Urban greening projects are increasingly promoted as win-win solutions for climate resilience. Yet even well-intentioned initiatives can provoke conflict when they intersect with contested landscapes, competing environmental values, and uneven access to decision-making power. This article introduces the concept of procedural environmentalism to analyze how actors mobilize competing environmental claims to influence land use decisions through the planning process. A case study of the Modoc Multi-Use Path conflict in Santa Barbara, California is used to illustrate the contested procedural terrain of environmental decision-making, highlighting how both supporters and opponents invoke environmental values to assert legitimacy. Based on interviews and public documents, the findings show how procedural inclusion more readily privileged climate-oriented values over environmental protection-oriented claims. As green conflicts become more common, it is increasingly important to examine how planning processes mask deeper asymmetries of power and legitimacy by selectively recognizing certain environmental values over others. These dynamics shape not only whose visions of environmental action are recognized as valid, but also whose priorities determine the spatial dynamics and future of urban environments.
Summer Gray (Sat,) studied this question.