Institutionalizing barriers to access? An equity scan of green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) incentive programs in the United States

ABSTRACT

Green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) is part of a suite of sustainability initiatives that are vital to tackling climate change. However, siloed governance structures that traditionally implement stormwater infrastructure are not well-suited to address the cross-cutting goals of such initiatives (i.e. incorporating social equity along with technological aspects). Equity planning centers social equity in policy development and can help ameliorate this siloing. Here, we apply equity planning concepts to examine GSI incentive programs developed in the United States to address current funding gaps. We explore GSI incentive programs included in federally-mandated Stormwater Management Plans (SWMPs). Programs found through a scan of readily available SWMPs ranged from $20 rebates to $500,000 grants, providing a range of opportunities. However, closer analysis of application materials suggests potential institutionalization of inequality through restricted access. Barriers to accessing these programs can limit participation by marginalized or under-resourced communities and instead redirect scarce resources to communities who already have strong capacity. Thus, we argue that centering equity in the development of sustainability incentives and conducting meaningful equity analysis should be applied to GSI programs to reform practice and avoid institutionalizing inequity.

KEYWORDS:

• Green infrastructure
• green stormwater infrastructure
• financial incentives
• MS4 permits
• equity planning
• barriers to access

Introduction

Sustainability and resilience initiatives are ever more pertinent and vital for cities to embrace if urban populations are to adapt to the effects of climate change and other challenges. However, implementation is often siloed into distinct governance structures that are not well suited to address the cross-cutting goals that sustainability initiatives require (McPhearson et al., 2022; Miller et al., 2018). As a result, even with the best intentions, programs that were meant to improve community conditions can end up retrenching existing inequalities or creating new ones (Heck, 2021; Hoover et al., 2021; Walker, 2021). Equity planning frameworks call on planners and decision-makers to redress this tendency by centering the needs of those that have the least (Krumholz, 1982). An important contribution towards the implementation of equity planning is understanding the ways in which inequity can become institutionalized in municipal policies and decision-making, making it a taken-for-granted aspect of communities and their environmental conditions (Hoover & Lim, 2021; Mabon & Shih, 2018). In this manuscript we examine a specific type of urban sustainability initiative – green infrastructure installations – to better understand the ways inequity is institutionalized in municipal environmental management.

Specifically, we question the inherent assumptions of green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) as a comprehensive sustainable solution by focusing on access to implementation incentive programs. Our research focused on the ways that barriers can be created or exacerbated through program guidelines and opportunities for participation. To consider these barriers, we asked: what are the requirements for accessing green infrastructure incentive programs in the US? And, what barriers and opportunities do these requirements potentially present to marginalized and/or under-resourced communities? To answer these questions, we assessed GSI incentive programs identified through a nation-wide scan of Stormwater Management Plans (SWMPs) and conducted a content analysis of publicly available incentive program application documents, with a focus on program requirements.

Our analysis suggests program requirements could institutionalize inequality by inadvertently constraining access to under-resourced communities. Barriers to access can limit participation by the communities with the most need and instead redirect scarce resources to communities who already have a strong capacity (Heynen et al., 2006). We further found that many of these programs did not center equity in their requirements, potentially institutionalizing existing inequalities. Following similar calls in the literature (e.g., Grabowski et al., 2023), we argue that an ongoing equity analysis should be applied to incentives and other GSI programs in order to reform practice and avoid institutionalizing inequity.

Green stormwater infrastructure as study site

Green infrastructure provides an excellent site of analysis to understand how inequity can be institutionalized. Green infrastructure is currently becoming standardized as an off-the-shelf policy tool that can potentially solve multiple problems at once, including addressing inequities in accessing the benefits of greenspaces (Heckert & Rosan, 2016). Here, green infrastructure is defined as the use or mimicry of ecological systems (e.g., vegetated land) to provide municipal services that have traditionally been provided by ‘grey’ or human-made infrastructures (e.g., dams for flood control). Green infrastructure has been shown to provide multiple social and health benefits to local residents (Cochran et al., 2018; NRPA, 2010) and has been promoted as a tool to alleviate poverty along with a number of other urban challenges (Dunn, 2010).

While the concept of green infrastructure is broad – including a variety of physical manifestations from large-scale wetlands, parks, and remnant forest patches to small-scale rain gardens, street trees, and green roofs (Matsler et al., 2021) – one of the most known and praised benefits of green infrastructure in the United States (US) is stormwater management. Often called green stormwater infrastructure or GSI, this type of green infrastructure has become the most popular form of green infrastructure installed and planned for in the US (Grabowski et al., 2022a). GSI represents a subcategory of green infrastructure that is primarily engineered to capture and/or treat stormwater through mimicked ecological processes. Examples are varied and include capture and storage (e.g., permeable pavement and rain barrels) as well as hybrid facilities that contain vegetation (e.g., bioswales, rain gardens, and green roofs) (Bell et al., 2019; Choat et al., 2022; Qi & Barclay, 2021). Therefore, the term GSI refers to human-engineered and built facilities that contain ecological and biological elements rather than pre-existing or emergent greenspaces/natural areas in cities that are encompassed by the broader term ‘green infrastructure.’ Ideally, while GSI installations primarily focus on stormwater capture and treatment, they also provide additional co-benefits such as providing jobs for youth, building community engagement (Goodling & Herrington, 2015), and ameliorating the urban heat island effect (Liu et al., 2020), among many others.

Importantly, despite their purported cross-cutting benefits, GSI installations are de facto under the purview of municipal engineers who have traditionally managed conventional stormwater infrastructure (Finewood et al., 2019). This sort of management is further driven by GSI’s popularity as a tool used by US municipalities in addressing regulatory requirements in a more cost-effective and sustainable way. At the federal level, the Clean Water Act, ‘prohibits anybody from discharging “pollutants” through a “point source” into a “water of the United States” unless they have a NPDES¹ permit’ (US EPA, 2015). As seen in Figure 1, which outlines the larger GSI regulatory context, both combined sewers (i.e., sanitary sewage and stormwater conveyed in the same pipes) and separated stormwater sewers are regulated as point sources of pollution. Both sewer types are impacted by precipitation events: (1) stormwater can overwhelm combined sewers and result in combined sewer overflows (CSOs) which release untreated sewage directly in lakes and rivers, and (2) separated stormwater sewers route stormwater directly into lakes and rivers without treatment though stormwater contains a number of pollutants (i.e., oil, fertilizer, trash). Because GSI slows, stores, and/or treats stormwater before it enters either sewer system type, it can also help ameliorate point source pollution discharge stemming from both combined and separated sewer systems. Thus, because of its ability to address stormwater management concerns while also providing numerous potential co-benefits – and its relative cost-effectiveness (Keeley et al., 2013) – GSI is encouraged by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a way to address NPDES permit violations, both in CSO and TMDL² exceedances (EPA, 2008; EPA et al., 2007). These policies can create drivers for GSI incentive programs at the local level through SWMPs,³ a requirement for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permits. As such, traditional stormwater managers are tasked with implementing GSI as part of their broader responsibilities.

Figure 1. Federal regulatory context of GSI development.

As regulatory pressures and community desires for greenspace mount, there is more demand for facilities like GSI. However, funding for projects in the US is disjointed and difficult to procure (Zimmerman et al., 2019). Municipal departments struggle to allocate budget towards GSI programs, especially where they lack strong regulatory drivers (Matsler, 2019). Additionally, GSI requires more land than traditional gray infrastructural options; therefore, most municipalities cannot meet NPDES permit requirements with GSI only on public land. To create an adequate and effective GSI system, facilities and programs must extend to private property (Coleman et al., 2018). Because of this, many municipalities have opted to create incentive programs that offer monetary assistance to GSI projects built on private property. SWMPs are one place where such programs can be included in addressing regulatory requirements.

GSI incentives vary but can often be found in the form of tax rebates, in-kind contributions, reimbursements, or grant funding. While these different programs can incentivize the development of GSI, and ideally the co-benefits articulated above, research has shown that sustainable solutions without critical analysis can often further entrench disparities and the uneven distribution of urban environmental hazards and amenities, improving the economy and environment only for some (Pulido, 2000). GSI incentive programs, therefore, provide an opportunity to further research the institutionalization of inequity and the outcomes of un-assessed resource management.

In the remaining sections, we frame the problem of uneven GSI distribution within arguments from equity planning scholars and related literature. We then present empirical findings from both a national scan of GSI incentive programs and a review of application documents from these programs. Our analysis suggests that program requirements could institutionalize inequality and that an ongoing equity analysis should be applied to reform practice and avoid institutionalizing inequity. This research sets the stage for future and ongoing examination of community experiences and interactions with – and power dynamics surrounding – green infrastructure programs generally.

Background: (in)equitable access to environmental services in the city

An equity planning framework is uniquely positioned to examine and contribute to addressing current urban sustainability challenges – for our purposes, procedural injustice and the retrenchment of inequality of resource allocation – through a normative approach to urban planning. Current environmental planning scholarship identifies and explores the various physical, emotional, cultural, and financial aspects of equitable and just urban environmental service delivery in urban policy and planning contexts (Agyeman et al., 2003; Mullenbach & Baker, 2018; Rigolon et al., 2020). Equity planning is at the core of this scholarship, emphasizing the importance of ensuring appropriate options for those who have few or none. ‘The equity planning model,’ according to Zapata and Bates (2017):

describes both a policy goal and a role for planners to be advocates for equity. Krumholz envisioned equity being fully institutionalized as a decision metric for resource allocations and programs. (p. 412)

and that,

Equity planning is about the technical work of developing and implementing policies, plans, and programs–including data analysis of costs and benefits and evaluating and proposing new resource allocations. (p. 412)

While this approach typically entails planners advocating for the needs of disadvantaged communities, it also reinforces the importance of agency in, and access to, bureaucratic spaces. This type of access to resources, or having a ‘seat at the table,’ is sometimes referred to as procedural justice, whereby obstacles to participation are removed and communities can legitimately participate in political processes (Schlosberg, 2018). For equity to be ‘fully institutionalized as a decision metric,’ there must be consistent engagement of communities throughout planning and implementation to understand needs and assess emerging programs’ ability to meet intended goals (Grabowski et al., 2022b). Goodling and Herrington (2015) provide an example of a local agency engaging with community groups to change their practices after realizing that their grant program was not serving a diverse community. Through a better understanding of local needs, the municipality was able to expand the types of projects they considered; this new set of project types met the technical needs of their program as well as community needs which originally seemed unrelated. This resulted in greater access for a more diverse group of community members who applied for and received grant funds. In this case, advocacy by bureaucrats led to community engagement and increased procedural justice, which resulted in the adjustment of technical metrics towards centering equity.

Strategies for addressing issues such as climate change adaptation and mitigation, air quality, housing access, and other profound urban challenges perpetually run the risk of creating, exacerbating, or institutionalizing inequality in multiple ways (Hoover & Lim, 2021). This consideration is especially important in examining technical decision-making. While some regulatory processes are explicitly optimized around social goals (Zapata & Bates, 2017), other infrastructure decision-making processes, such as most of those surrounding GSI, are conducted by engineers who optimize facilities to physical standards and goals (i.e., technical decision-making about hydrologic performance) (Finewood, 2016). This focus on technical factors, and institutional siloing within engineering units, means that equity is often not considered up-front – or is just assumed to be ‘baked in the cake’ – although arguably technical infrastructure decision-making processes can have as large, if not larger, influence on the distribution of public investment in a city (Grabowski et al., 2022b). Municipal departments are not traditionally structured to manage the interdisciplinary nature of sustainability initiatives that seek to forefront or make explicit social goals (Miller et al., 2018).

However, planners and engineers are currenlty calling for a re-framing of infrastructure decision-making to more explicitly include consideration of social factors (Markolf et al., 2022), echoing equity planning scholars that point to the need to fully institutionalize concepts of equitable distribution in all aspects of urban planning and development. Nonetheless, past pushes for equity have not resulted in consistent outcomes: ‘social equity is addressed idiosyncratically as a by-product of policy goals for sustainability. [Currently,] equity can only be brought through the “back door” of regional policies and programs’ (Zapata & Bates, 2017, p. 412). In this sense, the ‘social’ part of sustainability policy tends to focus on ideas about quality of life, a concept that does not de facto center or result in equitable outcomes (Hoover & Lim, 2021; Mullenbach & Baker, 2018). Without explicit inclusion of equity goals, projects can often give the appearance of creating social goods across all communities without actually delivering them equitably.

Recent scholarship on sustainability initiatives in the form of GSI planning and implementation reinforce the need for something like an equity planning approach. Such research examines the differential needs of communities that complicate the equity of programs that distribute uniform solutions across geographically complex cities rather than specified and contextualized equity planning programs. For example, Heckert and Rosan (2016) argue for a need-based distributional equity through the creation of an ‘equity void index’ to guide investment in GSI installations. As they explain, ‘not all stakeholders in all parts of the city will require the same amounts of assistance to implement GI practices and not all neighborhoods will accrue the same benefits from GI installation’ (p. 5). Other scholarship demonstrates how requirements and standards instituted by technical decision-making can reinforce inequitable distribution of environmental benefits. For example, Hoover et al. (2021) analyze the siting criteria used for GSI development in planning documents from 19 US cities. They find that such criteria do not effectively include justice or equity often because of the prioritization of economic and physical metrics. Among other insights, they also point to the ways that ‘implicit engagement with justice’ continues to serve primarily white and wealthy communities using such metrics (p. 676).

Additionally, it is hard to ignore the influence of private property ownership in determining the future distribution of GSI installations resulting from incentive programs. Incentives seek to expand the provision of municipal services to private infrastructural facilities, which, among other results, further commodifies urban environments (Brand, 2007). This has implications to the equitable distribution of environmental benefits similar to those found by Heynen et al. (2006) where the applicant pool for a street tree program in Milwaukee did not reflect the entire population of the city. Rather the program re-enforced inequity stemming from a focus on private property rights:

… the recipients of the nonprofit's free trees are not usually poor or renters. To this end, the director of Greening Milwaukee suggested in a personal interview, “My clients are homeowners with incomes greater than $60, 000. Those are the greatest numbers of participants I have.” As a result, the production and distribution of trees remain controlled largely by liberal private-property rights except where directly controlled by the city forestry department for common benefit on small sections of fragmented public land. (p.14)

As Heckert and Rosan (2016) summarize, ‘reliance on private property and private property owners to implement GI may inherently privilege residents with higher socio-economic status’ (p. 3). This is consistent with a broader, ideological economic rationale where it is assumed property owners will build GI if they can achieve some sort of long-term benefit, despite ‘most studies demonstrating the effectiveness of such approaches are theoretical rather than empirically based’ (Lim, 2018, p. 3)

We use an equity planning framework to explore environmental governance around GSI planning and the potential for the institutionalization of (in)equity via GSI bureaucratic standardization. Looking at GSI incentive program requirements through the lens of equity planning calls into question the potential for such programs to benefit marginalized or disadvantaged communities. Specifically, we present an assessment of financial incentives for GSI development (primarily on private property) and how these incentives may create and sustain inequity through bureaucratic structures of planning. When the technical work of implementing GSI incentive programs is framed in this way, it allows us to focus on the equity of resource allocation (i.e., where services are provided by GSI) rather than absolute change in GSI development overall in a city. The research reviewed here suggests that environmental sustainability programs (like GSI programs) may redirect scarce resources to communities who already have a strong capacity while inadvertently excluding communities who would most benefit from subsidized ecosystem service delivery (Agyeman et al., 2003). This exposes the continued and urgent need to address social equity in sustainability initiatives, especially GSI programs, which are often assumed to be a universal good despite evidence to the contrary (Hoover et al., 2021; Kotsila et al., 2021; Riedman, 2021).

Methods

National scan of GSI incentive programs

We conducted a national scan for GSI incentive programs that were created as a part of MS4 Phase I permit requirements. Figure 2 displays the process through which we extracted 65 GSI incentive programs and 30 program application documents for review in this paper. We chose to approach GSI incentives through the lens of NPDES MS4 permitting to intentionally expand the current academic examination of GSI in the US from its focus on CSO regulatory responses to the use of GSI as a multi-benefit technology. GSI development in the US has to-date been overwhelmingly initiated by CSO violations and subsequent consent decrees that generally necessitate a large response of funding and staff hours on the part of a municipality (Holloway et al., 2014). Inclusion of equity considerations is primarily occurring in cities that have dedicated resources to such programs as part of a CSO consent decree response (for example, the Rainwise program in Seattle, WA (Rainwise, 2020)). On the other hand, MS4 permitting processes, while essential to maintaining environmental quality, represent a relatively softer regulatory push in many municipalities and often lack the intensity of staff hours and funding without a consent decree (Matsler et al., 2021).

Figure 2. Flowchart of incentive program details extracted at each methodological step.

We accessed and reviewed publicly available Stormwater Management Plans (SWMPs) through online searches. First, a list of all MS4 Phase I permits was extracted from the US EPA website, which totaled 250 unique permits regulating 855 municipalities. Through searching state and municipal websites, permit language was accessed for just over half of existing permits (roughly 59%); in some cases, permit specifications were not available online. Permit language was searched for mention of SWMPs or incentive programs using keywords including ‘stormwater’, ‘grant’, ‘fund’, ‘incentive’, ‘monies’, ‘financial’, and ‘green infrastructure’. Information about each incentive program and SWMP mentioned was extracted, and each SWMP was obtained and additionally searched for green infrastructure and incentive program keywords. Any sections of these plans relating to keywords were extracted. Extracted text was then collated and coded within Dedoose (a proprietary mixed methods software) using Friese's (2016) Computer Aided Qualitative Data Analysis (CAQDAS). An a priori codebook included funding allocation method, applicant eligibility requirements, and total incentive dollar amount offered.

Review of GSI incentive program applications

Application documents associated with each GSI incentive program found in our initial national scan were procured. We identified the program’s name, the department or group that administered it and the geographical area in which it was implemented, and used this information to find the website of the program. On each program website, we looked for keywords such as ‘get started’, ‘application’ or ‘How to apply’ and followed any links to where application materials could be found. All available application documents were downloaded. Due to the limitations of online searching, the original list of 65 incentive programs was reduced to 30 readily and publicly available applications. Application documents were then coded within Dedoose as above using Friese (2016). In this case, 12 a priori codes were iterated and augmented by inductive themes and we concluded with 44 codes. (See Appendix A for complete codebook).

Results

What are the requirements for accessing GSI incentive programs in the US?

Our nation-wide scan of Phase I MS4 permits and associated SWMPs available online resulted in a set of 65 unique GSI incentive programs from across the US (see Figure 3 for geographic distribution). Through analysis of program descriptions, we found three different types of GSI incentives in use: reimbursements, credits, and grants (Figure 4). These ranged from $20 rebates to $500,000 grants (Figure 5), with grants offering the largest total dollar amount and the largest range of dollar amounts across all programs under study. Credit and reimbursement programs were generally more standardized and offered the smallest total dollar amounts. Types of GSI facilities eligible for incentive funding primarily mirrored common stormwater management best management practices (BMPs) described in the green infrastructure literature. For example, a typical credit program pointed to the following facility types:

The following BMPs qualify as GI: bioretention facilities, permeable pavement, green roofs, and rainwater harvesting. A traditional detention pond does not qualify as GI. (Division of Sewage and Drainage Stormwater Credit Guidance Document (Ohio), page 8)

Grant programs had wider ranging goals, allowing for more varied facility types. But they also included many popular BMPs:

Figure 3. Map of GI incentive programs from MS4 Phase 1 cities across the US.

Note: not all states had publicly available Stormwater Management Plans (SWMPs) online and therefore any programs in these states were not captured by this scan; additionally, MS4 Phase 1 cities have a population of 100,000 or more meaning that areas with smaller population are also not captured by this scan.

Figure 4. Primary types of GSI incentives offered.

Figure 5. Range of GSI incentive funding amounts offered.

Examples of fundable projects include, but are not limited to, the following (successful applicants may combine several of these elements in a single project): Rain barrel, cistern, rain garden, and native landscaping harvesting installations Riparian buffer or shoreline restoration efforts Planting of trees and other vegetation to reduce stormwater runoff Replacement of asphalt, concrete and conventional lawns with trees, plantings and gardens Use of porous concrete, porous blacktop and permeable pavers Educating the public about storm water pollution prevention actions Engaging in activities that protect the rivers and lakes from pollution and habitat destruction Green roofs, vegetated bio-swales, and buffer strips Wetland restoration and pocket wetlands (Sweet Water Water Quality Mini-Grant program (Wisconsin), page 2)

Application documents helped uncover a better understanding of the parameters of incentive programs and the required expertise and interests of anticipated participants. First, 16 unique eligibility requirements were found across the 30 total application documents reviewed (Figure 6). The most common requirements were a Site Plan (N = 11), Location of project in a specific geographic area (N = 12), and Property Owner Approval (N = 13) (See Appendix A for a complete description of each requirement). Many of these requirements overlapped, with multiple different eligibility requirements appearing in the same application. For example, in the following excerpt from a Lakewood, CA rebate program, we can see that applications from single family residences, with property owner approval, in a particular location, and with good account standing would be considered:

Applicant’s water account must be in good standing. Only single-family residences are eligible. Renters that assume the responsibility of paying the water bill are eligible for the rebate granted permission is obtained from the property owner. The property owner or his agent must sign the pre-application form. (Lakewood Water Wise Rebates (California), p. 3)

Figure 6. All categories of eligibility explicitly mentioned across 30 program applications reviewed by number of documents in which it appears (see Appendix A for detailed descriptions of each category).

Responsibility for incentivized GSI facility construction, ownership, and maintenance also varied across programs. 12 programs included information on responsibility explicitly in their applications. Of those that included this information, 58.3% (N = 7) stated who would maintain the site, 50% (N = 6) stated who would own the site after it was built, and 16.7% (N = 2) clarified who would build the site. Of those that required maintenance through time, some requirements were more open-ended and others set specific timeframes, as in the following examples:

If the project includes installation of new stormwater-related infrastructure or equipment, future maintenance responsibilities for the infrastructure / equipment must be provided. A Maintenance Agreement may be required, which obligates the Applicant to inspect and maintain the improvements are performed on a regular basis. Describe how this future maintenance will be performed, by whom, and how it will be funded. (Lexington Stormwater Quality Projects Incentive Grant Program (Kentucky), p. 3)

Minimum Five (5) Year Commitment: The converted area must be maintained free of turf for no less than five (5) years or until such time that property ownership changes hands. (Lakewood Water Wise Rebates (California), p. 7)

Application documents reviewed were associated with all three types of incentive programs found in the scan results, i.e., grant, credit, and reimbursement programs. What separates two of these from the third is the requirement for funds upfront to complete a project before receiving incentive monies, an important consideration of program access. Therefore, in the following analysis, credits and reimbursements are grouped together while grants are discussed on their own.

Programs varied regarding the entities that were eligible to apply (Figure 7). The most common entity eligible for reimbursement and credit programs were residential properties (58.8%, N = 10); in contrast residential properties were not eligible to apply for any of the grant programs reviewed (0%, N = 0), and instead institutions (including schools, parks, or government agencies) were the most common entity eligible for grant programs (50%, N = 6). Nonprofit organizations and commercial properties were also explicitly called out as eligible entities in grant application documents but were less prominent across all categories (11.7%, N = 2 and 23.5%, N = 4 respectively for credit and reimbursement programs; 16.7%, N = 2 and 8.3%, N = 1 respectively for grant programs.)

Figure 7. Entities eligible to apply for incentive programs across all 30 programs application documents reviewed.

We reviewed a combined total of 17 credit and reimbursement program applications. Only 17.6% (N = 3) of these require a schedule or project timeline to be submitted as a part of their application process. Nearly half (41.2% N = 7) of these programs require pre-approval of a project by the incentive-administrating agency prior to construction, meaning that pre-existing facilities or those that are partially constructed are ineligible for reimbursement. 35.3% (N = 6) of applications required official expertise to complete, while 82.4% (N = 14) of programs offered some form of assistance with the application process. The most common way of offering assistance in application documents was providing an email address or phone number to contact, however, a few programs also provided Frequently Asked Question pages linked in their applications. Shedding light on responsibilities after construction of a project, 88.2% (N = 15) of credit and reimbursement programs reviewed have monitoring requirements and 47.1% (N = 8) have maintenance requirements. Monitoring requirements often referred to a pre and/or post inspection by the credit – or reimbursement-providing organization, while maintenance requirements commonly included submitting an applicant-implemented maintenance plan. Surprisingly, only 5.9% (N = 1) require submission of a budget. 35.3% (N = 6) of credit and reimbursement programs required a complete-by date.

We reviewed 12 grant program applications. Unlike credit and reimbursement programs, 91.7% (N = 11) of grant program applications require a schedule or project timeline to be submitted as part of the application process and none explicitly require pre-approval (0%, N = 0). 58.3% (N = 7) offer assistance and 54.5% (N = 6) necessitate official expertise. Potentially due to the wider range of possibilities for project types funded, only 25% (N = 3) have monitoring requirements and only 25% (N = 3) have maintenance requirements, much less than the credit and reimbursement programs reviewed. In stark contrast to credit and reimbursement programs, all grant programs require a budget to be submitted (100%, N = 12) and 50% (N = 6) require a complete-by date.

Discussion

What barriers and opportunities do GSI incentive program requirements present to marginalized communities?

Our national scan of incentive programs and review of their application documents revealed a variety of approaches in use across the US. Most programs, as expected with our starting point of MS4 permits, were focused on construction of GSI facilities; but there were also a handful of programs that focused on broader types of green infrastructure and stormwater education and outreach, including funding for artistic projects that encouraged sustainable approaches to urban environmental management and research in water management using green infrastructure. Notably, all credit and reimbursement programs found in this scan were for GSI BMP construction on private property, offering subsidies for multiple different facility types including rain barrels, rain gardens, and permeable pavement. These facility types did not vary geographically across the US, suggesting that regionally or ecologically specific GSI is not a requirement of these programs more generally.

More broadly, three categories of requirements were identified in this scan that present potential barriers to access for marginalized communities: distribution methods, property ownership, and expertise/knowledge barriers. Additionally, some key progressive practices were identified that could be used more widely to increase program accessibility.

First, funding distribution method was identified as a significant barrier to accessibility. Over half of the programs we found in our scan were credit and reimbursement programs (Figure 4) which require participants to pay upfront, and in some cases participants only receive partial repayment. This presents a potential barrier to access for low-income households unable to fund projects upfront or unable to wait for reimbursement of funds. Also, tiered approaches were popular for credit programs. For example, the City of Chattanooga Water Quality Program Credits and Incentives Manual (Tennessee) offers a water quality fee discount that is tiered across the number of years since implementation; a 100% discount is possible in the first year, 60% in the second, and on in this matter until the discount eventually zeros out. This decreases the attractiveness of the incentive program for those who need to recoup their entire investment.

Grant programs represent a potential to provide a more equitable distribution method by providing funds upfront. But we found that grant programs were primarily offered to institutions; for example, schools, faith groups, city agencies, etc., unlike credits and reimbursements which were offered to residential and commercial property owners individually. While routing funds through institutions increases accountability, it potentially waters down the empowerment of local people by limiting options available for upfront funding for stormwater infrastructure on private property.

Second, property ownership represents another formidable barrier to incentive access. Property ownership or permission from a property owner was required by most of the credit and reimbursement applications we reviewed (64.7% N = 11); for example, Austin, Texas’s Rainwater Harvesting Rebate, requires that eligible applicants, ‘must be the property owner or utility account holder.’ Similarly, Virginia’s StormwaterWise Conservation Landscapes Program requires that, ‘applicants must own private residential property in Arlington County.’ These requirements directly disqualify residents who rent or live in a space where they don’t directly pay their utilities, thus limiting access to these programs. Even if a property itself were eligible, renters potentially face layers of time-consuming bureaucracy to seek approval for any property alterations, if any such proposals are even considered by managing interests.

Lastly, expertise/knowledge barriers were identified in our review. 35.3% (N = 6) of credit and reimbursement programs and 50% (N = 6) of grant programs were found to require expertise from a professional. For example, the Division of Sewage and Drainage Stormwater Credit Guidance Document (Ohio) stated that ‘a professional engineer measures the site stormwater quantity controls and calculates the total site discharge during the 100-year, 24-hour storm event.’ This presents a barrier to the average resident attempting to apply as an individual unless they have extensive education and/or professional network to help them apply.

Beyond explicit requirements for professionals, complicated and dense application documents also presented knowledge and expertise barriers to applicants. For example, see Figure 8, A and B for excerpts from the City of Chattanooga’s Water Quality Program Credits and Incentives Manual (Tennessee) which contained a high number of technical acronyms, representing a potential basic comprehension barrier. While a detailed and technical application means that specific regulatory needs can be sure to be met and documented for permitting purposes, it creates a barrier to access for the average resident without stormwater-specific expertise. On the other end of this spectrum see Figure 8, C and D for Portland, Oregon’s Clean River Rewards application. It provides examples of the responses that they are looking for in a table fill-in section to help guide applicants. Additionally, the application documents themselves include a detailed applicant help section; for example, the residential ratepayer application includes a short, informative paragraph on ‘Low Income Assistance Program for Utility Ratepayers.’ This kind of application process requires more legwork on the agency-side to vet and evaluate applications. We acknowledge that these are staff hours which might not be available in municipalities already stretched thin. But there are very real accessibility gains with this type of application process, such as making the application processes easier to navigate for average residents, if they have the time to pursue this type of program. It would be useful if prioritizing this kind of assistance in designing incentive programs became standard procedure.

Figure 8. Comparison of excerpts from application documents offering different levels of applicant assistance.

As discussed above, grant programs varied more than credit and reimbursement programs. Within the complete set of 65 programs we found, the largest amount of any incentive was a $500,000 grant that was specifically for professionals and was designed to fund agencies working together. The high level of technical detail in this application, therefore, is justified as people with expertise are expected to apply as part of the course of their jobs. On the other end of the spectrum, there were grant programs that aimed to connect with local community groups. In this category, the West Virginia Stream Partners program stood out as a role model of a simple and straightforward application. It asked clearly for a goal, budget, and schedule, and had an open-ended range of activities eligible for funding. This kind of more open-ended application process potentially empowers communities to do projects with more meaning to their specific context, following some of the equity improvements recommended by Goodling and Herrington (2015).

Across all barriers, applicant support was identified as a primary consideration in the equitable accessibility of grant programs aimed at communities. Encouragingly, most credit and reimbursement programs (82.4%, N = 14) and about half of grant programs (58.3%, N = 7) offer application assistance of some kind. While much of this assistance represents a bare minimum (i.e., contact information on application documents), some programs provide much more involved assistance. We highlight the Oregon Cooperative Land Incentive Program (CLIP) here as a potential model for reimbursement programs. Applicants are asked to call into the program office to discuss problem areas on their property and then program staff write the application for the participants after surveying their land. As stated on the CLIP website:

1. Contact one of our staff (see below) and describe the issue. We will visit your property, assess whether there is a resource concern that we can fund, and help you develop ideas about possible solutions. Staff will explain what practices are eligible for CLIP funding and which are not.

2. If the issue and proposed solution are within program guidelines, staff will develop a CLIP funding proposal for internal review. Sometimes this will involve additional conversations to improve and refine the project before it is finalized.

Again, there are trade-offs with this kind of program. Extensive staff resources are needed on hand to assist applicants, taking them away from other program tasks. Additionally, as a reimbursement program, this presents the same distribution method and private property barriers discussed above. However, to address equity concerns regarding infrastructure development in cities, it is necessary to increase support to community groups that otherwise would not be able to participate and benefit from GSI development in their own neighborhood or on their own property; expanding personalized support beyond private property owners could go a long way towards accomplishing this.

In making these observations, we acknowledge that the majority of GSI incentive programs were not developed with equity as an explicit goal. However, through an equity planning lens, we suggest that it is imperative to examine all programs, even the mundane and technical, for equity ramifications; all policies influence access and can be adjusted to provide more equitable outcomes. We also want to clearly express that our goal with this work is not to denounce incentives or question the relevance of GSI incentive programs in general. In fact, we agree with actions and policies that encourage GSI and green infrastructure development. Instead, we seek to avoid the missteps of the past where infrastructure improvements and innovations have benefited only the few and usually those who already have many options available to them. Our goal with this work is to extend this line of research into GSI development, ultimately to change GSI incentive programs, and other sustainability initiatives, to be more inclusive.

Finally, the work presented here is preliminary; an in-depth examination of program implementation is needed to validate the accessibility consequences hypothesized by this initial scan, as well as contextualize findings in local conditions and capacities. Future research should include a series of in-depth interviews with both incentive program staff as well as incentive recipients to identify more nuanced – and potentially regionally specific – recommendations for GSI incentive programs in the future.

Conclusions

GSI incentive programs are used throughout the US to encourage the construction of facilities to meet the federal Clean Water Act’s NPDES requirements. The focus on supporting private property owners, individuals, and community groups in building GSI facilities holds promise as a tool to empower local communities, improve environmental health, and build the kinds of infrastructure communities want and need. However, viewing program requirements through an equity planning lens, as we have in this paper, reveals persistent barriers to access for marginalized and historically under-resourced communities – i.e. those that few to no options.

Our initial scan of GSI incentive programs created as part of MS4 Phase I permitting processes raises concerns regarding the accessibility of funds for the average resident and even more so for marginalized populations. While many municipalities move towards addressing distributional and (increasingly) procedural justice through more inclusive planning practices, we must continuously assess these programs and any perceived successes in addressing long-standing uneven and unjust service delivery.

The results of our research and analysis suggest that the applicant requirements of GSI incentive programs – like paying upfront for installations, property ownership requirements, or expecting expert-based plans and designs – occlude the participation of under-resourced, marginalized communities, representing an institutionalization of inequity within a sustainability initiative. These barriers to access may limit participation by the communities with the most need and instead redirect scarce resources to communities who already have strong capacity. Therefore, an ongoing equity analysis should be applied to incentives and other GSI programs – both in the planning and implementation stages – in order to reform practice and avoid institutionalizing inequity. Our research specifically identifies where programs can begin to improve, including removing or mitigating expertise/knowledge, distribution method, and property ownership barriers in GSI incentive programs. We also found positive examples to emulate, including providing support to applicants and expanding the suite of goals that programs target to involve more residents and ease financial and social capacity burdens on marginalized communities.

We further argue that this is an impactful moment to evolve green infrastructure, and GSI programs in particular, because they are still relatively new and underdetermined (Matsler et al., 2021) and not fully standardized in municipal planning (Grabowski et al., 2022a). Therefore, there is still an opportunity to build considerations of equitable resource allocation into GSI practice as it matures. We argue that centering equity in GSI incentivization can make decision-making around programs and plans more inclusive and accessible to marginalized populations. We propose that this could improve the social gains of GSI programs over time; such gains are often promised by green infrastructure advocates but are rarely measured, at least not to the same degree as other technical metrics like water infiltration rates. The approach we present here provides pathways to measurement by ensuring specific program goals are articulated and met.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was part of the Research Experience for Undergraduates (REU) program supported by the Urban Resilience to Extremes Sustainability Research Network (UREx SRN) under National Science Foundation (NSF) Cooperative Agreement 1444755. Undergradate student research was also supported by the Faculty-Student Research Collaboration Support from Pace University’s Dyson College of Arts and Sciences and the Skidmore Summer Experience Fund.

Notes on contributors

Marissa Matsler

Marissa Matsler is an ORISE Postdoctoral Fellow hosted by the US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. She conducted this research as a Postdoctoral Research Associate at the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies. Her research interests include political ecology, discard studies, and inclusive governance of social-ecological systems.

Michael Finewood

Michael Finewood is a human geographer and political ecologist with research and teaching interests in watershed governance, community development, green infrastructure, equity, and justice. He is also associate professor and chair in the Department of Environmental Studies and Science at Pace University, New York.

Ruthann Richards

Ruthann Richards is a master's student at the Ohio State University, studying City and Regional Planning. She graduated from Skidmore College in 2021 with a Bachelor's in Environmental Science and minors in political science and computer science. She has practiced in community development, economic development, and sustainability planning.

Olivia Pierce

Olivia Pierce is a 2020 graduate of Pace University where she received her Bachelor of Arts in Environmental Studies. Her research interests include food insecurity, environmental economics, and sustainable development in urban areas.

Zenya Ledermann

Zenya Ledermann is a Graduate Student at Northern Arizona University in the Sustainable Communities program where she is a facilitator for the Rural Food Systems Pod of the Community-University Public Inquiry program. She graduated from Eckerd College with a Bachelor's in Anthropology and Environmental Studies, and a minor in Sustainability. Her research interests include sustainable food systems, regenerative agriculture, and environmental justice.

Notes

1 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.

2 Total Maximum Daily Load.

3 It is important to note that there is no requirement for GSI to be included in SWMPs and municipalities often use multiple mechanisms to incentivize infrastructure development.