives that will be guided by UHIAA.

Constraints and Considerations

One of the core constraints is the quality of works and materials that, if not ensured, could undermine the success of the project, increase the budget and violate the deadlines. Therefore, addressing this issue is among the key considerations during the planning and implementation stages. Another constraint that might affect the successful construction of the objects is the support and effective guidance of the London Government.

They might find this initiative not worth financing and allocate the city funds elsewhere. In this case, the project will require a redesign to find additional sources of funding. The final constraint is the timeline. 7 years appears to be a considerable amount of time that could encompass economic and political changes. Brexit, for instance, according to Gudgin, Coutts, Gibson, and Buchanan (2018), will take a toll on the country’s GDP which may cut the spendings on urban development projects.

Success Criteria

One of the success criteria is the acquisition of funding and support of the London administration. Other milestones will include gathering a multi-skilled and experienced team of managers and workers that would be motivated to contribute at the top of their capacity. Additionally, the project’s success will depend on the ability of the construction team to build the necessary object within the deadline and project budget.

Critical Success Factors

The most beneficial environment for the project’s success is the provision of the required amount of funding, meeting all deadlines, and provision of the high-quality of constructed objects. Meeting these goals will ensure that the project will not only achieve its goals but will be an example for further work in this direction. The creation of an organization that could incorporate highly trained individuals and establishes public-private partnership will enable the project to address all its goals and continue to yield benefit for London.

Planning and Control

The project schedule is divided into four phases. As captured in table 6, the work breakdown structure is organised into project initiation, project plan, execution and control and closing phases.

	Work Table 6: Breakdown Structure for the Project.
1	Initiate project
1.1	Develop charter
1.1.1	Defining project Scope
1.1.2	Defining requirements
1.1.3	Identifying high-level roles
1.1.4	Develop high-level budget
1.1.5	Identify high-level strategies for effective control
1.1.6	Finalise charter and gain approvals
1.1.6.1	Consolidate and publish the Project Charter
1.1.6.2	Hold first review meeting
1.1.6.3	Revising charter from the results of the first meeting
1.1.6.4	Gain approval after revision
2	Plan Project
2.1	Develop Work Plan
2.1.1	Develop Work Breakdown Structure
2.1.2	Develop final staffing plan
2.1.3	Develop project schedule
2.1.4	Develop project budget
2.2	Develop project control plan
2.2.1	Develop communication plan
2.2.2	Develop quality management schedule
2.3	Finalise project plan and approvals
3	Execute and control project
3.1	Design framework
3.1.1	Define activities per framework
3.1.2	Create framework for project content formats
3.1.3	Design framework tool
3.2	Build the framework
3.2.1	Create the content for framework
3.2.2	Review created framework for quality
3.3	Test framework
3.3.1	Test efficiency of the process
3.3.2	Test usability
3.3.3	Adjust the framework within the feedback tests
3.4	Implement framework
3.4.2	Announce the project in targeted market
4	Close the project
4.1	Conduct comprehensive review of post establishment
4.2	Declaring project as successful

The approach to executing the plan will adapt four phases that are expected to be completed within 7 years. Each phase is expected to take 2 years, with the exception of the last stage. The rationale for breaking the project in four phases was informed by the need to carry out an organised and easy to follow process (Kahn 2013). As captured in table 6 and chart 1, the milestones, critical activities and decision gates are explained under each stage.

Project WBS

Organisation

As captured in figure 1 and table 7, the organisational breakdown structure of the project consists of multi-talented professionals with adequate skills to implement a project of this magnitude. The key partners who will help deliver this project are local governmental and non-governmental authorities across the city of London.

Table 7: Organisational breakdown structure.

Resource type	Supplier	Duration (days)	Rate $/day	Estimated costs ($)
Architectural design	External	217	225	48,520
Civil engineers	External	240	110	30,440
Project management	Internal	155	130	19,320
Project coordination	Internal	160	130	19,240
Trainer	Internal	220	120	25,000
Supplier	Internal	240	100	24,500
Project workers	An external contractor	1200	1000	1,200,000
Total costs	€1,361,220

Table 8: Project Responsibilities.

Project Team	Project Responsibilities
London Government	Oversee compliance of the project with policies and regulations. Ensure alignment with London development strategy (Greater London Authority, 2018). Provision and control of funds allocated to UHIAA and the project team. Organization of tenders for construction. Approval of budget and changes to it. Control over construction and development deadlines.
Project Manager	Communicate project status to representatives of the London Government. Assignment of tasks to the team and control of their completion. Leading the team to success by using motivation techniques. Planning and consideration of barriers and ways to overcome them. Management of conflicts. Management of timeline.
Financial Manager	Develop and, if necessary, correct budget. Manage the reception and allocation of finances in a cohesive and report-ready fashion. Revise the final budget and ensure no unreported costs are present. Communicate with the project manager as needed to receive instructions or provide consultations. Find and organize a small team to assist oneself in achieving project goals.
Construction Manager	Gather information on the construction process. Identify and correct issues arising during construction. Provide assistance to the financial manager with developing a budget. Gather and manage a team of capable workers. Assess suppliers and manufacturers of equipment.
Legal Team	Provide counsel on matters concerning budgeting, construction, compliance with legal norms and standards. Ensure all contracts are unambiguous and protect the interests of all parties. Handle lawsuits that may arise.
Suppliers	Supply quality equipment, materials, plants, and other necessary items in accordance with the contract. Ensure the prices of items are accurate and best on the market. Work together with the construction manager to create a list of the required supplies.
Contractors	Provide construction services of a highly qualified construction team. Ensure the proper quality of work done by the labourer team. Work together with the construction manager to ensure the work is performed on schedule. Establish communication between workers and the construction manager to ensure the needs of the former are met.
Labourers	Carry out construction duties construction diligently and in accordance with a set schedule. Maintain safety and environment protection procedures. Communicate their needs and concerns to contractors in case they arise.

Risks

Operational and technological risk: Since the timeframe for the project is fixed, the plan has to be completed within seven years. The inflexible allocation of time for project completion exposes the plan to the risk of challenging reporting channels, especially in tracking progress at each stage (Ng and Ren 2015). The technical and operational risk is categorised as high.

Economic and financial risk: Since the main financier is the city of London authority, which is an external institution with demands on a timeline for completion without delay, an event of over expenditure might compromise the quality and timeline for implementation (Cary 2017). However, since funds are already allocated, this risk is classified as medium.

Environmental risk: The aspects of pollution, sustainability and other environmental concerns must be reviewed and managed at every phase of the project to avoid a backlash from stakeholders (Ramamurthy et al. 2017). This risk is classified as low since the entire project promotes green technology, which does not have negative impacts.

Delay risk: The project might experience unplanned delay due to factors beyond the control of implementers (Bou-Zeid et al. 2014). However, this risk is classified as very minimal.

As captured in table 7, the project team classified these risks using the magnitude of impact model as Low Impact (LI), Medium Impact (MI) and High Impact (HI) (Barlow 2014).

Table 9: Risk classification.

Risk	Impact	Probability
Economic and Financial Risk	High An external institution finances the project. Any payment delay immediately cripples the project	Low Since the financier is reliable, it is assumed that there will be no delays in financing the entire project
Operational and Technological Risk	High Any cost overrun has serious consequences on the progress of the project phases	Medium Since the proposed project will be tightly controlled, the projected probability will medium
Environment Risk	Low This risk is very low since the entire project promotes green living	Low This risk is very low since the entire project promotes green living
Delay Risk	High A slight or extreme overrun in the project schedule has an impact of increasing the cost by a fairly big margin	Low Since the proposed project will be tightly controlled, the projected probability will medium

As illustrated in table 9, the results of risk classification captured in table 8 was used to create a probability/impact matrix.

Table 11: Explanation of the project Probability/Impact Matrix.

Blue	These risks are classified as ‘occurred’ and should be avoided.
Green	Risk transfer or mitigation would address these risks. The LP-HI risk category should be handled via a focused contingency budgeting. The MP-MI risks are best solvedvia a critical contingency plan.
Orange	These risks should be addressed through risk acceptance and other management approaches on a need basis

Stakeholders

The main stakeholders are direct end users, local residents, public and private organisations and the local authority. As captured in table 11 and 13, all the stakeholders are concerned with the environmental impacts. The local authority and institutions are also concerned with the reputational and business impacts of this project. Apparently, the local authority (owner of the project) has the most signification impact on the project.

Table 12: Stakeholder matrix.

Stakeholder group	Interested in the impact on:
	Finance(loss/gain)	Environment	Legislation	Business as usual	Reputation
Users of green or cool roofs, tree shades
Local resident of London
Public and private organisations
Local authority (project owner)

Table 13: Stakeholder management plan.

Stakeholder	Concern	Management Strategy
Internal Stakeholders
Project Management	Ensuring successful implementation. Fair, objective and effective management throughout the timeline.	The management will be provided with continuous information flow to ensure their swift and informed decision-making. Reports and issues will be discussed as needed during weekly or monthly meetings.
London Government (sponsor and owner)	Ensuring the project is properly funded and managed Implementation of the project in full compliance with the city’s quality standards and development strategies.	As the project’s sponsor, London government in the face of its Mayor will be actively involved in development of all internal organization charters and plans. Mayor or other representatives of London government will be attending key management meetings regularly to have full information about the project’s status in cases of emergency.
Project staff members	Ensuring the provision of high-quality performance in all planning and implementation initiatives	Meaningfully and regularly update the management on various processes and results. Management should be responsive to the needs and requests of project members in order to ensure smooth operation
External Stakeholders
Project Contractors and suppliers	The key concern is proliferation of their business. The second concern is good reputation. The third – quality of works	A range of contractors and suppliers will be managed though government contracting procedure ensuring transparency and accessibility of wide range of companies. Issue payments in accordance with the signed contracts. Honour other terms of the contracts and require the same attitude from their side.
Media	Inform the public about the project. Additional concerns include popularity of their resource due to receiving exclusive data.	Project management will ensure that regular press releases are arranged. Information about changes in schedule and/or budget should regularly be reported to the press in social media as well.
Users of green roofs, spaces within the tree shades	Active use of the public goods created by the project Not littering public spaces.	All concerned citizens will be involved in project planning. Published project reports will reach the public through social media pages or media channels
Residents of London	They are concerned with enhancements made to London’s public green infrastructure as it makes the city more friendly and walkable.	All London citizens will be regularly informed through the means of press and social media about the project’s development. Community will be addressed with plain language to avoid misunderstandings.

Change and Quality

Plans have been put in place to manage any project variations through the office of the project management team via weekly consultative meetings. In order to manage the quality of progress reporting, the project stakeholders will be briefed at each phase (Li and Bou-Zeid 2013). Moreover, as captured in table 12, a comprehensive resource allocation and utilisation plan has been created to ensure that logistical and physical materials are managed appropriately.

Table 14: Change control mechanisms, quality plan and quality controls.

Project Phase	Control mechanism	Quality plan	Quality control
Phase 1	Collaborative engagement of project team	Project manager as the quality auditor	Proper planning
Phase 2	Consultative execution approach	Project manager as the quality auditor	Effective and optimal resource allocation
Phase 3	Consultative execution approach	Project manager as the quality auditor	Tracking progress at each stage
Phase 4	Section update from end to finish	Collaboration of the project team	Reviewing results against set expectations

Conclusion

The city of London has existed for more than two centuries as a centre of architectural development and progressive planning. However, it is predicted that the city will be exposed to serious heatwaves in the next 50 years if nothing is done to control the impact of climate change. Drawing from the currently successful measures applied in the city of Tokyo to minimise the UHI, London should create a well-equipped Urban Heat Island Action Area (UHIAA).

At the same time, the city planners should create ventilation paths to ensure that cool breeze goes throughout the city. In addition, the city should take a comprehensive sensitisation and tree planting campaign along the streets of London. Although there are other alternative action plans for reducing temperatures in the city of London, the first option was selected because of its practically and sustainability in the short and long-term. Moreover, the proposed project plan confirms that this activity can be accomplished successfully within seven years with a budget of £4.8 million.

Reference List

ALBERTI, M., 2016. Cities that think like planets: complexity, resilience and innovation in hybrid ecosystems. Washington DC, WD: University of Washington Press.

BARLOW, J.F., 2014. Progress in observing and modelling the urban boundary layer. Urban Climate, 10(3), pp. 216-240.

BENMARHNIA, L. et al., 2016. A difference-in-differences approach to assess the effect of a heat action plan on heat-related mortality and differences in effectiveness according to sex, age and socioeconomic status (Montreal, Quebec). Environmental Health Perspectives, 124(11).

BOU-ZEID, E. et al., 2014. Influence of sub-facet heterogeneity and material properties on the urban surface energy budget. Journal of Applied Meteorology Climatol, 53, pp. 2114–2129.

CARY, J., 2017. Design for good: a new era of architecture for everyone. New York, NY: Island Press.

FLEMING, K. et al., 2018. Heat: The next big inequality issue. Web.

GOTHAM, K.F. and GREENBERG, M., 2014. Disaster and redevelopment in New York and New Orleans. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

GREATER LONDON AUTHORITY. 2018. London environment strategy: executive summary. Web.

GUDGIN, G., COUTTS, K., GIBSON, N. and BUCHANAN, J., 2018. The macro-economic impact of Brexit: using the CBR macro-economic model of the UK economy (UKMOD), Journal of Self-Governance and Management Economics, 6, (2), pp. 7-49.

KAHN, M.E., 2013. Climatopolis: how our cities will thrive in the hotter future. New York, NY: Basic Books.

KONVITZ, J.W., 2016. Cities and crisis. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

LI, D. and BOU-ZEID, E., 2013. Synergistic interactions between urban heat islands and heat waves: the impact in cities is larger than the sum of its parts. Journal of Applied Meteorology Climatol, 52, pp. 2051-2064.

MAMADOUH, V. and WAGENINGEN, A.V., 2017. Urban Europe: fifty tales of the city. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.

McDONALD, R.I., 2015. Conservation for cities: how to plan & build natural infrastructure. London, UK: Island Press.

MUSCO, F., 2016. Counteracting urban heat island effects in a global climate change scenario. Alabama, AL: Springer International Publishing.

NAGENDRA, H., 2016. Nature in the city: Bengaluru in the past, present and future. New Delhi, ND: OUP India.

NG, E. and REN, C., 2015. The urban climatic map: a methodology for sustainable urban planning. New York, NY: Routledge.

RAMAMURTHY, P. et al., 2017. Impact of heatwave on a megacity: an observational analysis of New York City during July 2016. Environmental Research Letter, 12(5), pp. 41-52.

RANNOW, S. and NEUBERT, M., 2014. Managing protected areas in central and Eastern Europe under climate change. London, UK: Springer Science & Business Media.

SELTENRICH, N., 2016. Montreal’s strategy for hot days: Evaluating the effectiveness of one city’s heat action plan. Environmental Health Perspectives. [online] 124(11). Web.

WATT, J. and HUNT, E., 2018. Halfway to boiling: The city at 50C [online] The Guardian. Web.

YAMAGATA, Y. and MARUYAMA, H., 2016. Urban resilience: a transformative approach. Alabama, AL: Springer International Publishing.