California Air Resources Board

Scope of Work

Background

California is making major efforts to address stresses caused by climate change, including more frequent and longer excess heat exposure. In 2022, the state released Protecting Californians From Extreme Heat: A State Action Plan to Build Community Resilience to outline “California’s all-of-government approach to mitigating the health, economic, cultural, ecological, and social impacts of increasing average temperatures and heat waves.”[1] In the state action plan, CARB supports the goals to “identify heat adaptation strategies with health co-benefits, ” and to “study the impacts of mitigations to the built environment on reducing health effects from high heat in California.” The CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan- Appendix G: Public Health also discusses the health impacts of exposure to excess heat and the health and climate benefits expected from the Scoping Plan decarbonization actions.[2] The Appendix highlights a key area for further action that is “the equitable distribution of heat mitigation efforts in climate vulnerable communities,” and states that providing heat mitigation for vulnerable or highly impacted groups can help promote health equity. This project aims to support the Extreme Heat Action Plan and health and equity goals included in the Scoping Plan.

Heat-risk reduction strategies, including physical infrastructure (e.g., urban greening, installing cool surfaces/roofs) and social infrastructure (e.g., public awareness/education) projects are critically needed statewide, but are especially important in overburdened communities that bear the brunt of climate impacts.[3] Many of these adaptation strategies provide multiple benefits, including greenhouse gas reductions, air quality benefits, active transportation benefits, and other benefits that improve health and equity in underserved communities. For instance, increasing tree canopy coverage can not only mitigate urban heat-island effects, but also reduce air pollution and associated health impacts, promote active living and the corresponding health benefits, improve mental health, and lower greenhouse gases through carbon storage.[4] The California Climate Investments (CCI) have funded and implemented various heat-adaptation-related projects through the Urban Greening Program, the Urban and Community Forestry Program, the Climate Ready Program, the Climate Change Research Program, and the Equitable Building Decarbonization Program to benefit priority communities and populations.[5] Other state programs also have heat-adaptation projects such as those listed in CoolCalifornia.org.[6] Many of these projects can help reduce urban heat island effect, and some of them specifically focus on mitigating heat impacts, such as reducing heat on schoolyards by planting trees on campus.

While there are qualitative and quantitative estimates of health benefits from some heat reduction strategies at a state level, a comprehensive look at local benefits of specific measures, including community perspectives and benefits, has not been undertaken.  Additionally, information on how specific local heat adaptation actions affect health is limited, e.g., the changes in morbidities and mortalities due to heat-related illness before and after the implementation of adaptation measures.  

In the past decades, there has been an increase in community engagement incorporated into research using various approaches.[7] For example, community-based participatory research (CBPR) that has a community-academic partnership focus has been increasingly applied to community health research to improve health equity and reduce health disparities in underserved communities.[8] This project will include many elements of CBPR by including community members in project development, implementation, and interpretation of results.

Given the urgent needs for mitigating the health impacts exacerbated by climate change in vulnerable communities, CARB is soliciting a community-collaborative study to assess the local health benefits of extreme heat adaptation strategies and invite community perspectives on additional benefits, including benefits for climate resilience. This project will utilize ground-truthing efforts to evaluate the impact of heat adaptation strategies such as urban/community greening and cool roofs programs and how these programs improve the health of the community by reducing heat-related illness and/or increasing health co-benefits. The health benefits of heat adaptation strategies will be estimated using quantitative and qualitative methods. The results of this contract can be used to support CARB’s climate programs and policy.

Objective

Many climate action strategies have benefits for the community, beyond a reduction in greenhouse gases. The overarching objective is to evaluate local health benefits of extreme heat adaptation strategies associated with state climate-related programs (such as urban/community greening and cool roofs programs). The evaluation will incorporate community information through ground-truthing efforts. Researchers will partner with communities in developing the specific programs and the evaluation approach. These health estimations may include direct benefits related to reducing heat exposure and associated co-benefits (such as improved mental health outcomes due to increased urban greenness). If feasible, this project will compare the effects of different types of heat adaptation strategies. CARB expects this contract to help us understand how the heat adaptation strategies improve community health and to provide solutions for climate resilience in the communities.

Scope of Work

This work will include community-based research with a ground-truthing process that relies on a strong partnership between researchers and community members. CARB expects this contract will apply techniques such as those found in the principles of CBPR incorporating both quantitative and qualitative assessments. This project must include a project team(s) with a long-term community-academic partnership, who can leverage existing resources and their work. This contract will evaluate the health benefits of heat adaptation strategies (such as urban/community greening and cool roofs programs) and ground-truth the health estimations by gathering more comprehensive and responsive information from the community. In addition to the reduction in heat-related illnesses, the health estimations of heat adaptation strategies can include co-benefits such as those associated with reducing greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution, promoting active transportation, and more. The results of this contract will assist in informing and prioritizing heat adaptation strategies by evaluating the local health and community benefits of these strategies, from a community perspective.

Task 1: Co-Develop the Overall Research Project Plan and Specific Case Studies by Investigators and Community Partners

This project will include community-based research using approaches such as those seen in the principles of Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) approach, which involves close collaboration between investigators and community partners (i.e. the project team). The project team should already have built a long-term partnership between the researcher and the community, and have experience in community-based research. The community partners should be subcontractors and be equitably compensated for their work and efforts in this project. A letter of support from community partners to the academic partner is required and should be submitted with the pre-proposal. The project should provide a community engagement plan that defines the roles and participation of team members, ensures the removal of language barriers, and outlines how the project will integrate community and scientific priorities and interests. In the pre-proposal, the project team will develop research questions, a detailed plan for data collection and analysis (Tasks 2 to 4), and methods for interpreting and disseminating the results (Task 5).

This project can conduct one or more case studies that are designed to assess the health benefits of heat adaptation strategies in the local contexts and incorporate community input. The research team should decide collaboratively on the heat adaptation strategies to be evaluated through case studies. For instance, an example case study would be to estimate the health impacts of an urban greening program, such as changes in heat-related symptoms, morbidity, and school and work loss days. The research team could use statistical models with data from the Department of Health Care Access and Information or CDC’s Vital Statistics data. The research team would then ground-truth the statistical results against local community information. The ground truthing could find discrepancies in emergency room visit records due to limited healthcare access and misclassification in heat exposure data. Additionally, the research team would gather community perceptions and feedback on the adaptation strategy through interviews and focus groups.

Case study(ies) should focus on climate/heat-vulnerable communities and/or population groups. If the project conducts one case study, then the case study should include the estimation of both direct and indirect health benefits of the implementation of the heat adaptation strategy (i.e. direct benefits related to reducing heat exposure and other associated benefits such as decreased air pollution, increased physical activities). If conducting multiple case studies, the project team should ensure there's diversity in selection of case studies by location (e.g., inland and coastal areas) or population and comparing the health benefits of different types of heat adaptation strategies in different communities. The findings from the case study(ies) should be relevant and transferable to other California communities that share similar characteristics, such as demographics and climate zones.

CARB will evaluate submitted pre-proposals and select one to develop a full proposal. The project team will work with CARB staff to develop a full work plan of this project.

Task 1 Deliverables: An overall research project work plan including one or more case studies that is co-developed by investigators and community partners to assess the health benefits of selected heat adaptation strategies in the local contexts and incorporate community input. The project design will include a community engagement plan, the development of research questions, a detailed plan for data collection and analysis, detailed methods for interpreting and disseminating the results, and a project evaluation plan.

Task 2. Estimate the Health Benefits of the Heat Adaptation Strategies

The project team will quantitatively and/or qualitatively evaluate health benefits of the implementation of heat adaptation strategies. These health estimations may account for the direct benefits of reduced heat-related mortality, morbidity, symptoms, school and work loss days, as well as associated co-benefits, such as improved health outcomes from decreased air pollution and increased active transportation. The selected strategies must be in place long enough for a valid assessment and must consider other variables that would impact the robustness of the analysis.  Quantitative assessment can leverage available resources/tools and the project team’s previous work or acquire new data to conduct analysis.

Task 2 Deliverables: Results of the estimated health benefits of the implementation of heat adaptation strategies. The health estimates can include both direct and associated co-benefits of heat adaptation strategies.

Task 3. Ground-truth the Health Benefits of the Heat Adaptation Strategies and Assess Community Perspectives

The project team shall apply systematic and scientifically rigorous approaches to ground-truth the health benefits estimated in Task 2 and assess community perspectives (e.g., feedback, needs and concerns) on the implementation of the heat adaptation strategies in the community. Qualitative methods can include but not be limited to interviews, observations, focus groups, and community meetings, etc.; quantitative methods can include but not be limited to pre-existing measurements (such as heat reductions) and surveys, etc. This task aims to gather valuable inputs from the community to inform CARB’s climate program, specifically aimed at reducing heat-related risks among vulnerable and priority communities, while simultaneously empowering community members through the ground-truthing process.

Task 3 Deliverables: Results of ground-truthing the health benefits estimated in Task 2 and the assessment of community perspectives on the implementation of the heat adaptation strategies in the community. 

Task 4. Recommend Heat Adaptation Strategies in Response to Health Benefits and Community Perspectives

The project team will integrate the results from Tasks 2 to 3 and provide recommendations on the selected heat adaptation strategies for specific types of California communities in response to the health benefits (both direct and associated benefits, if possible) and the community input. This task will address how the case study results from this project can assist the state in informing, prioritizing and implementing heat adaptation strategies for similar communities. These strategies should maximize health benefits and address the community’s needs or local context, such as regional differences.

Task 4 Deliverables: Recommendations on informing, prioritizing and implementing the state’s heat adaptation strategies that maximize health benefits and address the community's needs or local context.

Task 5. Disseminate and Translate Research Findings

The project team will develop a dissemination plan to share the project findings with various audiences, including heat-impacted communities, state and local agencies (e.g., OPR Extreme Heat and Community Resilience Program and Office of Community Partnerships and Strategic Communications- Heat Ready CA campaign, etc.), academia, and other stakeholders. The project team will develop dissemination products that are tailored to the audience and culturally sensitive (e.g., easily understandable information presented in the audience’s primary language). For instance, the project team will prepare a lay friendly fact sheet and lay friendly power point presentation (or equivalent file type) to share project design, findings, and application to state programs.

Task 5 Deliverables: Dissemination materials and products with various formats and translated them to different levels in response to audience’s needs.

Deliverables

The project proposal must include but is not limited to the following deliverables:

At Pre-Proposal Stage

• Provide a cultural competency statement in the pre-proposal.
• Provide a community engagement plan in the pre-proposal.

At Beginning of Contract

• All researchers must undergo cultural competency training (examples include implicit bias training, racial equity training, etc.). Trainings should be completed or scheduled within 30 days of contract execution.

During Active Contract Period

• A Lay-friendly kick-off meeting for the public.
• Quarterly Progress Reports and conference calls; The progress reports will include plain-language summaries that can be posted publicly. A progress report template will be provided.
• Consultation calls with CARB and key stakeholders. Suggested frequency is monthly.
• Annual interim reports or deliverables to document the progress being made.

Prior to Contract Close

• All data, analyses and analytical tools generated through the course of this project.
• Produce plain-language fact sheets, including suggestions for preventative actions (if such information is available) and these will be translated into Spanish.
• Draft final report
  • 6 months prior to contract close, provide a draft final report reviewed and approved by the Principal Investigator.
  • Include a plain language summary in draft final report.
  • Include an equity implications section in draft final report.
  • Must be copy-edited.
• Work with CARB to create plain-language outreach deliverables for public summarizing results and impact of project (available in multiple languages).
• Final Report
• A virtual or in-person lay-friendly public seminar.
• Peer reviewed publications should be publicly available (please budget for this expense; submission-ready publications shall be reviewed by CARB staff).
• Additional deliverables to be determined in consultation with CARB staff.

Timeline

It is anticipated this project will be completed in 24 months from the start date. Cost shall not exceed $600,000.

References

[1] State of California. 2022. Protecting Californians From Extreme Heat: A State Action Plan to Build Community Resilience. https://resources.ca.gov/-/media/CNRA-Website/Files/Initiatives/Climate-Resilience/2022-Final-Extreme-Heat-Action-Plan.pdf  

[2] California Air Resources Board. 2002. 2022 Scoping Plan- Appendix G: Public Health. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-11/2022-sp-appendix-g-public-health.pdf

[3] California's Governor's Office of Planning and Research. 2023. Extreme Heat and Community Resilience Program Summary of Public Comments. https://opr.ca.gov/climate/icarp/grants/docs/20230919-EHCRP_R1_Engagement_Summary.pdf

[4] Wolf KL, Lam ST, McKeen JK, Richardson GRA, van den Bosch M, Bardekjian AC. 2020. Urban Trees and Human Health: A Scoping Review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 17(12):4371. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17124371. PMID: 32570770; PMCID: PMC7345658.

[5] California Climate Investments. 2024. California Climate Investments Programs. https://www.caclimateinvestments.ca.gov/cci-programs

[6] CoolCalifornia.org. 2024. Cool Roofs: Codes and Standards. https://coolcalifornia.arb.ca.gov/cool-roofs-codes-and-standards

[7] Key KD, Furr-Holden D, Lewis EY, Cunningham R, Zimmerman MA, Johnson-Lawrence V, Selig S. The Continuum of Community Engagement in Research: A Roadmap for Understanding and Assessing Progress. Prog Community Health Partnersh. 2019;13(4):427-434. doi: 10.1353/cpr.2019.0064. PMID: 31866597.

[8] Minkler, M. and Wallerstein, N. eds., 2011. Community-based participatory research for health: From process to outcomes. John Wiley & Sons.

Scoring Criteria

Responsiveness to the goals and objectives outlined in the proposal solicitation(15 points)

Proposers should demonstrate a clear understanding of the policy objectives and research needs that CARB seeks to address with this project, and should convey their knowledge of the subject. The proposal should have a clear research question or testable hypothesis. The proposal should consider various aspects of the research need and identify or acknowledge biases. The proposal should spell out, in adequate detail, exactly what the Proposer proposes to do to satisfy the requirements of the Solicitation. The draft proposal must propose work that would satisfy the objective(s) stated in the Research Solicitation: The overarching objective is to evaluate the health benefits of extreme heat adaptation strategies associated with state climate-related programs (such as urban/community greening and cool roofs programs). Additionally, we aim to incorporate community information into the evaluation process through ground-truthing efforts.

Policy relevance/benefits to the state(10 points)

Does the proposal describe how the project will provide data, information, and/or products to help CARB accomplish its mission? California is making major efforts to address stresses caused by climate change, including more frequent and longer excess heat exposure. AB 32 required the CARB to develop a Scoping Plan that describes the approach California will take to reduce GHGs to achieve the goal of reducing emissions. CARB expects this contract to help us understand how the heat adaptation strategies improve community health and to provide solutions for climate resilience in the communities.

Previous work (15 points)

Do the researchers have relevant experience in this area? Is the team composed of a multidisciplinary team of experts? Do they discuss how they will build upon previous relevant work that was funded by CARB, other state agencies, and any other organizations you believe are appropriate (e.g., the California Climate Investments program, Extreme Heat and Community Resilience Program, California’s Fifth Climate Change Assess, etc.)? In the sections on community engagement, the relevant research partner should describe previous experience in community engagement and provide letters of support, references or a community impact statement, describing how previous work impacted communities. 5 points will be reserved for project teams that meet at least one of the following criteria:

1. The project team is multi-disciplinary.
2. The project team members come from various universities or include non-academic institutions or community-based organizations.
3. The project team includes one or more members, contributing significantly to the project (i.e. a principal investigator, co-co-principal investigator or co-investigator, contributing 25% or more of their time to the project) who have not worked with CARB in the past 5 years.

Technical merit (25 points)

Describe the submission's technical strengths and/or weaknesses. Proposers should demonstrate the logic and feasibility of the methodology and technical approach to the project, spell out the sequence and relationships of major tasks, and explain methods for performing the actual work. The proposal should provide an explanation of how the proposed methods are robust and how results will be validated. Please factor in how well the draft proposal describes these areas:

1. Materials and Methods

• The project team should already have built a long-term partnership between the researcher and the community, and preferably have experience in community-based research; a letter of support from the community to the academic partner is required.
• Applying techniques such as those found in the principles of community-based participatory research incorporating both quantitative and qualitative assessments.
• If the project conducts one case study, then the case study should include the estimation of both direct and indirect health benefits of the implementation of the heat adaptation strategy; if conducting multiple case studies, the project team should ensure there's diversity in selection of case studies by location or population and comparing the health benefits of different types of heat adaptation strategies in different communities. The findings from the case study(ies) should be relevant and transferable to other California communities that share similar characteristics, such as demographics and climate zones.
• Leveraging existing resources and previous related work.
• Applying systematic and scientifically rigorous approaches to ground-truth the health benefits and assess community perspectives.
• Providing recommendations on the local heat adaptation strategies in response to the evaluation of health benefits and the community inputs.
• Developing a dissemination plan to share the project findings with various audiences and using proper formats.

2. Does the proposed work address all the deliverables required in section “Deliverables”? If not, the proposal should not be considered for funding.
3. The review team will be selecting only one draft proposal for development into a full proposal. If this draft proposal has potential, what areas or topics should be prioritized or better explained in the full proposal?

Level and quality of effort to be provided(15 points)

Does the proposal allocate time and resources in such a way that the objectives of the study will be met? Is supervision and oversight adequate for ensuring that the project will remain on schedule? Is the distribution of workload appropriate for activities such as research, evaluation and analysis, data reduction, computer simulation, report preparation, meetings, and travel?

Cost effectiveness (20 points)

Does the cost seem appropriate for the proposed work? Does the proposed work seem feasible within the requested budget? Projects that provide co-funding should be evaluated more favorably.

Scoring Criteria Scoring Guidance

91-100 points. Exceptionally strong. The submission is technically strong, meets stated research objectives, is cost-effective, and has a high potential to be successfully completed.

81-90 points. Strong. The submission is technically sound.

71-80 points. Mixed. The submission has either strong technical merit or strong policy significance, but not both.

61-70 points. Weak. The submission is not sufficiently linked to needs of the Board and offers limited technical merit.

60 points or below. Unacceptable. The submission is not linked to interests or needs of the Board and lacks technical merit.