Search

• There is a misalignment between rationale and criteria used to site GI practices. • Rationale emphasize multifunctionality (stormwater, social cohesion, biodiversity). • Criteria emphasize stormwater, available space, and technocratic elements. Green infrastructure is an increasingly popular urban sustainability strategy, widely promoted for its ability to provide multiple benefits. We examined 120 planning documents from 19 U.S. cities to identify if and how the stated benefits that cities use within their rationales for green infrastructure programs (rationale statements) align with the criteria used to site green infrastructure at the neighborhood scale (siting statements). Our findings suggest that many of the desired benefits stated in the rationales for green infrastructure lack corresponding and specific siting criteria. This was particularly evident for rationale statements concerning social and cultural ecosystem services, seemingly because certain benefits, especially those related to stormwater management, are prioritized over other green infrastructure services. While multiple benefits remain a dominant rationale for green infrastructure in the cities analyzed, including stormwater management, social cohesion, and biodiversity benefits, siting criteria were dominated by stormwater management, available locations, and other logistical considerations. These findings indicate a large-scale misalignment between the multifunctional ideal of urban green infrastructure and the procedures used to implement green infrastructure programs. We conclude with a discussion of how siting criteria and processes can be elaborated to deliver the desired benefits of green infrastructure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Current US urban Green Infrastructure planning requires transformation to address equity. • Only 11% of plans define equity and 14% define justice. • Current planning practices manufacture consent with limited inclusion. • GI planning intends to significantly transform urban environments. • Municipal, state, and federal policy must build inclusive planning capacity with communities. Cities across the Unites States have embraced green infrastructure (GI) in official planning efforts. The plans conceptualize GI as providing multiple functions and benefits for urban residents, and form part of complex responses to intersectional urban challenges of social injustice and inequity, climate change, aging and expensive infrastructure, and socio-economic change. To date, it is unclear whether official city GI programs address systemic racism and urban inequality. To fill this knowledge gap, we coded and analyzed 122 formal plans from 20 US cities to examine if and how they address equity and justice in three domains: visions, processes, and distributions. We find a widespread failure of plans to conceptualize and operationalize equity planning principles. Only 13% of plans define equity or justice. Only 30% of cities recognize that they are on Native land. Over 90% of plans do not utilize inclusive processes to plan, design, implement, or evaluate GI, and so target many communities for green improvements without their consent. Although 80% of plans use GI to manage hazards and provide multiple benefits with GI, less than 10% identify the causes of uneven distributions and vulnerability. Even fewer recognize related issues of houselessness and gentrification. Very few plans have mechanisms to build community wealth through new GI jobs. We find promising seeds of best practices in some cities and plan types, but no plan exemplified best practices across all equity dimensions. If formal GI planning in US cities does not explicitly and comprehensively address equity concerns, it may reproduce the inequalities that GI is meant to alleviate. Based on our results, we identify-three key needs to improve current GI planning practices for green infrastructure and equity. First, clear definitions of equity and justice are needed, second, planning must engage with causes of inequality and displacement, and third, urban GI planning needs to be transformed through a focus on inclusion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]