Mission
Turn heat data into action, ward by ward.
Mumbai gets dangerously hot, and the burden is not shared evenly. Dense, low-green, older, informally-housed wards feel it most. UCIP exists to say, in public and with receipts, which wards need cooling first and what to build there.
Not another heat map
Prior tools tend to do one or two things: map where a city is hot, set city-wide targets, or suggest generic fixes. Diagnostic studies stop at the map. Strategy documents set goals without per-ward targeting. Global toolboxes inspire without a specific city's data underneath. UCIP is the operational bridge, and it commits to all four things below at once, scoped tightly to Mumbai's 24 BMC wards.
A ranked, cited vulnerability score
Every ward gets a 0 to 100 score from satellite and population data, with PCA-derived weights grounded in the published heat-vulnerability literature, not guesses.
Factor-by-factor explainability
The score is a transparent linear index, so each ward shows exactly what pushes it up or down. No black box, no SHAP needed.
A recommendation engine, not just a map
Each ward gets a concrete intervention: trees, cool roofs, or shaded cooling centres, with a rationale and a citation attached.
An ecological guardrail
The engine rejects tree-planting where it would backfire (native grasslands and built-up cells), routing those to reflective surfaces instead.
Honesty is a feature
Most city heat tools present their outputs as more certain than they really are. UCIP tries not to. The heat map shows land-surface temperature, which is a real but imperfect stand-in for how hot it actually feels outside, and we say so plainly. The slum and elderly layers are proxies built from public data, not census-grade counts, and we name them as proxies rather than let them pass for something more precise. The cooling coefficients come from studies in other cities and haven't been calibrated for Mumbai specifically, so that caveat sits right next to every estimate instead of buried in a footnote. This is a research prototype, and treating it as more authoritative than that would be dishonest. Residents, planners, and researchers all see the same picture, warts included.