Search

With the branding of a city as green increasingly serving to amplify attractiveness andinvestment while also contributing to patterns of green gentrification, the incentive to link real estate development and green space is growing. Yet, little is known about the extent to which this incentive has generated a spatial relationship between green space and newly constructed housing at the city-wide level and in ways that can be compared between cities. This gap in knowledge makes it difficult to precisely indicate the implications for housing rights, affordability, and broader goals of urban green justice. In response, this study explores quantitative trends in 26 mid-sized North American and European cities, utilizing greening and real estate data from the last three decades. Results show that greening becomes a more significant driver of development over time and operates to attract development in a growing number of cities, although more so in US cities. Next, in order to contextualize the quantitative results, we employ qualitative field data gathered through field work in Atlanta and Amsterdam. We contrast the greening and development trajectories of these cities by examining implications for housing rights and social justice, accounting for the fact that those cities exhibit different green gentrification trends, as demonstrated in the literature. Green gentrification is indeed a proxy for understanding housing justice implications in the relationship between greening and development. We find that Amsterdam’s legacy of housing rights and policies acts as a protection against growing inequities embedded in the relationship between urban greening, development, and gentrification. In contrast, Atlanta embodies patterns of historic racial segregation and continued gentrification of Black neighborhoods which urban greening has further intensified. This analysis shows that greening can attract real estate development across a city, but the implications need not always

This article explores the role that green gentrification plays in exacerbating racial tensions within historically marginalized urban communities benefiting from new environmental amenities such as parks, gardens, waterfront restoration and greenways. Building on extensive qualitative data from three cities in Europe (Amsterdam, Vienna, Lyon) and four cities in the United States (Washington, Austin, Atlanta, Cleveland), we use thematic analysis and grounded theory to examine the complex relationship between historical environmental and racial injustices and current racial green inequities produced by the green city agenda. Our analysis also offers insights into the main differences in how community members articulate concerns and demands over racial issues related to green gentrification in Europe versus North America. Results show that urban greening—and green gentrification specifically—can create ‘compounded environmental racisms’ by worsening racial environmental injustices and further perpetrating green racialized displacement, re-segregation and exclusion. The latter is produced by the racial inequities embedded in green infrastructure projects and the related unequal access to environmental benefits, affordable housing, political rights and place-making. Moreover, we find that settler colonial practices combined with persisting exposure to toxins and re-segregation in the United States together with neocolonial spatial and social practices in Europe shape how racialized community members perceive and interact with new green amenities.

Municipal climate resiliency and re-naturing plans are promoting greening and green (re)development, such as the inclusion of new parks, greenways, or rehabilitated shorelines, frequently as a-political, win-win solutions for all residents. Greenwashing and (re)development of green amenities in vulnerable neighborhoods—those often most in need of support toward resilience and adaptation—expose residents to the impacts of green gentrification, such as the pricing-out and physical displacement from housing, socio-cultural displacement from public space, and associated personal and community traumas. This paper explores an under-researched avenue in the green gentrification literature: How do grassroots community activists organize to address housing and greening simultaneously and how do they operate to achieve justice in greening neighborhoods? We examined the strategies and tools used by community groups in 10 cities in the United States facing green gentrification. We find that justice-driven strategies and tools are supported by the formation of multi-sectoral coalitions which strengthen what we define as “community infrastructures”—social, economic, and political capacities—against exclusive green-washing. We argue that each of the three capacities must be built amongst residents in order to fortify the material and immaterial components of community infrastructure.

Municipal governments are increasingly promoting green climate-adaptive infrastructure projects to address climate threats and impacts while maximizing multiple socio-environmental benefits. Although these strategies are repeatedly advanced as “win-win” solutions for all, recent literature has drawn attention to numerous negative effects, especially the displacement and exclusion of vulnerable social groups, pointing at yet another layer of climate injustice. In this article, we focus our analysis on the experienced and/or perceived negative social effects of greening interventions for climate adaptation on historically marginalized groups through a cross-case qualitative comparison of four neighborhoods in North American and European cities (Boston, Philadelphia, Amsterdam and Barcelona). Interviews conducted among a diverse sample of civic groups related to each neighborhood reveal that most respondents highly value green resilient infrastructures for their socio-environmental benefits. However, unless these green interventions are implemented alongside policies that guarantee equitable outcomes for all, then civic respondents mostly identify negative social impacts on marginalized residents, making those benefits short-lived. Most prominent negative impacts include physical displacement and the related threat of more displacement together with risks that new (green) real estate developments and resilient greening will remain exclusionary for marginalized groups. Such similar findings across different socio-political contexts point to the need for bolder policies that guarantee that investments in green climate adaptation interventions secure both environmental and social benefits in underinvested and environmentally neglected neighborhoods and mitigate the negative impacts of such interventions, namely sociocultural and physical displacement and overall exclusionary climate protection.

Although cities globally are increasingly mobilizing re-naturing projects to address diverse urban socio-environmental and health challenges, there is mounting evidence that these interventions may also be linked to the phenomenon known as green gentrification. However, to date the empirical evidence on the relationship between greenspaces and gentrification regarding associations with different greenspace types remains scarce. This study focused on 28 mid-sized cities in North America and Western Europe. We assessed improved access to different types of greenspace (i.e. total area of parks, gardens, nature preserves, recreational areas or greenways [i] added before the 2000s or [ii] added before the 2010s) and gentrification processes (including [i] gentrification for the 2000s; [ii] gentrification for the 2010s; [iii] gentrification throughout the decades of the 2000s and 2010s) in each small geographical unit of each city. To estimate the associations, we developed a Bayesian hierarchical spatial model for each city and gentrification time period (i.e. a maximum of three models per city). More than half of our models showed that parks—together with other factors such as proximity to the city center—are positively associated with gentrification processes, particularly in the US context, except in historically Black disinvested postindustrial cities with lots of vacant land. We also find than in half of our models newly designated nature preserves are negatively associated with gentrification processes, particularly when considering gentrification throughout the 2000s and the 2010s and in the US. Meanwhile, for new gardens, recreational spaces and greenways, our research shows mixed results (some positive, some negative and some no effect associations). Considering the environmental and health benefits of urban re-naturing projects, cities should keep investing in improving park access while simultaneously implementing anti-displacement and inclusive green policies

Although urban greening is universally recognized as an essential part of sustainable and climate-responsive cities, a growing literature on green gentrification argues that new green infrastructure, and greenspace in particular, can contribute to gentrification, thus creating social and racial inequalities in access to the benefits of greenspace and further environmental and climate injustice. In response to limited quantitative evidence documenting the temporal relationship between new greenspaces and gentrification across entire cities, let alone across various international contexts, we employ a spatially weighted Bayesian model to test the green gentrification hypothesis across 28 cities in 9 countries in North America and Europe. Here we show a strong positive and relevant relationship for at least one decade between greening in the 1990s–2000s and gentrification that occurred between 2000–2016 in 17 of the 28 cities. Our results also determine whether greening plays a “lead”, “integrated”, or “subsidiary” role in explaining gentrification.

As global cities grapple with the increasing challenge of gentrification and displacement, research in public health and urban geography has presented growing evidence about the negative impacts of those unequal urban changes on the health of historically marginalized groups. Yet, to date comprehensive research about the variety of health impacts and their pathways beyond single case sites and through an international comparative approach of different gentrification drivers and manifestations remains scarce. In this paper, we analyze qualitative data on the pathways by which gentrification impacts the health of historically marginalized residents in 14 cities in Europe and North America. We build on 77 interviews with key neighborhood stakeholders. Data analysis indicates four main concurrent processes: Threats to housing and financial security; Socio-cultural displacement; Loss of services and amenities through institutional gentrification; and Increased risks of criminal behavior and compromised public safety. Gentrification is experienced as a chain of physical and emotional community and individual traumas – an overall shock for historically marginalized groups – because of permanent pressures of insecurity, loss, state of displaceability, and the associated exacerbation of socio-environmental disadvantages.