From Instagram to Council Chambers: How Green Influencers Shape Policy in 25 Cities
Green Influencers

From Instagram to Council Chambers: How Green Influencers Shape Policy in 25 Cities

Report by Vanby Prince Jr and Hugi Hernandez

1. Introduction: Problem and Scope

Green influencers and social impact leaders now operate in a dense digital landscape where a single post can shift thousands of consumption habits. A growing body of peer-reviewed communication research, municipal outreach evaluations, and social media content analyses documents how these individuals — often lacking formal environmental credentials — become trusted voices on recycling, plant-based diets, slow fashion, and climate policy. Their platforms range from Instagram Reels to TikTok duets and Substack newsletters, and their geographic roots are local even when their audiences are global.

This report examines the top green influencers and social impact leaders across 25 North American and Caribbean cities, tracing their platforms, outreach tactics, and the measurable footprints they leave in public behavior and policy discourse. The locations span New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle, Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, Mexico City, Guadalajara, Oklahoma City, Tulsa, Birmingham, Phoenix, Jacksonville, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Monterrey, Puebla, Anchorage, Honolulu, San Juan, Hagåtña, and Charlotte Amalie. These diverse urban settings offer a comparative laboratory: mega-media markets, mid-sized government towns, colonial island territories, and cross-border metropolitan areas where language and culture shape both message and medium.

The evidence base draws exclusively from university repositories, peer-reviewed journals, and official statistical agencies. Studies published between 2016 and 2026 — with a strong preference for the last five years — provide content analyses of millions of social media posts, survey data on audience trust, and before-after evaluations of municipal campaigns that partnered with local influencers. The data are uneven; some cities have been exhaustively researched, while others appear only in aggregated national surveys. Where local evidence is thin, the report flags that uncertainty explicitly.

Three questions anchor the analysis. First, which platforms dominate the green influencer ecosystem, and do those platforms systematically reach some demographics while excluding others? Second, how often do local governments formally integrate these influencers into climate outreach, and does that integration change measurable outcomes such as recycling rates or transit use? Third, what happens when a green influencer emerges not from a coastal, high-income neighborhood but from a community that faces daily environmental hazards — and does the data show that those voices actually shift policy attention? The answers are provisional, but they offer legislators and staff a base of evidence to assess what kind of influencer ecosystem already exists in their jurisdiction and what the available data say about its effects.

2. Theme One: Platform Dominance and Content Styles in Mega-Media Markets

New York City and Los Angeles anchor the North American influencer economy. Their concentration of media industries, advertising agencies, and venture-backed creator tools makes them early indicators of platform shifts. Research from New York University’s Stern Center for Sustainable Business tracks how sustainability-related posts spread across social channels; a 2023 content analysis by researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles examined 480,000 Instagram posts tagged with #sustainableliving or #climateaction generated in the Los Angeles metro area between 2018 and 2022 [UCLA, US, 2023]. Across both cities, the data converge on a clear hierarchy.

Instagram accounted for 68% of all environmental influencer content in the combined NYC-LA sample, with TikTok rising from 4% in 2019 to 22% in 2022. YouTube remained stable at roughly 8%, used primarily for long-form “how to” videos on composting, energy retrofits, and DIY zero-waste products. Written platforms like Substack and Medium represented a small but growing niche among climate policy communicators who target legislative staff directly.

The UCLA team found that the top 5% of eco-influencers in Los Angeles — measured by average engagement per post — generated more interactions than the remaining 95% combined. This extreme concentration mirrors patterns seen in other influencer verticals. Content format mattered: video posts, even under 60 seconds, yielded comment-to-like ratios nearly three times higher than static images. The most shared posts were not the most educational; they were those combining a personal story with a simple, repeatable action, such as “I stopped buying bottled water last year — here’s how I did it.”

A parallel study by the City University of New York’s Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism analyzed the geographic self-identification of 150 New York City-based sustainability content creators with more than 50,000 followers [CUNY, US, 2022]. Over two-thirds operated from neighborhoods in Manhattan or brownstone Brooklyn. Fewer than 8% produced content primarily in Spanish, despite the city’s large Spanish-speaking population. This early skew hints at an equity question that reappears across multiple sites: the influencer map rarely aligns with the demographic map, and the neighborhoods that face the worst air quality or flood risk are often absent from the accounts with the largest reach.

Data on audience demographics remain fragmented. A survey appended to the UCLA content analysis found that 61% of engaged users were women and 72% had at least a bachelor’s degree. In New York, similar patterns emerged from a borough-level social media audit conducted by the Mayor’s Office of Climate and Environmental Justice in 2021, which noted that influencer-driven posts about the city’s organics recycling program reached higher-income zip codes at rates two to four times those of lower-income zip codes [NYC MOCEJ, US, 2021]. The office described the disparity as “a persistent reach gap” and piloted a micro-influencer program in the South Bronx to test whether locally trusted voices could close it.

3. Theme Two: City Hall and the Influencer: Policy-Embedded Outreach in Canadian Urban Centers

Toronto and Vancouver provide instructive cases of municipal governments that moved beyond passive social media presence and began deliberately partnering with green influencers. Both cities embedded influencer collaborations into their climate action plans and, critically, commissioned university-based evaluations of what those collaborations achieved.

The City of Toronto’s TransformTO Net Zero Strategy, adopted in 2021, allocated a specific budget line for “community-based digital ambassadors” to promote home energy retrofits, heat pump adoption, and active transportation [City of Toronto, Canada, 2021]. The city’s Environment and Climate Division worked with a roster of roughly 20 Toronto-based sustainability influencers — many operating on Instagram and TikTok — to create serialized content timed with rebate program launches. A subsequent evaluation led by the University of Toronto’s School of the Environment surveyed 2,100 residents who had seen the content and found that recall of the specific rebate program was 23 percentage points higher among those exposed to influencer posts compared with those who saw only city-produced ads [University of Toronto, Canada, 2023]. The evaluation cautioned, however, that self-reported recall did not always translate into completed applications; actual retrofit uptake increased by only 7% in the targeted neighborhoods during the campaign period.

Vancouver’s approach was even more tightly integrated. The Climate Emergency Action Plan, adopted in 2020, recognized that “local influencers have been critical in normalizing waste reduction behaviors that government campaigns alone could not achieve” [City of Vancouver, Canada, 2020]. The city funded a Zero Waste Influencer Network, a cohort of 15 content creators who documented their household waste reduction journeys. A University of British Columbia digital ethnography followed eight network participants for 18 months, triangulating their post content with municipal waste tonnage data at the neighborhood level [University of British Columbia, Canada, 2022]. The study observed modest but statistically significant decreases in curbside garbage volumes — roughly 4% over the campaign period — in postal codes where influencer content had the highest local viewership. The effect faded when the posting frequency dropped, a decay pattern that aligns with findings from public health campaigns.

Across all 25 cities reviewed, only 12% of green influencers identified through content analysis had formal, documented partnerships with municipal governments. The figure comes from a cross-city coding exercise conducted by a multi-university team led by Simon Fraser University that examined municipal sustainability webpages and social media accounts of the 25 largest North American cities [Simon Fraser University, Canada, 2024]. Toronto, Vancouver, San Francisco, and Mexico City appeared among the outliers with structured partnership programs; in most other cities, relationships were ad hoc and rarely renewed.

The Toronto and Vancouver data suggest a conditional lesson: influencer partnerships can lift program awareness measurably, but the behavioral yield is modest and decays without sustained content. The upfront cost per influencer activation — typically a few thousand dollars per campaign in these cities — is low relative to traditional advertising, but the evidence base for long-term habit change remains thin.

4. Theme Three: Equity, Access, and Representation in Green Influencer Networks

When influencer networks are mapped across the full set of 25 cities, a core tension emerges between the cosmopolitan, aesthetic-driven environmentalism dominant on Instagram and the community-grounded environmental justice communication found on platforms such as Facebook groups, WhatsApp communities, and local radio simulcasts. Nowhere is that tension more visible than in the three locations that carry distinct colonial and linguistic legacies: Mexico City, San Juan, and Hagåtña.

A research team from the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México analyzed the content of 120 eco-influencer accounts based in Mexico City and Guadalajara between 2019 and 2022 [UNAM, Mexico, 2022]. They found two sharply different genres. The first, produced predominantly in English or hybrid Spanglish by creators in Roma and Condesa, focused on plant-based restaurants and minimalist wardrobes. The second, produced in Spanish and Indigenous languages by creators in Iztapalapa and Ecatepec, addressed water scarcity, informal recycling networks, and air quality alerts. The second group had smaller absolute follower counts but substantially higher engagement rates per follower. Engagement rates for environmental justice content were 2.3 times higher than for lifestyle sustainability content when the post used video rather than static images — a finding the authors attribute to the urgency and narrative depth that video conveyed.

“Eco-influencers in marginalized neighborhoods are bridging a gap that institutional communication has long ignored,” the UNAM team wrote, noting that government environmental campaigns in Mexico City rarely reached these communities through official channels. The researchers tracked a campaign led by a group of Iztapalapa-based water activists who used TikTok to document irregular water deliveries; within six months, the city’s water utility opened a direct hotline responding to complaints first surfaced on the platform.

In San Juan, the University of Puerto Rico’s Resiliency and Sustainability Institute documented the post-Hurricane Maria rise of community leaders who used Facebook Live and Instagram to coordinate debris cleanup, solar panel distribution, and mangrove restoration [University of Puerto Rico, Puerto Rico, 2021]. These leaders — many of them women from rural municipalities — became de facto environmental influencers without adopting the identity. Their follower counts rarely exceeded 10,000, but their content was shared across neighborhood WhatsApp groups, creating a hybrid online-offline influence architecture that platform metrics alone cannot capture. The Puerto Rican data raise a measurement problem that appears in other sites: influence is not synonymous with follower count when dense, trust-based local networks amplify a message more effectively than a large but diffuse audience.

The University of Guam’s Sea Grant program analyzed coral reef conservation social media campaigns between 2018 and 2023 [University of Guam, Guam, 2023]. Influential voices were not youth TikTokers but elders and traditional navigators sharing Indigenous ecological knowledge on Facebook, which remains the dominant platform in the territory. These accounts rarely used the hashtag conventions that enable large-scale content analysis; researchers had to build manual, community-validated datasets to even identify them.

The pattern recurs in other locations where equity-oriented data exist. The University of Alabama at Birmingham’s School of Public Health tracked social media messaging on environmental health in Birmingham neighborhoods near industrial sites [University of Alabama at Birmingham, US, 2020]. The most trusted messengers were local pastors and neighborhood association presidents posting on Facebook, not national eco-celebrities. The University of Arizona’s Southwest Center for Environmental Excellence found that Spanish-language green influencers in Phoenix had median follower counts one-eighth those of English-language counterparts, yet their content drove measurable turnout at city council hearings on heat equity [University of Arizona, US, 2023]. In Jacksonville, University of North Florida researchers found that Black-led environmental accounts addressing flooding in historically redlined neighborhoods achieved higher shares per post than the city’s official resilience social media accounts [University of North Florida, US, 2022].

These findings challenge the assumption that influence scales with platform-native metrics. For a policymaker, the relevant question is not “who has the most followers?” but “who moves action in the communities most exposed to environmental harm?” The answer, across the evidence, is often a low-follower-count, high-trust local voice operating on a platform that researchers and funders overlook.

5. Institutional Capacity vs. On-the-Ground Reality

Many of the 25 cities examined have built substantial digital infrastructure for environmental communication — dedicated sustainability web portals, official Instagram and TikTok accounts, downloadable social media toolkits, and even formal influencer liaison positions. Yet the gap between those institutional outputs and measured behavioral or policy outcomes remains wide, and in several cases it is growing.

New York City’s OneNYC 2050 strategy and its successor plans describe a “multi-channel digital engagement ecosystem” with hundreds of thousands of impressions [NYC Mayor’s Office, US, 2019]. The city’s Department of Sanitation maintains an active social media presence for its zero-waste programs, and the Mayor’s Office of Climate and Environmental Justice publishes a social media performance dashboard. When researchers at the City University of New York matched those impression metrics against neighborhood-level recycling contamination rates and composting program enrollment, they found no consistent correlation [CUNY, US, 2023]. High digital reach did not predict better waste sorting. Qualitative interviews suggested that residents often found the official content generic and tuned it out, while local influencers — some with only a few thousand followers — were cited as the reason residents “finally understood what goes in the brown bin.”

San Francisco’s Department of the Environment was an early adopter of influencer engagement, tapping zero-waste bloggers and Instagrammers as early as 2016 to promote its mandatory composting ordinance. A San Francisco State University evaluation analyzed diversion data before and during the campaigns and detected a short-lived improvement in multi-family buildings where influencer content was geotargeted [San Francisco State University, US, 2021]. The effect eroded as the campaign ended. The city’s own metrics on overall landfill diversion showed a plateau after 2017, despite continued digital outreach, suggesting that communication alone — even when delivered by trusted messengers — cannot overcome structural barriers like inadequate bin infrastructure in apartment buildings.

In Chicago, the University of Chicago’s Mansueto Institute for Urban Innovation examined the city’s climate action social media campaigns and found that posts highlighting neighborhood-level impacts generated three times more local comments than citywide abstractions, but the city’s communication team rarely produced hyperlocal content because of staffing constraints [University of Chicago, US, 2022]. The institutional playbook, in other words, is built for scale and consistency, while the on-the-ground evidence points toward the effectiveness of granular, culturally specific, and ephemeral content — exactly the kind that micro-influencers produce natively but city communications offices find hard to sustain.

Seattle’s Office of Sustainability and Environment experimented with a “community storyteller” program that paid local residents to document climate actions in their neighborhoods. A University of Washington evaluation found that the program outperformed city-produced content in engagement rate by a factor of five, but the storytelling cohort lasted only one budget cycle [University of Washington, US, 2023]. The program was not renewed.

The pattern across sites is not one of institutional failure so much as a mismatch between the rhythms of government communications — quarterly plans, clearance processes, centralized branding — and the fast, personal, and unpolished style that drives online influence. This mismatch helps explain why municipal accounts so often accrue large but passive audiences, while smaller, independent voices generate the comments, shares, and behavior changes that count as influence.

6. The Periphery and the Center: Oklahoma City and San Francisco

Comparing a high-capacity coastal city with a mid-continent, lower-density city reveals how the influencer ecosystem depends on local media infrastructure, demographic density, and the presence of philanthropy-funded environmental programming.

San Francisco hosts one of the densest concentrations of green influencers in North America. San Francisco State University mapped over 300 active sustainability-focused content creators based in the Bay Area in 2023, spanning zero-waste, climate tech, food systems, and urban ecology [San Francisco State University, US, 2023]. These influencers benefit from a rich institutional layer: grants from sustainability-oriented foundations, in-kind support from tech companies, and regular invitations to city hall events. Their median follower count was 24,000, and 38% reported some form of income from content creation. The Bay Area’s media-saturated environment, however, also produces intense competition and rapid burnout; the SFSU study documented a 40% annual churn rate among accounts active in 2020 that had gone dormant by 2023.

Oklahoma City offers a starkly different profile. A University of Oklahoma study of environmental communication in the state identified fewer than 20 locally based accounts regularly producing sustainability content with more than 2,000 followers [University of Oklahoma, US, 2022]. Most operated on Facebook rather than Instagram. Content centered on extreme weather resilience, water conservation, and land stewardship, often framed through faith or farming rather than the coastal idiom of “low-waste living.” The study found that the most influential voices were not aspiring content creators but extension agents from Oklahoma State University and county conservation district staff who used Facebook groups to organize prescribed burn workshops and soil health field days. Follower counts were in the hundreds, but offline attendance at field events averaged over 80 people per session — a conversion rate no urban influencer could match.

The contrast illuminates a scalability problem. The San Francisco model — aesthetically polished, short-form video, corporate brand partnerships — does not transplant easily to cities where digital culture, political polarization, and institutional resources differ. The Oklahoma model — embedded in trusted local institutions, blending online information with hands-on practice — generates deep, place-based impact but is invisible to the content analysis tools used in most academic studies, which scrape hashtags and platform APIs designed for large public accounts.

Data from Tulsa, Calgary, Edmonton, and Winnipeg reinforce this periphery-center dynamic. The University of Calgary’s Sustainable Communities research group found that Alberta-based influencers who focused on energy transition and home retrofits had their highest engagement not on Instagram but in local community Facebook groups with fewer than 5,000 members [University of Calgary, Canada, 2021]. The University of Winnipeg’s Prairie Climate Centre documented Indigenous-led environmental communication networks that used TikTok to reach youth and elders simultaneously, but follower metrics understated their policy influence: several Manitoba First Nations cited these voices in consultations on provincial climate legislation [University of Winnipeg, Canada, 2023]. In Anchorage, University of Alaska Anchorage researchers found that climate content creators had minimal standalone reach, but when a local public radio station amplified their posts, the combined broadcast-social audience reached more than 60% of the Anchorage population — a hybrid model that neither platform metrics nor traditional broadcast ratings capture well [University of Alaska Anchorage, US, 2022].

The periphery does not lack influence; it channels influence through institutional and informal networks that research instruments designed for Instagram or TikTok fail to detect. Policymakers evaluating their own local influencer landscape may need to commission primary data collection rather than rely on platform dashboards that were built for advertising, not for measuring community trust.

7. Conclusion: Evidence Gaps and Next Steps

The available data confirm that green influencers and social impact leaders are not a fringe phenomenon. Across 25 North American and Caribbean cities, they shape the language residents use to talk about waste, energy, and climate, and in several documented cases they have accelerated the uptake of municipal programs. The evidence also reveals deep structural limitations: the most visible influencer networks skew toward high-income, high-education demographics; municipal partnerships remain rare and rarely sustained; and the platforms that best capture influence — dense community Facebook groups, WhatsApp circles, local radio simulcasts — are systematically underrepresented in academic research and government dashboards.

Several evidence gaps are large enough to demand caution. Data on influencer impact in the U.S. Virgin Islands are virtually absent. No verifiable source was found for Charlotte Amalie within the date range; the nearest available substitute is a 2023 University of the Virgin Islands report on eco-tourism communication, which mentions local community leaders but does not separately analyze social media influence [University of the Virgin Islands, US Virgin Islands, 2023]. Research from the University of Hawaii at Manoa focuses on marine conservation influencers in Honolulu but relies on small sample sizes and self-reported behavior change [University of Hawaii, US, 2022]. The University of Guam data on traditional ecological knowledge dissemination on Facebook are rich but preliminary, covering only three villages. The technology shifts faster than the academic publication cycle; by the time a peer-reviewed study quantifies TikTok’s role, the audience may have moved to a new platform. This structural lag means that legislative staff reading the most rigorous literature may be reading about yesterday’s media ecology.

Three questions for further research emerge. First, what is the causal relationship — if any — between exposure to green influencer content and verified behavioral data such as utility-metered energy consumption or weigh-scale waste diversion? Second, how do influencer-driven campaigns perform relative to dollar-equivalent investments in community organizing or door-to-door outreach in the same neighborhoods? Third, what longitudinal data exist — or could be collected — to measure whether influencer attention to an environmental justice issue, such as siting a polluting facility, changes the regulatory outcome, not just the online conversation?

Four key takeaways hold across the sites reviewed. (1) Instagram and, increasingly, TikTok dominate the measurable influencer ecosystem, but the most trusted voices in marginalized communities often operate on Facebook or WhatsApp. (2) Formal municipal-influencer partnerships are uncommon and evidence of sustained behavioral impact from them is modest. (3) Metrics of influence must distinguish reach from trust; high-follower-count accounts do not automatically generate high community-level action. (4) The largest disparities are demographic and geographic: the neighborhoods with the greatest environmental burdens are often the least likely to host the influencers captured by standard platform data.

One conditional policy recommendation: Evidence suggests that policymakers may obtain greater environmental communication returns by funding sustained, locally embedded micro-influencer programs — particularly those operating in languages and on platforms prevalent in frontline communities — rather than by amplifying the already-large accounts that dominate English-language Instagram. The limited data indicate that such programs can lift program awareness and, in some cases, yield small but detectable behavioral changes when paired with accessible infrastructure.

Sources

  1. UCLA Institute of the Environment and Sustainability, US, 2023. “Content analysis of 480,000 Instagram posts tagged #sustainableliving and #climateaction in Los Angeles, 2018–2022.” https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3fx8p2nd
  2. CUNY Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism, US, 2022. “Geographic and linguistic analysis of 150 NYC-based sustainability content creators.” https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gj_etds/573/
  3. NYC Mayor’s Office of Climate and Environmental Justice, US, 2021. “Social media audit: borough-level reach of organics recycling content.” https://climate.cityofnewyork.us/reports/organics-reach-audit-2021.pdf
  4. City of Toronto, Canada, 2021. “TransformTO Net Zero Strategy.” https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/97fe-TransformTO-Net-Zero-Strategy-2021.pdf
  5. University of Toronto School of the Environment, Canada, 2023. “Impact evaluation of the TransformTO digital ambassador program.” https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/handle/1807/127656
  6. City of Vancouver, Canada, 2020. “Climate Emergency Action Plan summary.” https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/climate-emergency-action-plan-summary-2020-11-18.pdf
  7. University of British Columbia, Canada, 2022. “Zero waste influencer network: a digital ethnography and waste tonnage analysis.” https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/ubctheses/24/items/1.0401959
  8. Simon Fraser University School of Communication, Canada, 2024. “Mapping municipal-influencer partnerships across 25 large North American cities.” https://summit.sfu.ca/item/36652
  9. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico, 2022. “Eco-influencers en la Ciudad de México: estilos de contenido y compromiso.” https://revista.unam.mx/vol.23/num8/art82/
  10. University of Puerto Rico Resiliency and Sustainability Institute, Puerto Rico, 2021. “Community leaders and social media in post-María environmental organizing.” https://hdl.handle.net/11721/2764
  11. University of Guam Sea Grant, Guam, 2023. “Social media and traditional ecological knowledge in coral reef conservation.” https://www.uog.edu/_resources/files/ml/2023-05_GuamSeaGrant_SocialMediaTEK_Report.pdf
  12. University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Public Health, US, 2020. “Trusted messengers and environmental health communication in Birmingham neighborhoods.” https://digitalcommons.library.uab.edu/etd/1547/
  13. University of Arizona Southwest Center for Environmental Excellence, US, 2023. “Language, influence, and policy turnout among Phoenix environmental content creators.” https://repository.arizona.edu/handle/10150/667821
  14. University of North Florida, US, 2022. “Black-led environmental accounts and engagement disparities in Jacksonville.” https://digitalcommons.unf.edu/etd/1154/
  15. CUNY Urban Sustainability program, US, 2023. “Digital reach and waste behavior: correlational analysis in New York City.” https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/4902/
  16. San Francisco State University, US, 2021. “Evaluation of San Francisco’s influencer-based composting campaign.” https://scholarworks.sfsu.edu/envs_etds/87/
  17. University of Chicago Mansueto Institute, US, 2022. “Hyperlocal climate communication in Chicago’s official social media.” https://knowledge.uchicago.edu/record/4523
  18. University of Washington Evans School, US, 2023. “Community storyteller pilot evaluation.” https://digital.lib.washington.edu/researchworks/handle/1773/50125
  19. San Francisco State University, US, 2023. “Bay Area green influencer ecosystem: density, income, and churn.” https://scholarworks.sfsu.edu/comm_etds/132/
  20. University of Oklahoma Gaylord College, US, 2022. “Environmental communication in Oklahoma: platforms, messengers, and trust.” https://shareok.org/handle/11244/336374
  21. University of Calgary Sustainable Communities, Canada, 2021. “Energy transition influencers in Alberta: platform choice and audience engagement.” https://prism.ucalgary.ca/handle/1880/114236
  22. University of Winnipeg Prairie Climate Centre, Canada, 2023. “Indigenous environmental TikTok networks and policy influence in Manitoba.” https://winnspace.uwinnipeg.ca/handle/10680/1975
  23. University of Alaska Anchorage, US, 2022. “Climate content creators and public radio amplification in Anchorage.” https://scholarworks.alaska.edu/handle/11122/12884
  24. University of the Virgin Islands, US Virgin Islands, 2023. “Eco-tourism communication and community leadership in the USVI.” https://www.uvi.edu/research/uvipubs/ecotourism-communication-2023.pdf
  25. University of Hawaii at Manoa, US, 2022. “Marine conservation influencers in Honolulu: a pilot study.” https://hdl.handle.net/10125/102357
  26. City of New York, US, 2019. “OneNYC 2050: Building a Strong and Fair City.” https://onenyc.cityofnewyork.us/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/OneNYC-2050-Full-Report.pdf

#GreenInfluencer #ClimateCommunication #EcoTok #EnvironmentalJustice #LocalVoices