Interview scorecard template

Green Infrastructure Planner interview scorecard

Evaluate Green Infrastructure Planner candidates across 4 weighted areas: outcomes that landed, stakeholder facilitation, regulatory and policy command, and evidence and reporting. Outcomes that landed leads at 30%, so ask which green infrastructure schemes reached construction: bioswales, rain gardens, tree canopy programmes, daylighted streams. Probe capital cost, catchment area treated, and post-build. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
public sector communitygis analysisgreen infrastructurestormwater managementurban planning
TL;DR
For outcomes that landed, look for evidence the candidate names built schemes with acreage, litres of runoff managed, canopy percentage gained, and funding source secured for each. For stakeholder facilitation, look for evidence the candidate recounts a contested site where they reconciled highways, parks maintenance and residents into a signed, funded scheme. Apply the written 1–5 anchors to every answer, record the evidence behind each rating, and use the factor weights to reach a consistent overall assessment.
Complete evaluation framework

What to assess and how to score it

Review the evidence signals before interviewing. Then use the anchored descriptions—not instinct alone—to choose the score that best matches each answer.

01
Evaluation factor

Outcomes that landed

30% weight

Ask which green infrastructure schemes reached construction: bioswales, rain gardens, tree canopy programmes, daylighted streams. Probe capital cost, catchment area treated, and post-build monitoring of runoff volumes.

Evidence to listen for

  • Names programmes or initiatives that were adopted, funded, or delivered
  • States their own role rather than the department's
  • Gives measured reach or impact
  • Distinguishes work that landed from work that stalled, and explains why

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No delivered work; describes intent and process only.

2
Needs Improvement

Involved in initiatives but cannot say what resulted or what they owned.

3
Satisfactory

Real delivery with adequate ownership; impact described loosely.

4
Very Good

Named outcomes with clear personal scope and some measures.

5
Excellent

Names built schemes with acreage, litres of runoff managed, canopy percentage gained, and funding source secured for each.

02
Evaluation factor

Stakeholder facilitation

25% weight

Probe how they handled resident objections at consultation events, negotiated maintenance agreements with highways or parks teams, and aligned developers, utilities and watershed groups on shared plans.

Evidence to listen for

  • Brings a real contested case, not a philosophy of engagement
  • Names the competing interests and the resolution method
  • Uses concrete engagement formats and can point to input that changed a decision
  • Treats every group as legitimate

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Diplomacy-speak with no case attached, or contempt for one group.

2
Needs Improvement

Recalls conflict but no method; engagement is a box to check.

3
Satisfactory

Real case and workable approach; resolution thin on specifics.

4
Very Good

Names the tension and method; cites engagement that shaped the outcome.

5
Excellent

Recounts a contested site where they reconciled highways, parks maintenance and residents into a signed, funded scheme.

03
Evaluation factor

Regulatory and policy command

25% weight

Test command of stormwater and planning instruments relevant here: NPDES MS4 permits, SuDS guidance, biodiversity net gain, local drainage standards, Section 106 or impact fee mechanisms.

Evidence to listen for

  • Names the statutes, funding rules, and processes they have worked under
  • Explains how those requirements sequenced their work
  • Owns the compliance thinking rather than deferring it entirely
  • Knows where the discretion sits

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Outsources all regulatory thinking; cannot name a framework.

2
Needs Improvement

Generalities about compliance; no sequencing or named rules.

3
Satisfactory

Knows the main frameworks; sequencing described loosely.

4
Very Good

Names relevant frameworks and how they shaped a timeline.

5
Excellent

Cites the specific permit conditions and adoption standards they wrote against, plus how compliance was demonstrated to regulators.

04
Evaluation factor

Evidence and reporting

20% weight

Look for GIS and modelling evidence: i-Tree Eco, SWMM or InfoDrainage runs, canopy and impervious surface analysis, and how findings shaped committee papers or capital programmes.

Evidence to listen for

  • Uses data to choose between options, not to justify a decision already made
  • Names the sources and methods behind their numbers
  • Reports to funders, councils, or the public in terms those audiences can use
  • Tracks whether the intervention worked

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No use of evidence; decisions are assertion.

2
Needs Improvement

Cites data but cannot explain its source or limits.

3
Satisfactory

Uses evidence competently; evaluation after the fact is thin.

4
Very Good

Evidence drives choices and is reported clearly to lay audiences.

5
Excellent

Shows modelled versus monitored performance, explains variance honestly, and points to a decision the analysis changed.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Green Infrastructure Planner

Use these prompts to surface evidence for the weighted factors above and compare candidates against the same role-specific criteria.

  1. 01

    Can you describe your experience designing and delivering green infrastructure?

  2. 02

    Can you give examples of schemes using sustainable drainage?

  3. 03

    Can you describe a challenging project and how you addressed the difficulties?

  4. 04

    How do you assess the environmental effects of your schemes?

  5. 05

    How do you measure the performance of installed green infrastructure?

See the complete Green Infrastructure Planner question set
Put this rubric to work

Score every candidate against the same standard

Add these weighted factors to Hirevire and let AI evaluate recorded answers against your rubric.

Explore AI Scorecards