Wind disasters adaptation in cities in a changing climate: A systematic review

21. Landsea CW, Harper BA, Hoarau K, Knaff JA. Can we detect trends in xxtreme tropical cyclones? Sci- ence. 2006; 313: 452–454. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1128448 PMID: 16873634 22. Knutson TR, McBride JL, Chan J, Emanuel K, Holland G, Landsea C, et al. Tropical cyclones and cli- mate change. Nat Geosci. 2010; 3: 157–163. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo779 23. Tamura Y. Wind-induced damage to buildings and disaster risk reduction. Taipei, Taiwan; 2009. 24. Issa A, Ramadugu K, Mulay P, Hamilton J, Siegel V, Harrison C, et al. Deaths related to Hurricane Irma—Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina, September 4–October 10, 2017. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2018; 67: 829–832. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6730a5 PMID: 30070979 25. Tan C, Fang W. Mapping the wind hazard of global tropical cyclones with parametric wind field models by considering the effects of local factors. Int J Disaster Risk Sci. 2018; 9: 86–99. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s13753-018-0161-1 26. CDP Open Data Portal. [cited 5 Dec 2020]. Available: https://data.cdp.net/browse?category=Climate +Hazards 27. Droste AM, Steeneveld GJ, Holtslag AAM. Introducing the urban wind island effect. Environ Res Lett. 2018; 13: 094007. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aad8ef 28. Blocken B, Carmeliet J, Stathopoulos T. CFD evaluation of wind speed conditions in passages between parallel buildings—effect of wall-function roughness modifications for the atmospheric bound- ary layer flow. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn. 2007; 95: 941–962. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2007.01. 013

29. Dutt AJ. Wind flow in an urban environment. Environ Monit Assess. 1991; 19: 495–506. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/BF00401336 PMID: 24233964 30. Rosenzweig C, Solecki W. Hurricane Sandy and adaptation pathways in New York: Lessons from a first-responder city. Global Environmental Change. 2014; 28: 395–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. gloenvcha.2014.05.003 31. Godschalk DR. Urban hazard mitigation: Creating resilient cities. Nat Hazards Rev. 2003; 4: 136–143. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1527-6988(2003)4:3(136) 32. Ford JD, Berrang-Ford L, Paterson J. A systematic review of observed climate change adaptation in developed nations: A letter. Clim Change. 2011; 106: 327–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011- 0045-5 33. Araos M, Berrang-Ford L, Ford JD, Austin SE, Biesbroek R, Lesnikowski A. Climate change adapta- tion planning in large cities: A systematic global assessment. Environ Sci Policy. 2016; 66: 375–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.06.009 34. Georgeson L, Maslin M, Poessinouw M, Howard S. Adaptation responses to climate change differ between global megacities. Nature Clim Change. 2016; 6: 584–588. https://doi.org/10.1038/ nclimate2944 35. Whitmarsh L. Are flood victims more concerned about climate change than other people? The role of direct experience in risk perception and behavioural response. J Risk Res. 2008; 11: 351–374. https:// doi.org/10.1080/13669870701552235 36. Laakso M, Welling P, Bukvova H, Nyman L, Bjo¨rk B-C, Hedlund T. The development of open access

journal publishing from 1993 to 2009. Hermes-Lima M, editor. PLoS ONE. 2011; 6: e20961. https:// doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0020961 PMID: 21695139 37. Piwowar H, Priem J, Larivière V, Alperin JP, Matthias L, Norlander B, et al. The state of OA: A large- scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of open access articles. PeerJ. 2018; 6: e4375. https:// doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4375 PMID: 29456894 38. Wang X, Liu C, Mao W, Fang Z. The open access advantage considering citation, article usage and social media attention. Scientometrics. 2015; 103: 555–564. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015- 1547-0 39. Vogel B, Henstra D. Studying local climate adaptation: A heuristic research framework for comparative policy analysis. Glob Environ Change. 2015; 31: 110–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015. 01.001 40. Rosenzweig C, Solecki W, Romero-Lankao P, Mehrotra S, Dhakal S. Climate change and cities: Sec- ond assessment report of the urban climate change research network. Cambridge University Press; 2018. 41. Mongeon P, Paul-Hus A. The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analy- sis. Scientometrics. 2016; 106: 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5 42. Gavel Y, Iselid L. Web of Science and Scopus: A journal title overlap study. Online Inf Rev. 2008; 32: 8–21. https://doi.org/10.1108/14684520810865958 PLOS ONE Review on wind adaptation in cities PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248503 March 17, 2021 18 / 26