Vulnerability indicators |
Population was assessed by mention of “elderly”, “disabled”, or “crèches” in the IDP. |
Poverty was estimated from the IDP by comments such as “high crime rate” and “high rates of unemployment” in each suburb. Areas with mention of makeshift housing and backyard dwellings were also considered low-income and classified as red; a mixture of dwelling types was yellow; and suburbs with established houses and suburbs were green. |
Resilience/adaptive capacity indicators |
‘Access to education’ was yellow or green for presence of schools in the suburb; green if there was mention of primary and secondary schools; and yellow if there was a mention of only one. |
‘Access to medical facilities’ was green if there were 24-h clinics; yellow if there were just the mention of clinics or mobile clinics or that they are being upgraded; red if there was overcrowding or a shortage of medicine identified for the suburb. |
‘Water and sanitation’ were yellow if mentioned but not clarified in terms of functionality; green if it was stated to be ‘safe, clean drinking water’ or working sanitation, and red if there are complications such as water scarcity, leaking sewage lines etc. |
‘Public transport’ was identified by considering if there was a mention of buses or a taxi rank, however classified as red if there was the presence of several of such public spaces which are high risk for heat-health impacts. |
‘Recreational/community centres’ included sports facilities, community halls, libraries, youth centres etc.; if more than two facilities existed, it was green. If they existed but were noted as being rundown or less than two existed, it was yellow. |
‘Green spaces’ applied where parks or green spaces were mentioned. Grazing land or open land was categorised as yellow. Some suburbs mentioned construction on available empty land, or a lack of green spaces and these suburbs were categorised as red. |