Lots of chatter about global warming / climate change in the thread, but that's not what the piece is actually about per se?

> They have lived with heat for generations. What worries researchers is not that the district is hot, but that it is becoming hotter, for longer, in a landscape losing the trees and water that once helped keep temperatures in check.

So there are two base claims, and then another building on top:

- the pattern in which the heat exhibits has changed / is changing, not the "amount of heat" so to speak (temperatures have always been about this miserably hot there)

- the developments in the area have changed the landscape significantly over the years (a change in vegetation coverage and infrastructure)

- that the latter is causing the former (and implying that if it was undone, this phenomenon would also resolve)

A half-hearted "search" "confirmed" to me the developments and the change in landscape plenty convincingly enough, but not the heat pattern changes (data access troubles). It'd seem to me that just like the locals report, this year is exceptional. The correlation between the amount of overall landscape change and the heat pattern changes further seem rather loose, although I'm sure the relationship is nonlinear.

Even aside from that though, the conclusion doesn't automatically hold up. It's entirely believable, as the phenomenon itself is well established afaik, but that's not the same as it being correct in this case. I guess such an analysis would be research paper material though, not a BBC news article, so maybe my expectations are a bit misplaced.