A disconnect in science and practitioner perspectives on heat mitigation

Researchers and city practitioners are paramount stakeholders in creating urban resilience but have diverse and potentially competing views. To understand varying stakeholder perspectives, we conducted a systematic literature content analysis on green infrastructure (GI) and reflective pavement (RP). The analysis shows a United States (US)-based science-practice disconnect in written communication, potentially hindering holistic decision-making. We identified 191 GI and 93 RP impacts, categorized into co-benefits, trade-offs, disservices, or neutral. Impacts were further classified as environmental, social, or economic. The analysis demonstrates that US city practitioners emphasize social and economic co-benefits that may not be fully represented in the scientific discourse. Scientists communicate a broader range of impacts, including trade-offs and disservices, highlighting a nuanced understanding of the potential consequences. Identifying contrasting perspectives and integrating knowledge from various agents is critical in urban climate governance. Our findings facilitate bridging the science-policy disconnect in the US heat mitigation literature.