Abstract

This study examines how technocratic planning systems and local participatory institutions interact in the governance of green infrastructure in New York City, with particular attention to community boards as the most local tier of formal democratic participation in the city. Drawing on documentary analysis of DEP planning materials, community board meeting minutes from eight selected districts, and spatial data on GI asset distribution and street flooding complaints, the study asks: to what extent do community board proceedings reflect the governance architecture that structures GI planning, and what does the mode and depth of board engagement with GI reveal about the relationship between technocratic planning and democratic participation? The analysis finds that NYC's green infrastructure program emerged not from democratic deliberation but from a regulatory cascade originating with the EPA's 1994 CSO Control Policy, hardened into a binding obligation through the 2005 NYSDEC Consent Order, and operationalized through the 2010 Green Infrastructure Plan. By the time GI reached community board proceedings, its goals, metrics, and implementation frameworks had already been determined within jurisdictional channels where boards had no standing. Across both high-density and low-density districts, community board engagement with GI consistently produced no deliberative authority over planning decisions, whether boards encountered GI through administrative announcement, community complaint, or not at all. Capital budget request data shows no measurable relationship between community board advocacy and GI deployment outcomes, and spatial analysis reveals a partial and uneven overlap between GI investment and community-documented flooding need. Interpreted through frameworks of technocratic legibility, multi-dimensional power, multi-level governance, and environmental justice, these findings demonstrate that NYC's GI program achieves regulatory compliance and distributes infrastructure investment while systematically excluding the communities it serves from the decisions that most directly affect their neighborhoods. The study argues that distributional adequacy and democratic accountability are distinct standards, and that a sustainability program can meet the former without providing for the latter.

Advisor

Haider, Erum

Department

Environmental Studies

Disciplines

Environmental Policy | Environmental Studies | Infrastructure | Political Science | Urban, Community and Regional Planning | Urban Studies

Keywords

Green Infrastructure, Equity, Democratic Participation, Environmental Infrastructure, Urban Policy

Publication Date

2026

Degree Granted

Bachelor of Arts

Document Type

Senior Independent Study Thesis

Download

Share

COinS
 

© Copyright 2026 Isaac Scott Prince