Why are cities so much hotter than the surrounding areas?

Scorchio! London. Image: pic fix/Flickr/creative commons.

In cities, the air, surface and soil temperatures are almost always warmer than in rural areas. This effect is known as the Urban Heat Island – a term which first came into use in the mid-20th century. Until the 1980s, this effect was considered to have relatively little practical significance. In fact, given that most studies were done in cities with cold winter climates, a warmer temperature was seen as a potential benefit, because it reduced the need for heating. But since then, we’ve found a number of reasons to be concerned.

For one thing, it became clear that the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect of cities was influencing air temperature records, which are used to assess climate change. In other words, it became important to remove urban “contamination” from weather station records to ensure their accuracy.

What’s more, as populations in warm and hot cities have increased, so too has the demand for indoor cooling – typically met by air conditioning. This even applies in colder climates, where changing building uses has increased the demand for cooling; for example, in office buildings, to offset the heat generated by computers.

In these situations, the UHI adds to the heating burden: ironically, cooling buildings with air conditioners increases outdoor air temperatures.

Heatwaves have the power to kill; for example, during the 2003 heatwave in Europe, 70,000 additional deaths were recorded, making it one of the region’s deadliest natural disasters of the last 100 years. The UHI makes city dwellers more vulnerable to the dangerous effects of extreme weather events like this.


The potential medical impact is perhaps the most significant issue related to UHI, especially against the backdrop of continued climate change and global warming. For all these reasons, it’s crucial to understand how the UHI works, so that we can find ways to mitigate and adapt to its effects.

Understanding the UHI

The UHI is strongest during dry periods, when the weather is calm and skies are clear. These conditions accentuate the differences between urban and rural landscapes. Cities are distinguished from natural landscapes by their form: that is, the extent of the urban land cover, the construction materials used, and the geometry of buildings and streets. All of these factors affect the exchanges of natural energy at ground level.

Much of the urban landscape is paved and devoid of vegetation. This means that there is usually little water available for evaporation, so most available natural energy is used to warm surfaces. Construction materials are dense, and many – particularly dark-coloured surfaces like asphalt – are good at absorbing and storing solar radiation.

Urban jungle. Image: Mdalmul/Flickr/creative commons.

Meanwhile, the shape and positioning of buildings in the city slows the movement of air near the ground, creates complex patterns of shade and sunlight and limits natural energy exchanges. Urbanisation is also associated with the emission of waste heat from industry, transport and buildings, which contributes directly to the UHI.

There are, however, different types of UHIs, with different dominant causes.

Keeping our cool

“Surface UHI” refers, unsurprisingly, to warmer urban temperatures at the Earth’s surface. Typically, this type of UHI is measured using satellites with a plan view of the city, so that the temperature of roofs and roads (but not walls) can be measured. From this perspective, the surface UHI is highest during the daytime, when hard urban surfaces receive solar radiation and warm quickly.

Another type of UHI is based on observations of air temperature, which are made close to the ground; in the city, this means placing the instruments below roof height. This UHI is usually strongest at night, as street surfaces and the adjacent air cool slowly. Above the roof level, the contributions of streets and building roofs together warm the overlying urban atmosphere. In some conditions, this warming can be detected up to 1km to 2km above the surface.

The geography of the Urban Heat Island. Image: Jamie Voogt/University of Western Ontari/author provided.

The geography of the UHI is relatively simple – it’s magnitude generally increases from the urban outskirts towards the city centre. However, it also contains many micro-climates – for example, parks and green spaces appear as cool spaces.

The UHI is an inevitable outcome of the landscape changes that accompany urbanisation. But its magnitude and impacts can be managed by modifying some physical aspects of our cities. This can include increasing vegetative cover and reducing impermeable cover; using lighter coloured materials, designing urban layouts to allow for better ventilation through the streets and buildings, and managing urban energy use.

Laying a cool roof. Image: NNSANews/Flickr/creative commons.

Of course, these solutions need to be tailored to the type of UHI. For example, a focus on building cool or green roofs will have an impact on the overlying air and the top floor of buildings, but may have little impact on the UHI at street level. Similarly, trees may be an effective means of providing street shade, but if the canopy encloses the street, then it can trap traffic emissions, resulting in poor air quality.

The ConversationAs a first step, many cities have completed UHI studies to identify the “hot-spots”, where design interventions could have greatest effect. But what most cities need is a coherent climate plan, which addresses interrelated environmental issues including flooding and air quality, as well as surface and air temperatures.

Gerald Mills, Senior Lecturer in Geography, University College Dublin.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

 
 
 
 

What's actually in the UK government’s bailout package for Transport for London?

Wood Green Underground station, north London. Image: Getty.

On 14 May, hours before London’s transport authority ran out of money, the British government agreed to a financial rescue package. Many details of that bailout – its size, the fact it was roughly two-thirds cash and one-third loan, many conditions attached – have been known about for weeks. 

But the information was filtered through spokespeople, because the exact terms of the deal had not been published. This was clearly a source of frustration for London’s mayor Sadiq Khan, who stood to take the political heat for some of the ensuing cuts (to free travel for the old or young, say), but had no way of backing up his contention that the British government made him do it.

That changed Tuesday when Transport for London published this month's board papers, which include a copy of the letter in which transport secretary Grant Shapps sets out the exact terms of the bailout deal. You can read the whole thing here, if you’re so minded, but here are the three big things revealed in the new disclosure.

Firstly, there’s some flexibility in the size of the deal. The bailout was reported to be worth £1.6 billion, significantly less than the £1.9 billion that TfL wanted. In his letter, Shapps spells it out: “To the extent that the actual funding shortfall is greater or lesser than £1.6bn then the amount of Extraordinary Grant and TfL borrowing will increase pro rata, up to a maximum of £1.9bn in aggregate or reduce pro rata accordingly”. 

To put that in English, London’s transport network will not be grinding to a halt because the government didn’t believe TfL about how much money it would need. Up to a point, the money will be available without further negotiations.

The second big takeaway from these board papers is that negotiations will be going on anyway. This bail out is meant to keep TfL rolling until 17 October; but because the agency gets around three-quarters of its revenues from fares, and because the pandemic means fares are likely to be depressed for the foreseeable future, it’s not clear what is meant to happen after that. Social distancing, the board papers note, means that the network will only be able to handle 13 to 20% of normal passenger numbers, even when every service is running.


Shapps’ letter doesn’t answer this question, but it does at least give a sense of when an answer may be forthcoming. It promises “an immediate and broad ranging government-led review of TfL’s future financial position and future financial structure”, which will publish detailed recommendations by the end of August. That will take in fares, operating efficiencies, capital expenditure, “the current fiscal devolution arrangements” – basically, everything. 

The third thing we leaned from that letter is that, to the first approximation, every change to London’s transport policy that is now being rushed through was an explicit condition of this deal. Segregated cycle lanes, pavement extensions and road closures? All in there. So are the suspension of free travel for people under 18, or free peak-hours travel for those over 60. So are increases in the level of the congestion charge.

Many of these changes may be unpopular, but we now know they are not being embraced by London’s mayor entirely on their own merit: They’re being pushed by the Department of Transport as a condition of receiving the bailout. No wonder Khan was miffed that the latter hadn’t been published.

Jonn Elledge was founding editor of CityMetric. He is on Twitter as @jonnelledge and on Facebook as JonnElledgeWrites.