Surrounding Community Residents’ Expectations of HOPE VI for Their Community, Health and Physical Activity

Abstract

Using a community-engaged participatory research approach, this study identified surrounding community residents’ expectations for how a HOPE VI housing initiative might affect their community and individual health and physical activity. Fifty-nine women and men engaged in concept mapping, which is a mixed methods approach, where participants generate, sort, and rate ideas. Participants generated 197 unique statements. Thirteen thematic clusters related to expected changes for the community, health and physical activity emerged. Residents’ rated ‘Increased Pride in the Neighborhood’ and ‘Increased Safety’ as the most important factors related to HOPE VI whereas ‘Drawbacks of HOPE VI’ was rated as least important. This research provides insight into the potential impacts of housing initiatives from the perspective of those most affected by such initiatives. The findings also highlight environmental changes as potential mechanisms that may improve residents’ perceptions of the community and encourage healthy lifestyles.

Green Gentrification and Health: A Scoping Review

“…Fourth, the findings of at least two studies in our review suggest the importance of having access to affordable housing for marginalized people to reap the benefits of green space in gentrifying communities [39,40]. Creating and preserving affordable housing in places undergoing green gentrification is arguably one of the major challenges for equity advocates in these communities [72].…”

“…One study in Birmingham (Alabama), focused on green space use and physical activity without examining differences by demographic groups. The authors found that Black residents felt that their neighborhood provided more support for physical activity after public housing was redeveloped into mixed-income housing with ample green space and walking paths [39]. The positive impact of new green spaces might be explained, at least in part, by the fact that longtime, low-income Black residents had access to affordable subsidized housing through the HOPE IV program, and therefore might not fear displacement as residents not living in subsidized housing.…”

“…Table 2 shows the 15 studies organized by greening intervention (columns) and health outcomes/pathways (rows). Overall, the most studied greening interventions were new greenways or parks (n = 9 [25,27,[35][36][37][38][39][40][41], whereas two focused on street greening [15,42] and three on environmental remediation, such as brownfield cleanup and redevelopment [27,42,43]. Two studies focused on more than one greening intervention, covering environmental remediation followed by either street greening [42] or the creation of new parks [27].…”

“…Not only do the decreased options in affordable housing due to green gentrification limit access to quality green spaces, but because housing is a social determinant of health, shrinking affordable housing options negatively affect multiple dimensions of health and well-being [11,12]. Among the studies included in one review, one found that new green spaces had positive impacts on long-time, low-income BIPOC residents' physical activity in the context of a mixed-income community, where such residents had access to affordable housing [39]. Finally, although increased availability of green spaces may promote physical activity, underlying social tensions can worsen the experiences of BIPOC communities in green spaces located in gentrifying neighborhoods [35].…”

Supportive environments for physical activity in deprived communities in the United Kingdom: A qualitative study using photo elicitation

“…An implication for policy could be to engage the community to identify these 'hot spots' which deter physical activity, and then evaluate interdependent upstream influences which underpin environmental barriers and can be targeted through intervention. Engagement with the community throughout the process of identifying targets for intervention to intervention implementation is supported by Dulin Keita et al (2016) and Marinescu et al (2013) who highlight the importance of developing culturally-sensitive interventions. A difficulty policymakers face in this situation is firstly, ensuring adequate representation from the community during engagement and secondly, balancing private and public interests in the community (for example, through the management of local rental rates -pertinent to the Drumchapel shopping centre, and ownership of local assets -pertinent to the Lyceum in Govan).…”