Gaps, Challenges, and Priorities for Future Adaptation of Heat Action Plans in India

The rising temperatures and intensification of global heat hazards have evolved beyond occasional or seasonal heatwaves into a frequent state of chronic heat stress, amplifying both the duration and impact of extreme heat events. Driven by rising temperatures, humidity, rapid industrialization, and urbanization, the South Asian region, specifically India, faces escalating vulnerability to this compound hazard, which threatens public health, livelihoods, economic productivity, ecosystem balance, and overall quality of life.
India’s institutional response began with Ahmedabad’s pioneering 2013 Heat Action Plan (HAP), which catalysed the adoption of city- and state-level HAPs nationwide. To understand this evolution, 'content analysis' was conducted for 40 Heat Action Plans of 17 Indian states, available officially and publicly, founded against the National Disaster Management Authority’s (NDMA) 2019 guidelines and a global standards study from the WHO and UNDRR. The 23 heatwave-prone states were identified since 2013, only 18 currently have an official HAP.

This review evaluates document structure, its regional contextualization, accessibility to data, and institutional framework. While the NDMA’s (2019) heatwave framework has enabled widespread adoption, it is heatwave-centric and would benefit from explicitly incorporating heat stress through a nationally identified temperature–humidity index, as experimentally presented by IMD in 2023. Although the NOAA Heat Index is frequently cited in HAP documents, it is not suited to Indian conditions, as it does not reliably capture the extreme temperature–humidity regimes prevalent across the country. Furthermore, less than 50% of HAPs include localized vulnerability assessments, which should ideally contextualize physiological and social intricacies, regionally.

Additionally funding ambiguity is another persistent challenge, with most plans lacking identified financial sources or budgetary commitments. Communication gaps are evident, as less than 10% of HAPs provide materials in regional languages, constraining access to vulnerable populations in terms of educational limitation. Although, Ahmedabad’s evolving model remains the most comprehensive in this context. Notably, over 35% of HAPs fail to address land-use land-cover change, urban development plans, or localized climate-resilient design, despite strong links between the built environment and rising heat exposure. Data limitations, fragmented institutional accountability, and the lack of regional context with multi-sector actionability further weaken adaptive governance.
Altogether, these findings highlight the urgent need to move from fragmented, reactive heat responses toward anticipatory, multi-sectoral resilience planning. While the efficacy of HAPs depends on regional contextuality, this diversity must be supported by a replicable national framework guide that acknowledges heat stress while enabling inter-regional comparability. HAPs are primarily action-oriented instruments, this should reflect in the accessibility through local language translations, simplified formats with infographic tools, alongside comprehensive technical format that addresses meteorological services, health surveillance, funding mechanisms, and urban planning and design.

Resilience shouldn’t wait for the next disaster. The global shift toward proactive disaster risk management and the legacy of Ahmedabad’s 2010 heat-related mortality should motivate preparedness over response. Institutionalizing and updating HAPs primarily across all heatwave-prone states followed by the rest is central to embedding preparedness within India’s climate governance and recognizing heat as a structural climate–development challenge, rather than a seasonal hazard.