Next Article in Journal
Introducing Care 4.0: An Integrated Care Paradigm Built on Industry 4.0 Capabilities
Next Article in Special Issue
Healthy Food Access in Low-Income High-Minority Communities: A Longitudinal Assessment—2009–2017
Previous Article in Journal
The Distribution of Available Prevention and Management Interventions for Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (2007 to 2017): Implications for Collaborative Actions
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Search for Environmental Justice: The Story of North Birmingham
Open AccessArticle

Gentrification and Displacement in the San Francisco Bay Area: A Comparison of Measurement Approaches

Division of Epidemiology, Berkeley School of Public Health, University of California, 2121 Berkeley Way West, Berkeley, CA 94720-7360, USA
Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, CA 94611, USA
Department of Psychiatry, San Francisco School of Medicine, University of California, 982 Mission St., San Francisco, CA 94103, USA
Center for Interdisciplinary Research on AIDS, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06510, USA
University of California, Merced, Public Health, 5200 N. Lake Road Merced, CA 95343, USA
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16(12), 2246;
Received: 4 May 2019 / Revised: 17 June 2019 / Accepted: 19 June 2019 / Published: 25 June 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Neighborhood Environmental Influences on Health and Well-Being)
Gentrification may play an important role in influencing health outcomes, but few studies have examined these associations. One major barrier to producing empirical evidence to establish this link is that there is little consensus on how to measure gentrification. To address this barrier, we compared three gentrification classification methodologies in relation to their ability to identify neighborhood gentrification in nine San Francisco Bay Area counties: the Freeman method, the Landis method, and the Urban Displacement Project (UDP) Regional Early Warning System. In the 1580 census tracts, 43% of the population had a bachelor’s degree or higher. The average median household income was $79,671 in 2013. A comparison of gentrification methodologies revealed that the Landis and Freeman methodologies characterized the vast majority of census tracts as stable, and only 5.2% and 6.1% of tracts as gentrifying. UDP characterized 46.7% of tracts at risk, undergoing, or experiencing advanced stages of gentrification and displacement. There was substantial variation in the geographic location of tracts identified as gentrifying across methods. Given the variation in characterizations of gentrification across measures, studies evaluating associations between gentrification and health should consider using multiple measures of gentrification to examine the robustness of the study findings across measures. View Full-Text
Keywords: gentrification; neighborhoods; health and health disparities gentrification; neighborhoods; health and health disparities
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Mujahid, M.S.; Sohn, E.K.; Izenberg, J.; Gao, X.; Tulier, M.E.; Lee, M.M.; Yen, I.H. Gentrification and Displacement in the San Francisco Bay Area: A Comparison of Measurement Approaches. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2246.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

Search more from Scilit
Back to TopTop