Green infrastructure (GI) is widely promoted on the basis of its multifunctionality (e.g., ecosystem services), and planning guidance emphasizes the importance of factoring multiple benefits into siting decisions. But in practice, decisions about where to site GI are often opportunistic rather than to maximize the full range of desired functions. Planning decisions are further complicated by different GI planning priorities, the historical or cultural relationships between vegetation and residents, and the historical lack on infrastructure investment in marginalized communities across the country. We asked How are cities determining where to locate new green infrastructure developments? We examined infrastructure and planning documents across 19 US cities, and identified the rationale and criteria provided for siting and prioritizing placement of GI, the benefits or ecosystem services most often cited, and indicators used in these process.
Results/Conclusions
Based on preliminary results, we find that while cities often establish goals and a strong intent for multifunctional planning of GI that includes social, economic, and community benefits, there is a lack of explicit and clear steps to achieving these goals. Minimal attention is given to identifying the metrics, indicators, or data to be used in the process. The primary drivers for prioritization are often leveraged opportunities such as cost-sharing, partnering with already planned or on-going projects (in particular transportation), and stormwater model analysis. These de-facto prioritization criteria lend themselves to perpetuating inequitable environmental urban planning patterns, and demonstrate a disconnect between rationale and criteria cities are using in these processes. This creates a great opportunity to provide concrete guidance and recommendations for cities to improve their GI planning processes.