A Maturity Model for Heat Governance

Posted by
CAKE TeamPublished
Abstract
While there is no one way to solve the many complex impacts of extreme heat, it’s important to establish a general framework to understand how governments can work together to address heat risk. This guide presents a novel Maturity Model for Heat Governance that allows leaders and decision-makers to examine their capacity to successfully manage heat risk.
The maturity model described in this guide may provide a pathway to effective governance over the challenges of managing heat risks. The model can help communities assess the current state of their heat governance, and highlight opportunities for developing or strengthening processes and institutions that can address heat risks. If used over time, the model could also be used to track progress toward building heat resilience.
This living document will continue to evolve as it is applied in more contexts, and it was developed to be applicable to a diverse range of communities and governments from the start. Communities are invited to apply this model to understand gaps and challenges that should be addressed, and suggestions are welcome to improve this guide and the maturity model it describes.
A maturity model is a structural framework that practitioners can use to evaluate their organization's strengths, weaknesses, and overall capabilities in addressing a specific issue. In general, a maturity model identifies a number of attributes (hereafter “dimensions”) that are related to organizational capability and performance. Within each dimension, a number of levels of increasing complexity or sophistication are prescribed. An organization can use qualitative or quantitative metrics to classify itself into a specific level for each dimension. Over time, progress is measured by assessing the extent to which the organization “levels up” within each dimension. For the heat governance maturity model, 10 dimensions have been identified. For ease of visualization, the ten dimensions have been organized into three groups: Institutions, Partnerships and Networks, and Assets.
Practitioners can use the maturity model to score their community’s current state of heat management and planning in their respective locality for each dimension. Communities may also develop engagement activities that bring in an audience of partners to perform the categorization/scoring. The scores can help communities inform future prioritization and investments, applicable to their own organization or to the locality more broadly.