Environmental justice implications of siting criteria in urban green infrastructure planning

Abstract

Green infrastructure (GI) has become a panacea for cities working to enhance sustainability and resilience. While the rationale for GI primarily focuses on its multifunctionality (e.g. delivering multiple ecosystem services to local communities), uncertainties remain around how, for whom, and to what extent GI delivers these services. Additionally, many scholars increasingly recognize potential disservices of GI, including gentrification associated with new GI developments. Building on a novel dataset of 119 planning documents from 19 U.S. cities, we utilize insights from literature on justice in urban planning to examine the justice implications of criteria used in the siting of GI projects. We analyze the GI siting criteria described in city plans and how they explicitly or implicitly engage environmental justice. We find that justice is rarely explicitly discussed, yet the dominant technical siting criteria that focus on stormwater and economic considerations have justice implications. We conclude with recommendations for centering justice in GI spatial planning. ARTICLE HISTORY

Full text

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjoe20
Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjoe20
Environmental justice implications of siting criteria
in urban green infrastructure planning
Fushcia-Ann Hoover, Sara Meerow, Zbigniew J. Grabowski & Timon
McPhearson
To cite this article: Fushcia-Ann Hoover, Sara Meerow, Zbigniew J. Grabowski &
Timon McPhearson (2021): Environmental justice implications of siting criteria in
urban green infrastructure planning, Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, DOI:
10.1080/1523908X.2021.1945916
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2021.1945916
© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa
UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group
Published online: 30 Jun 2021.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data

Environmental justice implications of siting criteria in urban green
infrastructure planning
Fushcia-Ann Hoover
a
, Sara Meerow
b
, Zbigniew J. Grabowski
c,d
and Timon McPhearson
c,d,e
a
National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center, Annapolis, MD, USA;
b
School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning,
Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA;
c
Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, NY, USA;
d
Urban Systems Lab, The
New School, New York, NY, USA;
e
Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
ABSTRACT
Green infrastructure (GI) has become a panacea for cities working to enhance
sustainability and resilience. While the rationale for GI primarily focuses on its
multifunctionality (e.g. delivering multiple ecosystem services to local
communities), uncertainties remain around how, for whom, and to what extent GI
delivers these services. Additionally, many scholars increasingly recognize potential
disservices of GI, including gentrification associated with new GI developments.
Building on a novel dataset of 119 planning documents from 19 U.S. cities, we
utilize insights from literature on justice in urban planning to examine the justice
implications of criteria used in the siting of GI projects. We analyze the GI siting
criteria described in city plans and how they explicitly or implicitly engage
environmental justice. We find that justice is rarely explicitly discussed, yet the
dominant technical siting criteria that focus on stormwater and economic
considerations have justice implications. We conclude with recommendations for
centering justice in GI spatial planning.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 29 September 2020
Accepted 7 June 2021
KEYWORDS
Green infrastructure;
environmental justice; urban
planning; content analysis
Introduction
Green infrastructure (GI) is increasingly advocated by researchers and policymakers as an important strategy
for enhancing city sustainability and resilience (Benedict & McMahon, 2002; Zuniga-Teran et al., 2020). While
a broad concept, two definitions prevail in the GI literature. One is the US Environmental Protection Agency’s
(EPA) framing of GI as engineered technologies (e.g. permeable pavement) or vegetation (e.g. green roofs, rain
gardens) to manage stormwater flow or water quality (Hoover & Hopton, 2019; US EPA, 2015). The other
frames GI as an interconnected network of green space focused on conserving ecosystem functions and values
(Benedict & McMahon, 2002). Following a recent review of GI definitions that defines GI as interconnected
ecosystems, elements, and technologies providing social, environmental, and technological functions (Gra-
bowski et al., in press), we consider GI to be any vegetated practices used in cities to deliver ecosystem benefits
or functions.
With the growing popularity of GI, there is also increased recognition that GI planning is inevitably inter-
twined with environmental racism and continued injustice (Anguelovski et al., 2020; Shi, 2020). Inequalities in
the social distribution of green space in most US cities are in part a legacy of systemic racism in urban plan-
ning, design, and financing (Grove et al., 2018; Rothstein, 2017; Wolch et al., 2014). For example, studies have
© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.
org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and
is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
CONTACT Fushcia-Ann Hoover fhoover3@uncc.edu Department of Geography and Earth Sciences, University of North Carolina-
Charlotte, Charlotte, NC 28223, USA @ecogreenqueen
Sara Meerow @sarameerow
Timon McPhearson @timonmcphearson
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2021.1945916
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY & PLANNING
https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2021.1945916

shown that the effects of racial covenants, redlining (a policy of discriminatory home loan financing), and
other forms of housing segregation are still reflected in green space and ecosystems (Locke et al., 2020; Schell
et al., 2020). Efforts to redress these inequities by developing new GI in these communities are complicated by
concerns that they may lead to ‘green gentrification’(Anguelovski et al., 2019; Gould & Lewis, 2017) or repro-
duce uneven geographies (Heck, 2021).
While studies have examined the justice implications of GI planning theoretically (Cousins, 2021; Shi,
2020) or in individual cities, (e.g. New York (Kremer et al., 2016; Meerow, 2020) and Philadelphia (Fitzgerald
& Laufer, 2017; Heckert & Rosan, 2016)), empirical cross-sectional studies that reveal broader patterns are
lacking. This paper seeks to address this gap by asking ‘what criteria are cities claiming to use to site GI,
and what are the environmental justice implications of said criteria?’To answer this question, we briefly
review literature on GI planning and justice to develop a working definition of justice in GI siting. We use
that definition to examine how cities across the US determine where to implement GI, drawing on our analysis
of GI siting criteria in 119 planning documents from 19 US cities. We end by outlining our vision for more
environmentally just spatial planning of GI.
Green infrastructure multifunctionality and spatial planning
The potential for GI to provide multiple benefits to surrounding communities is a driver behind GI’s popu-
larity across academic disciplines, organizations, and governments (Hansen et al., 2019; Matsler et al., 2021).
These benefits, often framed as ‘ecosystem services’, are classified within this framework as provisioning, reg-
ulating, supporting, or cultural services (Elmqvist et al., 2016; Lovell & Taylor, 2013), while potential disser-
vices of GI, such as vector-borne diseases and irrigation demands, are an emerging area of research (von
Döhren & Haase, 2015). The design and density of GI influences the services provided (O’Brien et al.,
2017; Zhao et al., 2018), and GI services and disservices primarily impact areas in GI’s immediate vicinity
(Keeler et al., 2019). For example, research shows that cooling benefits of vegetation diminish with distance;
one study observed no benefit beyond 224 meters of a park (Feyisa et al., 2014). Others find that residents’
mental health worsens with increasing distance from parks (Bowen & Lynch, 2017). Conversely, some
research suggests that placing GI in low-income or minority neighborhoods can lead to gentrification, driving
up real estate values and displacing residents (Anguelovski et al., 2019).
Thus, the spatial planning of GI, including decisions related to its siting and design, directly influence the
services it provides and who benefits. GI’s inequitable distribution across the city, and non-inclusion of min-
oritized communities in planning decisions can magnify environmental injustices (Mabon & Shih, 2018;
Wolch et al., 2014). Furthermore, perceptions of GI vary across demographic groups and have been changing
under the Covid-19 pandemic (Lopez et al., 2020). These complexities are what Meerow (2020) terms the ‘poli-
tics of green infrastructure planning’, and research suggests that these politics are more focused on stormwater
management than justice or equity (Finewood et al., 2019; Newell et al., 2013). While planning processes are
complex, the formal criteria used to site GI provide a basis for siting processes. In other words, if particular
criteria are absent from the plans, especially ones pertaining to environmental justice or equity, then there is
no guarantee they will be emphasized in the planning process. Conversely, the specification of siting criteria,
even allowing for some flexibility, can increase accountability, transparency, and ensure justice considerations
are addressed in planning and decision-making processes.
Planning, justice, and race
In the US, the politics of GI planning exists in a broader context of historic and ongoing racial/ethnic injus-
tices. The ‘racialization of space’and the ‘spatialization of race’refers to the ways in which landscapes are
shaped by racist expectations of who and how people move, are surveilled, or altogether excluded across
space (Lipstiz, 2007). Systematic and labor-intensive practices of institutionalized exclusion in the early
20th century by planners and real estate agents created idyllic neighborhoods that centered ideologies of
the white residential class (Glotzer, 2015). These metrics for housing developments permeated into mortgage
2F.-A. HOOVER ET AL.

loans and city planning, systematically devaluing neighborhoods where ethnic and communities of color live
(Pietila, 2012; Rothstein, 2017). These same processes led to environmental racism and remain embedded in
the methods used to identify areas for new or green development, magnifying environmental injustice (Heck,
2021; Pulido, 2000). As Hoover and Lim (2020) discuss, how, for whom, and where green or open space is
located is often an indicator of the racial background of both the people and the neighborhood.
Environmental justice (EJ) and equity are two terms cities are invoking to consider these histories in plan-
ning. Environmental justice, as defined by the EPA, dictates that all residents have the right to equal access to
healthy environments, the fair treatment of all, and the ‘same degree of protection from environmental and
health hazards’(US EPA, 2014). In the academic literature, EJ has expanded to include the procedures and
processes for applying those rights and protections, in addition to the distribution (and elimination) of
environmental goods and hazards (Bullard, 1996; Schlosberg, 2007). Building on Anguelovski et al. (2020),
we define environmental justice as actions taken to prevent future or current harm, increase or rebuild the
relational value of residents to both the environment and the city, and repair the processes that have led to
environmental injustices. Like Holifield (2013), we acknowledge that the definition may change based on
the underlying processes and relationships of a particular community. Using this definition, we ask: What cri-
teria are cities claiming to use to site GI, and what are the environmental justice implications of said criteria?
Methods
City and document selection
This paper draws on a content analysis of GI planning, focusing on cities recognized as leaders in GI devel-
opment (Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Portland, Seattle, Washington DC) (citing Hopkins et al., 2018) and others,
Figure 1. Map of the 20 United States’cities used in the study of city plans as well as their corresponding populations shown to highlight the
geographic diversity of cities included in the analysis. The land cover categories are reclassified from 2016 MRLC NLCD data. Population is from
the 2010 decennial census.
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY & PLANNING 3

representing a diversity of biophysical and social geographies (Figure 1). A total of 303 city planning docu-
ments were screened. Regional, metropolitan, and plans created without support from city governments
were excluded. Plans were considered if they were current, under the jurisdiction of the city (or co-authored
or approved by a city agency or government), contained content on ‘green infrastructure’, and available in
English, resulting in 119 plans. A more detailed analysis of the plan types used to site GI across these cities
is available in Grabowski et al. (in press). The cities with the highest number of plans were Atlanta, Baltimore,
Philadelphia, and New York. A summary of the total number of plans and years covered per city (Table 1), and
a list of each plan type, year, and title by city are provided (Appendix B).
Coding, prioritization and scale
We defined siting criteria as the project-scale, localized metrics, data, and considerations used to determine or
identify in what neighborhoods or parcels to place GI. While decisions at the watershed/sewershed-scale
occur, we were interested in how GI is located at the community level, as opportunities for benefits are loca-
lized. An initial non-case sensitive keyword search for ‘green infrastructure’was run to identify relevant sec-
tions in the documents, after which we applied a descriptive coding regime that combined open and pattern
coding in Atlas.TI software (Corbin & Strauss, 2014; Miles et al., 2014), with a short list of general siting cri-
teria codes based on GI literature. We coded the plans iteratively, such that codes evolved to reflect new ident-
ified criteria, and allowed the assignment of multiple codes for text where appropriate.
All documents were reviewed by multiple coders to increase reliability, any disagreements were discussed
until consensus was reached producing the final codebook (Appendix A). Categories were aggregated into lar-
ger themes for analysis, resulting in seven groups. When categories were highly diverse and contained a large
quantity of coded content, we split these into subcategories. Criteria results are not weighted, but supplemen-
tary information on the percentage of siting criteria covered within the plans by city is provided (Appendix C).
Henceforth, we italicize the categories and subcategories where mentioned. The seven groups are defined as
follows:
1. Hydrologic (Hyd): criteria related to placing GI to manage the quality or quantity of stormwater, natural
water systems, or availability.
2. Logistics (Log): in-vivo criteria related to placing GI based on physical observations, spatial constraints,
professional expertize, or other opportunities.
3. Social (Soc): criteria related to placing GI based on resident or neighborhood engagement or involvement,
increasing access to green space for cultural or social benefits, resident health, educational opportunities, or
environmental justice or equity.
4. Economic (Ecn): criteria related to placing GI based on budget, cost, benefit–cost analysis, or opportunities
for land or business development.
Table 1. A summary of the total number of plans and the range of years covered by the plans, by city. For plans with multiple or updated
versions, we analyzed the most recent version of the plan.
City Number of Plans Years Covered City Number of Plans Years Covered
Atlanta 11 2016–2018 New York 16 2010–2018
Austin 7 2014–2018 Portland 8 2012–2018
Baltimore 11 2011–2019 Philadelphia 13 2011–2018
Chicago 4 2008–2014 Phoenix 4 2015–2019
Denver 5 2015–2019 Seattle 5 2015–2018
Detroit 4 2014–2017 Sacramento 3 2009–2018
Louisville 2 2013 St. Louis 2 2012–2013
Miami 3 2007–2009 Syracuse 3 2012
Milwaukee 4 2010–2019 Washington, DC 9 2010–2019
New Orleans 4 2014–2018
4F.-A. HOOVER ET AL.

5. Transportation (Tsp): criteria related to placing GI along the right-of-way, based on pedestrian or traffic
management, or department of transportation projects.
6. Environment (Env): criteria related to placing GI based on non-hydrologic environmental priorities or
concerns such as increasing resiliency or improving air quality.
7. Other (Oth): criteria related to placing GI that could not be classified under the aforementioned groups or
lacked specificity to be placed as a specific criteria category or subcategory.
Coded segments of text were exported and visualized using package ‘ggpubr’in R (Kassambara, 2020;R
Core Team, 2019), examining coding frequency and proportional distributions across cities. In the results sec-
tion we present the results by group. Where direct quotations from the plans are used, the citation method
follows the format of city-document #, page # (key available in Appendix B). In the discussion, we examine
potential outcomes based on the criteria’s engagement with environmental justice.
Study limitations
While we believe it is important to identify and discuss the justice implications of siting criteria in formal plan-
ning documents, we recognize that they are only one part of the GI planning and implementation process.
Research that examines how criteria are used in decision-making processes requires interviews with urban
planners, engineers, and residents, as well as spatial mapping for siting validation. Interviews would also
help verify an important assumption of this study, namely that the frequency of codes across planning docu-
ments is indicative of the relative importance cities place on siting criteria for the cities. Finally, evaluating the
outcomes of current stormwater-driven GI planning practices is outside the scope of this study. However,
research assessing the spatial distribution of GI implementation and the services and disservices communities
receive from GI is critically needed to truly understand the breadth of justice-related implications.
Results: GI siting criteria
Our analysis comprised 1,805 coded entities across 12 categories and 35 subcategories. Results indicate that GI
siting criteria are driven by technical criteria (e.g. feasibility, stormwater management), with a particular focus
on managing flooding and runoff(Figure 2). Of the 19 cities analysed, 16 cited hydrology or stormwater man-
agement, and all 19 used cost or economics as siting criteria. In comparison, seven cities explicitly mentioned
environmental justice or equity as siting criteria, (Figure 3).
Hydrologic criteria
In line with the EPA’sdefinition of GI and previous research, many cities sited GI as a stormwater manage-
ment strategy. GI siting criteria categories included stormwater management (n= 307), water quality (n= 93),
and water supply or availability (n= 7). The largest category, stormwater management, contained nine subca-
tegories (Figure 4), the largest being runoff(n= 66) and storm and sewer (n= 59). The runoffsubcategory
included criteria targeting impervious areas, regulatory managed areas or managing overland flow.One
example of how this criterion was discussed in plans included locating GI ‘based on their ability to mitigate
these on-site flows’(AUS-06, 67). Under storm and sewer, siting criteria detailed locations where GI could
reduce combined sewer overflows (CSOs) (e.g. inlets or outlets of the sewer system) or be ‘implemented in
uncontrolled CSO basins where it is practical’(SEA-03, 3-70). Less common but still present were instances
where siting criteria focused on municipal separate sewer systems (MS4).
Logistics criteria
Logistics included two in-vivo codes: leveraged opportunities (n= 109) and feasibility (n= 270). Feasibility sub-
categories included spatial constraints or availability (n= 58), performance (n= 10), field observations (n= 61),
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY & PLANNING 5

unspecified or other (n= 28), and ownership (n= 113) (Figure 5). Ownership captured planning language that
prioritized city-owned land for GI, such as schools, streets, or parcels (e.g. ‘Projects within the street right-of-
way (ROW) and/or City-owned parcels were considered priority locations’(ATL-04, appendix F, 2)). Field
observations and spatial constraints or availability subcategories included site observations or specifications
(e.g. ATL-09, 3-20; MWK-02, 15), prioritized parcels of a certain size (e.g. DEN-01, 31), or emphasized
vacancy, which was cited by nine cities for ease of implementation (e.g. DTW-01, 92; NYC-01, 5). Note
that vacancy was cross-coded with land development under the economic group.
Leveraged opportunities described the process of adding GI to projects already funded, planned, or in pro-
gress. Criteria were often discussed through cost-sharing (discussed and cross-coded in cost), current project
site locations (for unrelated GI work), or established construction schedules. Examples of this include:
opportunities to partner with other COA departments to combine projects for cost-sharing will be considered as well.
(ATL-10, 7-4)
Areas with existing GGI projects and the potential for economic development (BAL-03, 43)
Social criteria
The third largest group, social categories, included community (n= 143), environmental justice (n= 21), heat
exposure (n= 10), green or open space (n= 81), and visibility (n= 31). Community encompassed all resident-
driven siting criteria and included seven subcategories: public outreach (n= 56), health and wellbeing (n= 6),
education (n= 46), safety (n= 8), recreation (n= 43), livability (n= 32), and other or unspecified (n= 36)
(Figure 6). Environmental justice criteria accounted for just 1.2% of the total criteria coded, and were
Figure 2. Distribution of all siting criteria categories by frequency, where groups are represented as follows: Hydrologic (Hyd), Social (Soc),
Economic (Ecn), Transportation (Tsp), Logistics (Log), Environment (Env) and Other (Oth). The figure highlights that hydrologic and logistic
criteria are found much more frequently in plans than, for example, environment-related criteria.
6F.-A. HOOVER ET AL.

Figure 3. The proportionate distribution of siting criteria groups and categories by city, showing that criteria vary by city, but some categories
are found in most cities (e.g. stormwater management), while others are limited to a few cities (e.g. environmental justice). Groups are rep-
resented as follows: Hydrologic (Hyd), Social (Soc), Economic (Ecn), Transportation (Tsp), Logistics (Log), Environment (Env) and Other (Oth).
Figure 4. The proportionate and frequency distribution of subcategories in the hydrologic group that fall under the stormwater management
category by city showing which subcategories are most common and variation by city. Cities that did not contain any stormwater management
subcategory criteria (Miami, Phoenix, and Louisville) are excluded from the figure.
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY & PLANNING 7

mentioned in 12 plans across seven cities: Atlanta, Baltimore, Denver, New York City, Philadelphia, Portland,
and Seattle. Comparatively, Portland (n= 7) and Baltimore (n= 6) cited environmental justice criteria the
most. We identified three ways environmental justice criteria was discussed (emphasis added):
(1) Distribution of GI or amenities
Figure 5. The proportionate and frequency distribution of subcategories in the logistics group that fall under the feasibility category by city
showing which subcategories are most common and variation by city. Cities that did not contain any feasibility subcategory criteria (Austin,
Phoenix, Sacramento, and Louisville) are excluded from the figure.
Figure 6. The proportionate and frequency distribution of subcategories in the social group that fall under the community category by city
showing which subcategories are most common and variations by city. Cities that did not contain any community subcategory criteria (Chi-
cago, Phoenix, Sacramento, and Louisville) are excluded from the figure.
8F.-A. HOOVER ET AL.

Equitable distribution of implementation across City watersheds, neighborhoods, and demographics and potential to
address environmental justice (BAL-03, 48)
Equitable spatial distribution of burdens and benefits (PHI-05, 3-3)
(2) Use of demographic data
Also ensure that improvements help implement the City’s equity goals and strategies, especially as they relate to the history
of impacts to Portland’s African-American community. (PDX-08, 104)
Evaluate grant funding to promote GI implementation on private property, focusing on low-income communities of color
(ATL-01, 11)
(3) Areas excluded from institutional investment and other metrics
Prioritize areas with historical and current underinvestment (PDX-02, 105)
Improving parks that have received little capital investment and are located in areas of high need, based on higher-than-
average poverty, density, and population growth. (NYC-01, 164)
Additionally, several heat exposure citations were cross-coded with environmental justice, but lacked specificity.
These included siting GI in hotter areas to alleviate the impacts of heat on communities (e.g. ‘neighborhoods with
populations at higher risk of adverse outcomes of urban heat island effects’(PDX-02, 104)). One plan cited ‘basic
maps showing vulnerable populations and locations in the city based on the urban heat island effect’(BAL-10, 20),
butdidnotprovideadefinition of vulnerable populations. Philadelphia and Syracuse cited criteria to reduce heat or
provide shade but did not specify which neighborhoods or populations to prioritize, and Denver had criteria based
on social determinants of health (DEN-01, 12), families in poverty, and education disparities (DEN-01, 101). The
remaining citations for heat cited reducing the urban heat island.
Outreach, criteria driven by resident input (e.g. surveys or focus groups), was the largest community sub-
category, and primarily referenced feedback from neighborhoods with prior engagement with the city, or 311
complaints. For example:
With respect to green infrastructure, a variety of factors are used to determine the priority of a project. This includes,
reports of street flooding, basement backup claims data, community engagement/neighborhood participation. (DTW-
03, 11-5)
References to incorporating community preferences, were often vague, lacking specificity on how conflicts
between priorities or interests would be negotiated (e.g. rank or weighting approaches). For example, Seattle
cited the inclusion of community and city priorities, but did not elaborate on how they would resolve discre-
pancies in prioritization: ‘factors such as community support and overlapping City priorities will be included
in the project prioritization’(SEA-04, 5-9). Similarly, Baltimore stated it ‘prioritizes projects that will best
address community priorities and reduce stormwater runoff’(BAL-08, 19), without further elaboration.
The education subcategory primarily sited GI on or near school property, but it was unclear if this was because
schools were public property or perceived educational benefits. For example, one city plan stated ‘project
implemented on school grounds’(PHI-05, A-4), while another stated ‘cultivates public education opportu-
nities (about the environment and understanding/acceptance/demand/support for GI)’(MWK-03, 30).
The second largest category, green and open space, primarily discussed siting GI for green space in three
ways. Fist, siting GI in or near parks as retrofits, improvements, or preferring areas closer to parks; second,
as an overall goal to increase the percent canopy cover or greenspace across the city; third, as a focused or
more specific investment in areas with low canopy over/park density, higher surface temperatures, or access.
There was also one instance of a city’s green network plan ‘aligning infrastructure investments with commu-
nities in need’(BAL-02, 9).
The visibility category sited locations to showcase or demonstrate the function or use of GI to educate the
public or build support for continued GI projects. Recreation criteria largely focused on adding GI alongside
bicycle or trail connectivity projects or initiatives, and was frequently cross-coded with transportation and the
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY & PLANNING 9

subcategory livability. Under health and wellbeing, the most specific metrics for determining GI location were
recreational beaches near outfall locations (NYC-02, 160), or neighborhoods with relatively higher rates of
child and adult obesity, and relatively lower life expectancy (DEN-01, 101). Safety criteria, primarily discussed
by Atlanta (6 out of 8 citations), sited GI based on their proximity to parks, schools, roads or sewer infrastruc-
ture. For example, Syracuse sited GI as a supportive infrastructure to provide safe walking routes to/from
schools/parks. For roads/sewers, while not explained, Atlanta referenced protection and enhancement to exist-
ing infrastructure, ranked by GI’s proximity to sewer projects.
Economic criteria
The economic group included land development (n= 94), economic development (n= 17) and cost (n= 131)
categories. Land development referred to new or re-development construction, including vacant lots. Economic
development included criteria targeting GI in areas for desired or increased business opportunities, job cre-
ation or economic growth, including prioritizing GI in tax increment financing (TIF) zones. The largest cat-
egory, cost, contained five subcategories (Figure 7): available funding and budget (n= 21), property value (n=
2), types of costs (n= 32), services/effectiveness/sharing (n= 50), and unspecified or other (n= 26). Types of costs
included criteria such as specific construction or calculation costs for a project, unspecified or other was coded
if a plan indicated that ‘cost’was important but did not state how or what types of costs were used in deter-
mining that importance. For example, an Atlanta plan states ‘Cost is usually a major determining factor in the
prioritization of projects.’(ATL-08, appendix H, 2), but provides no explanation for how cost is weighted
against other criteria. Available funding and budget referenced specific grant or funding lines on a per project
basis or total funding.
Cost-effectiveness (under subcategory services, effectiveness, sharing, analysis) was most frequently cited but
rarely defined, as exhibited in the response to a public comment asking for a definition (bolding added).
There is no single definition or criterion for cost-effectiveness that the City can apply; all financial aspects of each individ-
ual project must be considered in combination. (NYC-02, 270)
Figure 7. The proportionate and frequency distribution of subcategories in the economic group that fall under the cost categories by city
showing which subcategories are most common and variations by city. All 19 cities contain cost subcategory criteria.
10 F.-A. HOOVER ET AL.

Across all cities, cost appeared to be an important deciding factor in project location and implementation,
strengthened by references to cost-sharing. One plan stated a ‘cost share or match is not required, [but] pro-
jects including this component will be reviewed more favourably’(MSY-02, 27), and other cities identified
cost-sharing as a criterion to locate GI projects (e.g. ATL-07, xviii; DEN-01, 112). In particular, we noticed
cost-sharing linked to criteria for leveraging opportunities. In this case, cost-sharing was dependent on a pro-
ject’s ability to leverage dollars from multiple sources. For example, a Detroit plan referenced siting GI based
on an ‘ability to leverage dollars in an efficient way’(DTW-3, 11-5).
Transportation criteria
Transportation emerged as an important theme during the coding process. Categories included streets and
sidewalks (n= 138), parking lots (n= 23), traffic(n= 16), the right-of-way (ROW) (n= 54), and other (n=2)
(Figure 8). Parking lots criteria sited GI for both private and publicly owned parking lots. Under traffic, GI
aimed to reduce vehicle flow, speed, or density, ROW referred to locating GI in the right-of-way, and streets
and sidewalks sited GI on bike lanes, trails and green streets. GI was often prioritized on publicly-owned
land, and streets and parking lots certainly represent a large share of public space in cities. A recent study
of Phoenix, for example, estimated that 10% of the urban area was devoted to parking alone (Hoehne
et al., 2019). Streets and sidewalks was the largest transportation subcategory, suggesting these are common
locations for GI.
Other & environment criteria
The environment group (Figure 2) encompassed ecological criteria that did not pertain to water such as air
quality (n= 5) and ecological habitat (n= 22). The other group contained principles (n= 5), which involved
‘[i]dentifying and selecting projects that embody the principles of living with water’(MSY-02, 13), transitional
(n= 3) criteria such as ‘currently un-developed and present an opportunity for providing habitat until such
time in the future as economic conditions make them desirable for development’(STL-02, 14), and exclude
(n= 32) criteria of areas not to place GI.
Figure 8. The proportionate and frequency distribution of transportation subcategories by city showing which subcategories are most com-
mon and variations by city. Cities that did not contain any transportation subcategory criteria (Chicago, Miami, Sacramento, and Louisville) are
excluded from the figure.
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY & PLANNING 11

Discussion: justice implications of GI siting criteria
We now discuss how these criteria explicitly or implicitly engage with justice and the implications, concluding
with recommendations for future GI planning. Criteria with explicit justice engagement focused on siting GI
to improve minoritized communities, repair past injustices, or prevent future harm. Implicit engagement
included criteria inextricably linked to broader social processes and patterns of inequality. For example, if a
plan states an intention to increase residential park access but does not explicitly acknowledge the historical
racist patterns of park distribution or lesser quality parks, it is classified as implicit engagement with justice.
Explicit engagement with justice
While social criteria represented the second largest thematic group, environmental justice criteria only
accounted for 1.2% of all criteria, and when including heat, health or well-being 2.0%. Given the low preva-
lence of explicit criteria engaging justice, the ways in which GI gets sited (or not) in minoritized communities
may not result in just outcomes (e.g. focusing on amenity investments without addressing underlying struc-
tural issues accelerating harm).
Our analysis also suggests that community engagement or outreach tends to be passive, commonly based
on existing complaints or relationships. For example, GI was often promoted on public school property, which
seems positive, but plans left unstated which school districts would be prioritized. US schools are notoriously
segregated, and schools with large minority populations are under resourced (Jonathan Kozol, 1991; Meckler,
2019). Moving outreach efforts to an active engagement approach is achievable and could be done by giving
higher weight or rank to community priorities and having explicit and clear processes for negotiating conflicts
between city and community needs.
We see many ways in which commonly identified siting criteria could exclude minoritized communities
from GI development, while other criteria might prioritize them inadvertently. The specific types of GI prior-
itized in the plans is outside the scope of this study, but it is worth noting that if hydrologic benefits are prior-
itized, GI features could be selected (e.g. permeable pavement) that provide minimal vegetation or co-benefits
to communities most in need. One recent study showed that despite widespread implementation of GI in Phi-
ladelphia, overall ‘greenness’was reduced (Spahr et al., 2020), while another chronicles the loss of Black-
owned homes and lands at the expense of green sustainable housing (Aidoo, 2021).
Given the increasing literature demonstrating strong positive correlations between higher temperatures,
heat-related health risks, and neighborhoods with majority residents of color or of lower-income (e.g. Keeler
et al., 2019; Wilson, 2020), cities could more clearly acknowledge the justice implications of prioritizing hotter
areas for GI.
Without more explicit focus on justice, we argue that GI siting runs the risk of replicating larger patterns of
uneven urban infrastructure development, potentially resulting in green gentrification, displacement, and cul-
tural loss (Anguelovski et al., 2019,2020), which research shows disadvantages residents and communities of
color (Heck 2021).
Implicit engagement with justice
Consistent with previous US-based single-site case studies (Finewood et al., 2019; Meerow, 2020; Newell et al.,
2013; Heck 2021), more technocratic criteria, namely stormwater management, proliferate in GI siting
decisions. In this way, the need for GI is based largely on characteristics of the built environment (e.g. imper-
viousness or sewer type) or the larger hydrologic system, rather than on the communities that live there and
their distinct needs, relationships, or preferences (Meerow, 2020). Additional technocratic criteria included
logistics criteria, such as leveraged opportunities, that placed GI into other in-progress or planned projects.
Similarly, the emphasis on cost-effectiveness/sharing, in practice, seems unlikely to benefit minoritized
communities. Wealthier resident associations are more likely to have the capital to cost-share for GI develop-
ment. Conversely, while the racist devaluing of land in Black and brown neighborhoods could make those
12 F.-A. HOOVER ET AL.

spaces more cost-effective for GI, as Heck (2021) argues, those cost savings replicate long-standing underin-
vestment in these areas. The ambiguous response to defining cost-effectiveness highlights the lack of transpar-
ency and continued ambiguity in how cities use, define, or weigh cost-effectiveness. While this ambiguity
could allow for flexibility in project assessment, it seems doubtful given recent work on how drivers like
cost-effectiveness actually mirror historical patterns of dis/under-investment in minoritized communities
(Heck, 2021).
The use of GI as a placeholder for future development (e.g. ‘short-term beautification while holding parcels
for long-term development opportunities.’BAL-02, 6), has both positive and negative justice implications. If
or when the parcel(s) become commercially marketable, the GI could be replaced by a community-desired or
identified business (e.g. grocery store). Conversely, if land values increased, the GI might be replaced by an
undesired commercial development (e.g. luxury condos).
A similar logic applies to transportation criteria.Linking GI planning to transportation projects may
exacerbate current and historical disinvestment in minoritized communities. Plans rarely discussed how
they would determine which streets or sidewalks to enhance with GI through transit (e.g. neighborhoods
or street types), and research suggests transportation investments often prioritize wealthier and whiter com-
munities (Golub et al., 2013). Other research suggests that road resurfacing projects, sidewalk expansion, or
bike and trail lanes, while done in an attempt to enhance active transportation, tend not to prioritize minor-
itized communities perpetuating inequalities across the landscape (Knight et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2017), and
may serve as harbingers of gentrification (Flanagan et al., 2016).
Envisioning more just green infrastructure spatial planning
To avoid perpetuating inequities through the development of green infrastructure, cities should explicitly cen-
ter justice in their GI spatial planning. We suggest that any GI planning effort should 1) prioritize GI in com-
munities that have a want or need for it and are supportive of GI as a solution, 2) have methods and criteria
that match stated justice goals, and 3) be implemented alongside policies or regulations that address systemic
racism in planning.
Prioritizing GI in communities that want and support it
Trust is the foundation to any functioning relationship and cities and their residents are no different. Particu-
larly when it comes to justice, trust between cities and minoritized communities has generally been non-exist-
ent (Jardine et al., 2013). Given this history, the path towards justice is one where cities cede the power of self-
determination to these communities, identifying if/where/what GI practices residents desire through outreach.
Examples of this include community-led planning activities that include historic preservation mapping, walk-
ing paths, needs identification, or participatory-mapping (Allen et al., 2019). Implementing GI based on how
residents experience their environment and in turn using those experiences to inform the metrics for siting is a
key tenet to justice-centered planning.
When it comes to GI siting, minoritized residents must be invited to the siting process at the beginning of
the planning stages (as opposed to informational meetings at 30/60/90 percent project completion), and given
priority over city criteria and preferences. Radical planning theory argues for the need to consider lived experi-
ences as knowledge, created through dialogue, and to use it to inform planning (Jacobs, 2019). This is particu-
larly critical for planning to mitigate disasters like stormwater-related flooding, where community voices are
frequently ignored, and conversations of social vulnerability fail to focus on the ways white supremacy and
sexism are amplified by environmental hazards (Jacobs, 2019). It was promising to see many references to pub-
lic outreach in the plans, but it is insufficient to prioritize GI based on 311 complaints alone. Plans should
outline steps to ensure residents feel comfortable participating in city governance. In fact, research suggests
that procedural justice is critical in order to avoid harm (cultural, social, and economic) (Finewood et al.,
2019;O’Brien et al., 2017;Rigolon & Németh, 2018). This can be done via resident steering communities, clo-
sely partnering with local non-profits and activist organizations rooted in the neighborhoods of interest and
delivering on city support for the outlined needs or priorities of residents. Citing Jacobs (2019) again, the
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY & PLANNING 13

integration of critical race theory (Price, 2010) alongside radical planning methods are fundamental to under-
standing and preventing production and reproduction of environmental injustices.
Matching goals to methods for prioritizing GI siting
The limited, explicit engagement with justice among the GI siting criteria seems problematic given the grow-
ing calls for social and environmental justice in green infrastructure planning (Shi, 2020). Embedding GI pro-
jects in transportation, capital projects, or other processes, which our findings suggest is commonplace, is
unlikely to answer these calls. Planning of transportation and capital projects are inextricably tied to persistent
racial injustice and inequities, and both have been shown to privilege white and wealthier neighborhoods
(Golub et al., 2013; Knight et al., 2018). We also recognize the importance of shared governance and the
opportunities for GI practices presented by increased communication and resource sharing among city
departments, agencies, and organizations. However, shared resources for GI planning will only be meaningful
if planned and sited in just ways.
Given the reduced financial resources –institutional and personal –that many minoritized communities
experience, one restorative justice practice could include dedicated funds for GI maintenance or other needs
when GI is located in minoritized communities. A consistent and reliable maintenance budget is an important
supplement to balance historical financial overinvestment in predominantly white and wealthy neighbor-
hoods. Where specific justice criteria are absent, having funding for GI free from other development (e.g.
funding through impact fees) or investments (e.g. street upgrades) is a vital piece of moving towards justice.
Dedicated funds can specifically address disparities that embedded GI practices alone will not address. In the
absence of specific funding lines (e.g. for community supported GI siting or GI maintenance), our prediction
is that GI will mirror the funding pathways of other infrastructure or capital investment projects. As such,
establishing a budget exclusively for the maintenance and monitoring of GI placed in minoritized commu-
nities is a key recommendation.
Implementing GI with policies that intentionally address legacies of racism
Equal siting of GI is insufficient to address long-standing disparities in urban amenities and does not take into
account the local context or history (Heckert & Rosan, 2016). We argue GI should only be prioritized in com-
munities that are supportive of GI as a solution, while mitigating any community concerns (e.g. green gen-
trification) through proactive planning and policies. For example, displacement is a predictable outcome
that can be addressed (Rigolon & Németh, 2018). Finally, we call for planners, geographers, and other social
scientists to further examine justice in GI planning decisions, and what the long-term impacts are to the com-
munities where GI is placed.
Conclusion
GI has become an increasingly popular approach for enhancing urban sustainability and resilience. The his-
tory of urban planning ‘solutions’is fraught with injustices. As more cities integrate GI into their various plans
and invest in its expansion it inevitably raises justice concerns. The spatial planning of GI can itself be seen as
an issue of distributional environmental justice, as the impacts are mostly localized. Drawing on a novel data-
set of qualitatively coded city planning documents from 19 diverse US cities, this study sought to specifically
examine how cities intend to site GI. We identify many different spatial siting criteria outlined in the plans,
most of which are highly technical or economic; justice is not a focus in GI siting priorities. To center justice in
GI planning efforts, we recommend cities 1) prioritize GI in communities that either want, need or support GI,
2) have stated justice goals and the methods and criteria to match, and 3) implement GI alongside policies or
regulations that address systemic racism in planning.
14 F.-A. HOOVER ET AL.

Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge the support of The JPB Foundation for this work, through a project entitled “Environment, Health,
and Poverty: Is Green Infrastructure a Universal Good?”.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Funding
This work was supported by JPB Foundation; National Science Foundation [Grant Number #1934933, #1444755, #1927167, DBI-
1639145], National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center (SESYNC) and National Science Foundation [grant number DEB–
1832016], Central Arizona–Phoenix Long–Term Ecological Research Program (CAP LTER).
Notes on contributors
Dr. Fushcia-Ann Hoover is a transdisciplinary researcher specializing in social-environmental urban systems, environmental jus-
tice, green infrastructure and planning. Her research centers equity and justice in urban planning and engages the racial histories
and relationships between people, place and the environment. She is an Assistant Professor in Geography and Earth Sciences at
the University of North Caroline-Charlotte, and a faculty affiliate with the Central Arizona-Phoenix Long-Term Ecological
Research (CAP-LTER) program.
Dr. Sara Meerow is an interdisciplinary researcher working at the intersection of urban geography and planning on how to make
cities more resilient to climate change and other social and environmental hazards in ways that are sustainable and just. She is an
Assistant Professor in the School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning at Arizona State University.
Dr. Zbigniew J. Grabowski is a transdisciplinary researcher focused on enabling just transitions of socio-eco-technical systems. He
has expertise in human and physical geography, biocultural conservation, hydrology, ecosystem and environmental science, and
infrastructure studies. He is a Postdoctoral Research Associate at the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, a Visiting Scholar at the
Urban Systems Lab, and an Adjunct Assistant Professor at Portland State University.
Dr. Timon McPhearson is an urban ecologist with expertise in urban data science, climate change risk, and nature-based solutions
for urban resilience and sustainability. He is Director of the Urban Systems Lab, Associate Professor of Urban Ecology at The New
School, and a Research Fellow at The Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies and Stockholm Resilience Centre.
ORCID
Fushcia-Ann Hoover http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9067-0504
Sara Meerow http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6935-1832
Timon McPhearson http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9499-0791
References
Aidoo, F. S. (2021). Architectures of mis/managed retreat: Black land loss to green housing gains. Journal of Environmental Studies
and Sciences.https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-021-00684-3
Allen, D., Lawhon, M., & Pierce, J. (2019). Placing race: On the resonance of place with black geographies. Progress in Human
Geography,43(6). https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132518803775
Anguelovski, I., Brand, A. L., Connolly, J. J. T., Corbera, E., Kotsila, P., Steil, J., Garcia-Lamarca, M., Triguero-Mas, M., Cole, H.,
Baró, F., Langemeyer, J., del Pulgar, C. P., Shokry, G., Sekulova, F., & Argüelles Ramos, L. (2020). Expanding the boundaries of
justice in urban greening scholarship: Toward an emancipatory, antisubordination, intersectional, and relational approach.
Annals of the American Association of Geographers,110(6), 1743–1769. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2020.1740579
Anguelovski, I., Connolly, J. J., Garcia-Lamarca, M., Cole, H., & Pearsall, H. (2019). New scholarly pathways on green gentrifica-
tion: What does the urban ‘green turn’mean and where is it going? Progress in Human Geography,43(6), 1064–1086. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0309132518803799
Benedict, M. A., & McMahon, E. T. (2002). Green infrastructure: Smart conservation for the 21 century. Renewable Resources
Journal,Autumn, 20(3), 12–18.
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY & PLANNING 15

Bowen, K. J., & Lynch, Y. (2017). The public health benefits of green infrastructure: The potential of economic framing for
enhanced decision-making. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability,25,90–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.
2017.08.003
Bullard, R. D. (1996). Environmental justice: It’s more than waste facility siting. Social Science Quarterly,77(3), 493–499. https://
www.jstor.org/stable/42863495
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2014). Basics of qualitative research (4th ed.). Sage Publications. https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/
basics-of-qualitative-research/book235578
Cousins, J. J. (2021). Justice in nature-based solutions: Research and pathways. Ecological Economics,180, 106874. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106874
Elmqvist, T., Gomez-Baggethun, E., & Langemeyer, J. (2016). Ecosystem services provided by urban green infrastructure. In
Handbook of ecosystem services (1st ed., p. 630). Routledge.
Feyisa, G. L., Dons, K., & Meilby, H. (2014). Efficiency of parks in mitigating urban heat island effect: An example from Addis
Ababa. Landscape and Urban Planning,123,87–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.12.008
Finewood, M. H., Matsler, A. M., & Zivkovich, J. (2019). Green infrastructure and the hidden politics of urban stormwater gov-
ernance in a postindustrial city. Annals of the American Association of Geographers,109(3), 909–925. https://doi.org/10.1080/
24694452.2018.1507813
Fitzgerald, J., & Laufer, J. (2017). Governing green stormwater infrastructure: The Philadelphia experience. Local Environment,22
(2), 256–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2016.1191063
Flanagan, E., Lachapelle, U., & El-Geneidy, A. (2016). Riding tandem: Does cycling infrastructure investment mirror gentrifica-
tion and privilege in Portland, OR and Chicago, IL? Transportation and Land Development: A Global View,60,14–24. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2016.07.027
Glotzer, P. (2015). Exclusion in arcadia: How suburban developers circulated ideas about discrimination, 1890–1950. Journal of
Urban History,41(3), 479–494. https://doi.org/10.1177/0096144214566964
Golub, A., Marcantonio, R. A., & Sanchez, T. W. (2013). Race, space, and struggles for mobility: Transportation impacts on
African Americans in oakland and the east Bay. Urban Geography,34(5), 699–728. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2013.
778598
Gould, K. A., & Lewis, T. L. (2017). Green gentrification: Urban sustainability and the struggle for environmental justice (1st ed.).
Routledge.
Grove, M., Ogden, L., Pickett, S., Boone, C., Buckley, G., Locke, D. H., Lord, C., & Hall, B. (2018). The Legacy effect:
Understanding How segregation and environmental injustice unfold over time in Baltimore. Annals of the American
Association of Geographers,108(2), 524–537. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2017.1365585
Hansen, R., Olafsson, A. S., van der Jagt, A. P. N., Rall, E., & Pauleit, S. (2019). Planning multifunctional green infrastructure for
compact cities: What is the state of practice? From Urban Sprawl to Compact Green Cities –Indicators for Multi-Scale and
Multi-Dimensional Analysis,96(Part 2), 99–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.09.042
Heck, S. (2021). Greening the color line: Historicizing water infrastructure redevelopment and environmental justice in the
St. Louis metropolitan region. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning,1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2021.
1888702
Heckert, M., & Rosan, C. D. (2016). Developing a green infrastructure equity index to promote equity planning. Urban Forestry
and Urban Greening,19, 263–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2015.12.011
Hoehne, C. G., Chester, M. V., Fraser, A. M., & King, D. A. (2019). Valley of the sun-drenched parking space: The growth, extent,
and implications of parking infrastructure in phoenix. Cities,89, 186–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.02.007
Holifield, R. (2013). Defining environmental justice and environmental racism. Urban Geography,22(1), 78–90. https://doi.org/
10.2747/0272-3638.22.1.78
Hoover, F.-A., & Hopton, M. E. (2019). Developing a framework for stormwater management: Leveraging ancillary benefits from
urban greenspace. Urban Ecosystems,22(6), 1139–1148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-019-00890-6
Hoover, F.-A., & Lim, T. C. (2020). Examining privilege and power in US urban parks and open space during the double crises of
antiblack racism and COVID-19. Socio-Ecological Practice Research,1(3), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42532-020-00070-3
Hopkins, K. G., Grimm, N. B., & York, A. M. (2018). Influence of governance structure on green stormwater infrastructure invest-
ment. Environmental Science and Policy,84, 124–133. USGS Publications Warehouse. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.03.
008
Jacobs, F. (2019). Black feminism and radical planning: New directions for disaster planning research. Planning Theory,18(1), 24–
39. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095218763221
Jardine, C. G., Banfield, L., Driedger, S. M., & Furgal, C. M. (2013). Risk communication and trust in decision-maker action: A
case study of the giant mine remediation plan. International Journal of Circumpolar Health,72(1). https://doi.org/10.3402/ijch.
v72i0.21184
Jonathan Kozol. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in america’s schools (1st ed.). Crown.
Kassambara, A. (2020). ggpubr: “ggplot2”Based Publication Ready Plots (0.4.0) [Computer software]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/
package=ggpubr
16 F.-A. HOOVER ET AL.

Keeler, B. L., Hamel, P., McPhearson, T., Hamann, M. H., Donahue, M. L., Meza Prado, K. A., Arkema, K. K., Bratman, G. N.,
Brauman, K. A., Finlay, J. C., Guerry, A. D., Hobbie, S. E., Johnson, J. A., MacDonald, G. K., McDonald, R. I., Neverisky, N., &
Wood, S. A. (2019). Social-ecological and technological factors moderate the value of urban nature. Nature Sustainability,2(1),
29–38. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0202-1
Knight, J., Weaver, R., & Jones, P. (2018). Walkable and resurgent for whom? The uneven geographies of walkability in Buffalo,
NY. Applied Geography,92,1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2018.01.008
Kremer, P., Hamstead, Z. A., & McPhearson, T. (2016). The value of urban ecosystem services in New York City: A spatially expli-
cit multicriteria analysis of landscape scale valuation scenarios. Environmental Science and Policy,62,57–68. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.envsci.2016.04.012
Lee, R. J., Sener, I. N., & Jones, S. N. (2017). Understanding the role of equity in active transportation planning in the United
States. Transport Reviews,37(2), 211–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2016.1239660
Lipstiz, G. (2007). The racialization of space and the spatialization of race; theorizing the hidden architecture of landscape.
Landscape Journal,26(1), 10–23.
Locke, D., Hall, B., Grove, J. M., Pickett, S. T. A., Ogden, L. A., Aoki, C., Boone, C. G., & O’Neil-Dunne, J. P. (2020). Residential
housing segregation and urban tree canopy in 37 US Cities [Preprint]. SocArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/97zcs
Lopez, B., Kennedy, C., & McPhearson, T. (2020). Parks are Critical Urban Infrastructure: Perception and Use of Urban Green
Spaces in NYC During COVID-19.https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202008.0620.v1
Lovell, S. T., & Taylor, J. R. (2013). Supplying urban ecosystem services through multifunctional green infrastructure in the
United States. Landscape Ecology,28(8), 1447–1463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-013-9912-y
Mabon, L., & Shih, W.-Y. (2018). What might ‘just green enough’urban development mean in the context of climate change adap-
tation? The case of urban greenspace planning in Taipei Metropolis, Taiwan. World Development,107, 224–238. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.02.035
Matsler, A. M., Meerow, S., Mell, I. C., & Pavao-Zuckerman, M. A. (2021). A‘green’chameleon: Exploring the many disciplinary
definitions, goals, and forms of “green infrastructure”.Landscape and Urban Planning,214.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
landurbplan.2021.104145
Meckler, L. (2019, February 26). Report finds $23 billion racial funding gap for schools. Washington Post.https://www.
washingtonpost.com/local/education/report-finds-23-billion-racial-funding-gap-for-schools/2019/02/25/d562b704-3915-
11e9-a06c-3ec8ed509d15_story.html
Meerow, S. (2020). The politics of multifunctional green infrastructure planning in New York City. Cities,100.https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.cities.2020.102621
Miles, M., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Fundamentals of Qualitative data analysis. In Qualitative data analysis, A
methods sourcebook (3rd ed., pp. 69–104). Sage Publications.
Newell, J. P., Seymour, M., Yee, T., Renteria, J., Longcore, T., Wolch, J. R., & Shishkovsky, A. (2013). Green alley programs:
Planning for a sustainable urban infrastructure? Cities,31, 144–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2012.07.004
O’Brien, L., De Vreese, R., Atmiş, E., Stahl Olafsson, A., Sievänen, T., Brennan, M., Sánchez, M., Panagopoulos, T., de Vries, S.,
Kern, M., Gentin, S., Saraiva, G., & Almeida, A. (2017). Social and environmental justice: Diversity in access to and benefits
from Urban green infrastructure –Examples from Europe. In D. Pearlmutter, C. Calfapietra, R. Samson, L. O’Brien, S. Krajter
Ostoić, G. Sanesi, & R. Alonso del Amo (Eds.), The urban forest: Cultivating green infrastructure for people and the environment
(pp. 153–190). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50280-9_15
Pietila, A. (2012). Not in my neighborhood: How bigotry shaped a great American city. Rowman & Littlefield.
Price, P. L. (2010). At the crossroads: Critical race theory and critical geographies of race. Progress in Human Geography,34(2),
147–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132509339005
Pulido, L. (2000). Rethinking environmental racism: White privilege and urban development in southern california. Annals of the
Association of American Geographers,90(1), 12–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/0004-5608.00182
R Core Team. (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.https://
www.R-project.org/
Rigolon, A., & Németh, J. (2018). “We’re not in the business of housing:”environmental gentrification and the nonprofitization of
green infrastructure projects. Cities,81,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2018.03.016
Rothstein, R. (2017). The color of Law: A forgotten history of How Our government segregated america. Liveright Publishing.
Schell, C. J., Dyson, K., Fuentes, T. L., Des Roches, S., Harris, N. C., Miller, D. S., Woelfle-Erskine, C. A., & Lambert, M. R. (2020).
The ecological and evolutionary consequences of systemic racism in urban environments. Science,369(6510), eaay4497.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aay4497
Schlosberg, D. (2007). Defining environmental justice: Theories, movements, and nature. Oxford University Press.
Shi, L. (2020). Beyond flood risk reduction: How can green infrastructure advance both social justice and regional impact? Socio-
Ecological Practice Research,2(4), 311–320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42532-020-00065-0
Spahr, K. M., Bell, C. D., McCray, J. E., & Hogue, T. S. (2020). Greening up stormwater infrastructure: Measuring vegetation to
establish context and promote cobenefits in a diverse set of US cities. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening,48, 126548. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126548
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY & PLANNING 17

US EPA. (2015, September 30). What is Green Infrastructure? [Overviews and Factsheets]. US EPA. https://www.epa.gov/green-
infrastructure/what-green-infrastructure
US EPA, O. (2014, November 3). Environmental Justice [Collections and Lists]. US EPA. https://www.epa.gov/
environmentaljustice
von Döhren, P., & Haase, D. (2015). Ecosystem disservices research: A review of the state of the art with a focus on cities.
Ecological Indicators,52, 490–497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.12.027
Wilson, B. (2020). Urban heat management and the Legacy of redlining. Journal of the American Planning Association,86(4), 443–
457. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2020.1759127
Wolch, J. R., Byrne, J., & Newell, J. P. (2014). Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge of mak-
ing cities “just green enough.”.Landscape and Urban Planning,125, 234–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.
017
Zhao, Q., Sailor, D. J., & Wentz, E. A. (2018). Impact of tree locations and arrangements on outdoor microclimates and human
thermal comfort in an urban residential environment. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening,32,81–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ufug.2018.03.022
Zuniga-Teran, A. A., Gerlak, A. K., Mayer, B., Evans, T. P., & Lansey, K. E. (2020). Urban resilience and green infrastructure
systems: Towards a multidimensional evaluation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability,44,42–47. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cosust.2020.05.001
18 F.-A. HOOVER ET AL.