memo 9

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ulsc20

Leisure Sciences An Interdisciplinary Journal

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ulsc20

Environmental Justice, Gentrification, and Leisure: A Systematic Review and Opportunities for the Future

Lauren E. Mullenbach & Birgitta L. Baker

To cite this article: Lauren E. Mullenbach & Birgitta L. Baker (2020) Environmental Justice, Gentrification, and Leisure: A Systematic Review and Opportunities for the Future, Leisure Sciences, 42:5-6, 430-447, DOI: 10.1080/01490400.2018.1458261

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2018.1458261

Published online: 14 May 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2942

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 9 View citing articles

https://doi.org/./..

Environmental Justice, Gentrification, and Leisure: A Systematic Review and Opportunities for the Future

Lauren E. Mullenbach and Birgitta L. Baker

Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism Management, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA

ARTICLE HISTORY Received  July  Accepted  March 

KEYWORDS gentrification; green space; leisure; parks; systematic review

ABSTRACT The concept of gentrification, which has recently been expanded beyond residential displacement to address issues of equitable access to public spaces, is deemed an environmental justice issue. Environmen- tal gentrification presents a new threat to economically vulnerable areas looking to add parks, recreation, or green space to their neighborhoods because gentrification may attract newcomers who displace existing residents from public spaces as well as from housing. Consequently, park, recreation, and leisure scholars should study this phenomenon. A systematic review was conducted to assess current knowledge regard- ing relationships among gentrification and park, recreation, and leisure spaces. A search of three databases uncovered 27 articles. Little leisure scholarship was found, representing an opportunity for leisure scholars to promote environmental justice. Six themes derived from the articles described how policy can negatively impact residents, how strategies can prevent gentrification, and how research methods to study gentrifi- cation can impact how results are interpreted.

Introduction

Access to quality green spaces in urban areas has been labeled an environmental and social justice issue (Dahmann, Wolch, Joassart-Marcelli, Reynolds, & Jerrett, 2010; Floyd & Johnson, 2002; Heynen, Perkins, & Roy, 2006). Evidence shows some minority and/or low- income groups have disproportionately low access to public city parks (Heynen et al., 2006; Jennings, Johnson Gaither, & Gragg, 2012), and a lack of park access has negative health con- sequences (Gordon-Larsen, Nelson, Page, & Popkin, 2006). Additionally, parks adjacent to low-income and minority neighborhoods tend to be smaller and of lower quality (Johnson- Gaither, 2011; Rigolon, 2016). Thus, exclusion from parks and green spaces and the disparity in quality of those spaces deny vulnerable groups access to health amenities, further perpet- uating injustices. In addition, attempts to remedy this inequitable access may create further injustice. When green spaces are constructed or renovated, the neighborhood may become more attractive and costly to live in, and wealthier groups may replace existing residents, thereby gentrifying the neighborhood (Wolch, Byrne, & Newell, 2014).

CONTACT Lauren E. Mullenbach lem@psu.edu Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism Management, The Pennsylvania State University,  Ford Building, University Park, PA .

©  Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

LEISURE SCIENCES 2020, VOL. 42, NO. 5-6, 430–447

What is gentrification?

Gentrification is a process of change and displacement of a lower wealth population by a higher wealth population (Atkinson, 2002). Displacement most often refers to the process by which residents are forced or choose to move from their homes to a different neighborhood. A different socioeconomic class often takes the place of those former residents. However, the displacement experienced may be physical or psychological. Residents may be physically dis- placed by gentrification (if they move), or they may feel as if they were displaced from the social and cultural environment of the neighborhood. Delaney (2004) conceptualized physi- cal displacement as material displacement and psychological displacement as discursive dis- placement. Gentrification is a multifaceted phenomenon that encompasses economic, social, and physical changes (Marcuse, 2016). Marcuse refers to these changes as “upgradings,” but he is careful to note that upgradings do not always lead to displacement of existing residents, although they often do. Whether these upgradings and potential related gentrification are evaluated as positive or negative depends on the worldviews and experiences of those evalu- ating (Slater, 2009).

The phenomenon of gentrification has been studied for decades by scholars from diverse disciplines, including sociology, economics, urban planning, and geography, and gentrifica- tion thought has evolved over time. Current paradigms assert that gentrification does not just affect the housing supply and markets, but it also influences an array of different types of places as well as social, economic, and political processes. While a large part of gentrification research remains focused on housing indicators, including property values and residential shifts, some research reflects this widened scope (Pearsall, 2010; Smith, 1987).

Economic changes that often drive or reflect gentrification include increases in property values, rent, and wealth/income of neighborhood residents (Freeman, 2006). Neighborhood wealth may increase when existing residents access higher paying jobs, alternate streams of income, or when the value of property they own increases; more often however, it occurs as lower income residents are replaced by higher income residents (Marcuse, 2016).

Physical upgrading may include renovation or replacement of existing buildings (housing stock and commercial buildings), public infrastructure improvements, and increases in the amount and quality of green and leisure spaces. Indicators of gentrification are thus embedded in renewed public space, businesses, and even grocery stores (Anguelovski, 2016).

Social and cultural changes in a neighborhood that is “upgrading” may be driven by and desired by existing residents. Alternatively, they may displace the norms and mores of existing residents by those of newcomers—a process often characterized by conflict, psychological displacement, or marginalization of existing residents (Shaw & Sullivan, 2011). As described in the articles included in this review, the social and cultural changes are difficult for long-time residents to grapple with (Anguelovski, 2016; Bélanger, 2012). What was once a place to gather and socialize may become an upscale grocery store or coffee shop filled with different people with different values. What was once a favorite spot in the park may have been “taken over” by newcomers who don’t share norms or activities. Justice issues resulting from psychological displacement include the losses of social capital from the breakup of social networks and of voice in local politics (Atkinson, 2002).

Depending on who is judging, these changes can be viewed positively or negatively. The effects of upgradings on a city budget are positive. Increased property taxes, higher income taxes, and sales tax from increased resident spending and additional tourism fill city and state coffers (Slater, 2009). Crime decreases associated with gentrification reduce police and other

LEISURE SCIENCES 431

related costs (Branas et al., 2016). Given this, it is not surprising that cities and states imple- ment pro-gentrification policies (Lees, 2003a; Smith, 2002). These benefits, however, should be weighed against the costs (social and financial) of the displacement of existing residents (Marcuse, 2016; Slater, 2009). Economically vulnerable residents displaced during gentrifica- tion are often from historically disadvantaged groups, making displacement and exclusion of those groups especially concerning (Marcuse, 2016). In addition to perpetuating inequities, the financial costs of moving, increased health costs incurred through moving to unhealthier areas, and the social costs of discrimination, exclusion, and the loss of social networks are injustices imposed upon vulnerable groups. The breaking up of social networks is an often uncalculated cost of displacement but one which may affect displaced residents’ ability to acclimate to a new neighborhood (Atkinson, 2003).

Environmental gentrification

When cities construct or renovate new parks, trails, and other green spaces, particularly in areas that were previously deficient in these amenities, it can cause or perpetuate environ- mental gentrification. Environmental gentrification is a function of physical upgrading and occurs when an environmental amenity, such as a green space, park, or trail, is created or renovated to an extent that it spurs or accelerates gentrification, often facilitated by politi- cal processes (Checker, 2011). Currently, cities are implementing such changes in their built environment, which can exacerbate environmental injustice. Environmental injustice is his- torically linked to disproportionate exposure of lower-income and racial-minority neighbor- hoods to environmental hazards (Cutter, 1995). Because many such neighborhoods possess relatively lower levels of political clout, they are less equipped to lobby for change and are vul- nerable to other environmental injustices, such as environmental gentrification. The primary injustice of environmental gentrification is the reduced access to an environmental amenity, such as a park, due to displacement. Displaced residents are denied the physical, mental, and social health benefits of parks and green space (Mowen & Rung, 2016).

Also called “green gentrification” or “ecological gentrification,” this process has garnered recent attention in the larger urban development literature (Haase et al., 2017; Wolch et al., 2014). An example of this process is when a brownfield, that is, a property on which the pres- ence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant may compli- cate its expansion, redevelopment, or reuse, is cleaned up and replaced with a park, making the neighborhood more attractive, possibly increasing real estate values, and bringing wealth- ier residents to the area (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d.). Rather than the new amenity benefiting residents, the new or renovated public spaces can drive up property taxes and rents, displacing the residents they were meant to serve.

The consequences of environmental gentrification are seldom documented outside of a few well-cited case studies (e.g., Checker, 2011; Curran & Hamilton, 2012). The best approaches for addressing inequities in access to green space without spurring gentrification are still unclear. While a few key instances of physical upgrading of environmental amenities have not led to gentrification (Curran & Hamilton, 2012), more often upgradings spur gentrification. Therefore, more research is needed to determine factors differentiating neighborhoods and situations in which greening is associated with gentrification and those which are not associ- ated with environmental gentrification (Gould & Lewis, 2016). Cities are increasingly invest- ing in their public spaces, especially parks and open space, and it remains unclear whether conventional urban planning considers the consequences of environmental gentrification.

432 L. E. MULLENBACH AND B. L. BAKER

The transformations that occur during environmental gentrification are occasionally the result of city- or state-wide policies to restore brownfields or enhance sustainable develop- ment. These projects are typically undertaken with good intentions but can result in unfore- seen negative consequences for residents (Checker, 2011). Some cities, under the guise of promoting sustainability, recruit businesses with a sustainability focus to increase revenue and achieve their economic goals. Yet these businesses attract a specific clientele and may be cost-prohibitive to working class residents (Anguelovski, 2016). Pearsall (2010) illustrated this practice in his study of New York’s brownfield redevelopment program, which provided important groundwork for research on environmental gentrification. Pearsall assessed eco- nomic vulnerability of residents by observing changes in resident profile over time and found those most vulnerable to displacement or disadvantage were renters, older adults, and low- income residents. The economic vulnerability that makes these groups more prone to dis- placement also contributes to their social vulnerability. These groups find it harder to adjust after displacement, given the breakup of their social ties and connection to local culture, deep- ening the injustice of gentrification (Atkinson, 2002). Ironically, those displaced by environ- mental gentrification would benefit from the social capital available in the park or public space that contributed to their displacement (Mowen & Rung, 2016).

One salient example of environmental gentrification spurred by investment in a park involves the High Line in New York City, where the transformation of an abandoned rail line into a park resulted in large increases in property values, real estate speculation, tourism, luxury commercial development, and clientele unrepresentative of nearby residents (Lang & Rothenberg, 2017; Loughran, 2014; Reichl, 2016). The so-called “High Line effect” is spread- ing to other cities aiming for similar park-inspired gentrification. This intended gentrification, which accelerates purposefully through changes to city zoning laws or economic development initiatives, has become a trend in cities looking to revitalize or create new business districts (Lees, 2003a; Loughran, 2014).

When environmental gentrification occurs at a site of leisure, such as the High Line, or other parks, trails, and open green spaces, it creates environmental injustice in a space man- aged by park, recreation, and leisure professionals. In other instances of social or environ- mental injustice, leisure scholars have called upon the field to better understand the presence of injustice in leisure contexts (Glover, 2015; Henderson, 2014; Stewart, 2014). Leisure schol- ars may be overlooking important and interesting work around this issue of contested urban public spaces (Johnson & Glover, 2013). Environmental gentrification should thus be an area of research by leisure scholars.

Current studies of environmental gentrification are spread across multiple fields that may not cite each other’s literature. While the understanding of gentrification has increased since the construct was introduced by Ruth Glass in 1964, little of this understanding has come from residents “on the ground.” Thus, little research on gentrification has captured the perspective of people experiencing it. There is also a lack of discourse in the literature regarding the design and programming in public spaces to increase inclusivity, which is an avenue where recreation and leisure scholars can enter the gentrification discourse. This gap warrants a summary of the current state of knowledge to establish next steps for the field of leisure sciences.

While little prior leisure literature has examined environmental gentrification specifically, leisure scholars have studied barriers and constraints to participation in parks and recreation of minorities and other marginalized groups. The barriers and constraints most commonly found to affect leisure participation among minority and marginalized populations are dis- crimination, economic infeasibility, and physical access, many of which result from systematic

LEISURE SCIENCES 433

injustices on the policy level (Jennings, Floyd, Shanahan, Coutts, & Sinykin, 2017). Discrimi- nation affects use within parks and recreation spaces, and it may prevent potential users from visiting (Shinew, Floyd, & Parry, 2004).

Constraints or barriers include an unwelcoming park atmosphere or unfavorable park features. This may be related to park design because parks with low diversity in users but high diversity in the surrounding neighborhood were likely designed for a particular (Reichl, 2016). Another constraint limiting park use is inequitable access to parks and other recreation spaces. Historical patterns of discrimination and injustice, such as redlining, have resulted in classes of people systematically underserved by park systems (Joassart-Marcelli, 2010).

Purpose

As a discipline that advocates for environmental justice, it is critical that leisure sciences ensure that all voices are heard in recreation and leisure spaces. However, the state of knowledge within the leisure sciences field regarding the relationship between urban environmental gen- trification and parks, recreation, and leisure spaces is lacking. As such, it remains unknown whether gentrification is caused or accelerated by new or renovated parks, green spaces, and other public or semi-public leisure spaces and, if so, under what circumstances. Accord- ingly, this systematic review summarizes the literature on gentrification related to places of leisure, to elucidate the relationship between upgrading leisure spaces and gentrification, and find the place for this issue within the leisure sciences field. Furthermore, this study sets a research agenda for studying relationships among gentrification and parks, recreation, and leisure spaces.

Methods

This systematic review involved three main steps: literature search, data extraction, and anal- ysis. This study adapted procedures for conducting a systematic review from sources in the social science literature (Campbell Collaboration, n.d.; Floyd, Bocarro, & Thompson, 2008).

Definitions

For the purposes of this study, “leisure spaces” included parks, trails, open green spaces, and other public spaces in which leisure can be pursued (e.g., bike infrastructure, community cen- ters, and plazas). Leisure can occur in any location, but this study and many studies of environ- mental gentrification concern public spaces, whose democratic nature becomes threatened by inequitable access and other potential outcomes of gentrification. In this study, “leisure scholar” is defined as an academic professional in a leisure-related university department, such as those with “parks,” “recreation,” “leisure,” or “tourism” in the department title. Gen- trification was used as a key word in the literature search. Definitions of gentrification from articles in the sample were examined in relation to the definition of gentrification provided by Lees, Slater, and Wyly (2008) and informed interpretation of each article. While gentrification occurs in rural areas as well as cities, this study limited its focus to urban areas. While cities tend to have common outcomes with rural areas, they differ fundamentally in gentrification processes (Phillips, 1993).

434 L. E. MULLENBACH AND B. L. BAKER

Figure . The figure format has been adapted from Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, & Altman’s () guidelines for reporting systematic review results. ∗Filters applied to database results include: full-text, peer-reviewed, scholarly journals, English language, and North American locations. ∗∗Inclusion criteria involved things such as data-based research; level of attention and focus on perceptions, use, qualities, and experiences within public green spaces; primary authors from dominant leisure disciplines; and predominance of leisure spaces within the scope of research.

Literature search

The literature search is outlined in Figure 1. First, the authors decided on databases and initial search terms (see Table 1). Input from colleagues familiar with the topic provided additional terms to the search.

The databases ProQuest, PsycInfo, and EBSCOhost were searched using the terms listed in Table 1. The review was limited to peer-reviewed English language articles. Books, book chapters, theses and dissertations, and conference proceedings were excluded from the study. The initial search results were screened by title and then by abstract if the title indicated that the article was related to the topics in this review. In this initial screening, no articles were excluded based on journal, method, time period, or type of study subject. The first author scanned the reference lists of each article retained following the title/abstract screen for other potential sources and identified one additional article.

Table . Search terms.

Parks and … Infrastructure and …

Gentrification Gentrification Displacement Displacement Economic instability Economic instability Economic fluctuation Economic fluctuation

Green space and … Commons and gentrification Gentrification Plaza and gentrification Displacement Third place and gentrification Economic instability Parks and gentrification and environmental justice Economic fluctuation Green space and gentrification and environmental justice

Databases searched: PsycINFO, ProQuest, and EBSCOhost

LEISURE SCIENCES 435

Data extraction

All 65 retained articles were read by the same author; the journal, main objectives, main findings, purpose, study location, subjects, time period, and type of research were noted for each article. Studies were included in the final sample if they met the following inclusion criteria: The article addressed gentrification or some of the commonly cited consequences of gentrification (e.g., residential displacement, demographic shift, social exclusion, other neigh- borhood change) AND addressed one of the following:

� whether renovating or creating leisure spaces contributed to gentrification � whether gentrification resulted in creation of leisure spaces, or � how resultant leisure spaces were perceived and used by residents. If an article merely mentioned leisure spaces once or twice (e.g., in the literature review, in

an interview response) but did not explain further or explicitly measure leisure spaces, it was excluded from the study. During this step, 38 articles were excluded from the study because they did not meet the criteria, resulting in a final sample of 27 articles.

Content analysis

Articles were analyzed to identify themes. Both authors independently derived key outcomes from the 27 articles. The authors exceeded the recommended 80% agreement threshold on key outcomes of each article (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014). Sources of material for the key outcomes included article keywords, title keywords, gentrification indicators, specific methods, objectives, and relevance to leisure sciences.

Because the question of whether gentrification can be a positive transformation is heavily debated, we noted whether gentrification and its outcomes were framed positively or nega- tively in each article. Perceived outcomes of gentrification fall on a spectrum from positive to negative, but for the purposes of clarity and brevity in this article, outcomes are classified into three groups—positive, negative, or mixed. Outcomes were coded as positive if authors described them as beneficial or used words such as “benefit,” “improve,” or “positive impact.” Similarly, outcomes were coded as negative if authors described them as detrimental to the study participants or used words such as “hazard,” “unfair,” or “worse.” For a deeper look into the spectrum of gentrification outcomes, see Lees (2003a) and Atkinson (2002).

Results

Characteristics of articles

Of the 27 articles in the final sample, 13 focused significantly on gentrification related to leisure spaces, nine addressed leisure spaces more peripherally, and five had a small focus on leisure spaces. Six of the articles were published in leisure journals. Twenty total journals were rep- resented in the sample, and first authors came from 12 different disciplinary areas. Only two first authors had a leisure-related affiliation at their institution. Thus, the field of leisure sci- ences (including park, recreation, and tourism management) represented a small percentage of the journals (15%) and of the first authors (7%) in this study.

The sample comprised largely recent articles, with half of the articles published in the last six years and six published in the last two years, demonstrating the relatively recent expan- sion of the gentrification debate to include public spaces, such as leisure spaces. This expan- sion has resulted in new terminology. Five articles explicitly used “ecological gentrification,”

436 L. E. MULLENBACH AND B. L. BAKER

“environmental gentrification,” or “green gentrification” to describe outcomes of their study. Eight more articles discussed indicators of environmental gentrification within their studies but did not explicitly use any of the above terms. Both of the leisure scholars in the sam- ple addressed environmental gentrification issues, though neither explicitly used those terms. To avoid future confusion or conflation among disciplines and researchers, we argue for the adoption of one universal term—environmental gentrification—to describe the phenomenon. Given lower visibility of the other two terms, environmental gentrification seems most appro- priate. Furthermore, use of this term by future leisure scholars pursuing this line of research will reach audiences from a variety of disciplines in the gentrification literature.

Themes

Through textual analysis of the articles, six themes emerged regarding causes and outcomes of gentrification. Some themes reaffirm current thought about gentrification, its causes, and its consequences, while others may provide new insights. The themes were: 1) policies and city initiatives, including those regarding green and leisure spaces, can amplify gentrification; 2) not all gentrification outcomes are negative; 3) environmental gentrification and the poli- cies producing it represent an ethical façade; 4) community involvement is necessary to tem- per gentrification and exclusion from public spaces; 5) the “just green enough” approach can attenuate environmental gentrification; and 6) types of methods and disciplinary approaches have systematic relationships to outcomes and conclusions. Themes are discussed sequen- tially, using examples from the articles.

Theme : Policies and city initiatives, including those regarding green and leisure spaces, can amplify gentrification This theme addressed the role of government in shaping gentrification through policies and initiatives focused on green spaces and other public amenities along with zoning changes. These government actions may, intentionally or unintentionally, accelerate existing gentrifi- cation or initiate gentrification in vulnerable areas.

Several articles in this study revealed the power of city policies and initiatives to facili- tate gentrification processes (Beauregard, 1990; Checker, 2011; Dooling, 2009). This inten- tional gentrification can happen faster than unintentional gentrification and creates lasting change (Beauregard, 1990). According to Beauregard (1990), political action can accelerate development by creating tax incentives for businesses, building business districts, and rezon- ing residential areas, targeting economically vulnerable areas. In some cities, zoning changes permanently altered the residential and commercial landscape of an area, inviting economic development (McKendry & Janos, 2015; Reichl, 2016). While economic development on its own is not harmful, it can produce gentrification in the absence of policies that protect afford- able housing and economically vulnerable residents (Lees et al., 2008).

Whether intentional gentrification is considered beneficial or harmful depends on who is being asked. In interviews with brownfield redevelopment project stakeholders, De Sousa, Wu, and Westphal (2009) found that stakeholders were largely pleased with property value increases in surrounding neighborhoods, and a minority expressed concern over gentrifica- tion. However, the authors found an unequal distribution of parks—one of the most ben- eficial types of redevelopment—among neighborhoods of different income levels. Despite this disparity, the authors described these types of reinvestments as positive for communities (De Sousa et al., 2009).

LEISURE SCIENCES 437

This theme also illuminated the role of neoliberal policies, political power, and public- private partnerships. We adopt a definition of ‘neoliberal’ from Neil Smith (2002), wherein neoliberal urban policies are those driven by the free market and the pursuit of individual self-interest in the form of private property. In some cases, new bike infrastructure (Gibson, 2015) and investment in community gardens (Voicu & Been, 2008) were presented positively as processes leading to benefits for residents. In others, there were descriptions of city poli- cies leading to inequitable distribution of amenities (Wolch et al., 2014) and vulnerable resi- dents being priced out of their neighborhood (Essoka, 2010). For example, Twigge Molecey (2014) described the cultural displacement of long-time residents from neighborhood public spaces, especially parks, after a revamped commercial business district led to an influx of gen- trifiers. Said one interviewee, regarding the loss of cultural spaces: “It’s that the poor have been squeezed out to make room for the rich” (Twigge Molecey, 2014, p. 12). Similarly, Dastrup and Ellen (2016) described experiences of low-income residents who lacked a sense of own- ership of nearby open green spaces and felt as if those spaces were created specifically for their wealthier neighbors. Public housing residents noted their wealthier residents brought in more publicly available green space but “felt somewhat alienated from the new amenities, believ- ing they were designed to serve the higher-income residents that lived in the community” (Dastrup & Ellen, 2016, p. 103). Anguelovski (2016) provided another example of residents feeling excluded when a Boston neighborhood cultural amenity—a specialty store that sold Latino foods—was replaced with an upscale natural food store too costly for many patrons of the prior store. In this instance, Latino residents, who protested the upscale natural food store, felt their political clout paled in comparison to “the “old guard” that benefited from long, loyal relationships with the mayor who welcomed the new store (Anguelovski, 2016, p. 1224). These are examples of neoliberal city-wide policies that can promote gentrification through park and neighborhood environmental investments.

This theme most clearly illustrated the increasingly popular strategy of privatizing public space investments. Because market downturns from the Great Recession reduced municipal government budgets, cities have begun relying in part on private philanthropic investment to help spur tourism and economic development. However, this strategy can keep the power in the hands of the privileged if private funders exclude lower-resourced communities from public space planning, design, and programming.

Theme : Not all gentrification outcomes are negative While displacement, exclusion, and isolation are certainly negative outcomes of gentrifica- tion, there are also positive impacts. These advantages may include reduced crime, improved amenities, and increasing property values. These benefits are not, however, distributed equally. Individuals who are already more privileged are more likely than others to accrue the benefits associated with gentrification.

Branas et al. (2016) found that blight remediation, resulting in new neighborhood green spaces, was significantly correlated with decreased firearm violence. In their description of neighborhood change warning signs, Chapple and Zuk (2016) mention greater access to pub- lic transportation as an amenity brought to gentrifying neighborhoods. Additionally, Tach (2014) reported that community parks were the most socially integrated spaces in the area in which her study took place. This sentiment is illustrated in comments referring to public park in the South End, such as, “I think for Boston it’s one of the few places where you can see everybody together in one place” (Tach, 2014, p. 34). These positive outcomes of gentrifica- tion should not be dismissed but rather must be considered in the context of other, possibly

438 L. E. MULLENBACH AND B. L. BAKER

negative, experiences by long-time residents in changing communities. For instance, the peo- ple who benefit from gentrification are often the least vulnerable residents—those who can afford to stay in an increasingly pricey neighborhood, or who match the incoming residents demographically.

Theme : Environmental gentrification and the policies producing it represent an ethical façade Some cities adopt sustainable development, urban renewal, or brownfield redevelopment ini- tiatives with the intent to improve the environment or access to environmental amenities in under-resourced neighborhoods. Because of the potential for displacement and exclusion, however, this creates a paradox of positive environmental and social goals leading to negative outcomes for already disadvantaged residents. This may be a function of unintended conse- quences, but in some cases sustainable development may be a cover for a goal of gentrification and its associated increases in property values.

Smaller, less-pronounced examples of environmental gentrification have happened else- where across the United States (Gould & Lewis, 2016; Immergluck, 2009). For example, Dool- ing (2009) interviewed homeless people in Seattle, a city that had experienced gentrification, and noted their reliance on public parks as places to live. New residents of the area and city officials seeking to attract development disapproved of parks being used as refuge for home- less people. This led to a city-initiated design project that discouraged homeless dwelling in public parks in the name of ecological health, resulting in the most economically vulnerable citizens being excluded from what was supposed to be a public space.

In other cases, such as the one described by Curran and Hamilton (2012), environmental nonprofits can find themselves at odds with neighborhood associations in pursuit of a cleaner environment if the end goal of the clean-up process is public space that invites gentrification. While promoting environmental sustainability is a worthy cause, environmental improve- ment projects must engage and consider members of all races, classes, and backgrounds.

Theme : Community involvement is necessary to assuage gentrification and exclusion from public spaces This theme described ways in which communities can prevent or mitigate the negative effects of gentrification. Communities can organize to shape development and to resist displace- ment and exclusion, while governments and developers can create planning processes that engage and give voice to residents of areas that are vulnerable to gentrification. This can lead to changes that foster neighborhood improvements without driving displacement and exclusion.

Strong communities with high levels of social capital, social cohesion, agency, and neigh- borhood identity can resist exclusion from public spaces in gentrifying areas (Curran & Hamilton, 2012; McKendry & Janos, 2015). Additionally, a welcoming atmosphere can attenuate the consequences of gentrification. For instance, long-time residents of a gentrified community in Montreal resisted reterritorialization of their public spaces by staking a claim to certain areas of their neighborhood park: “Older and/or poorer people seem to use more peripheral spaces, in both a geographical and perceptual sense” (Bélanger, 2012, p. 40). Sim- ilarly, McKendry and Janos (2015) reported residents’ ability to prevent public green space projects from leading to environmental injustice by using political capital and protesting unfair development. By forming a community advisory group, “with legal access to reports and inclusion in the cleanup process,” residents were able to participate in planning efforts and put forth their own long-term vision for the area (McKendry & Janos, 2015, p. 52).

LEISURE SCIENCES 439

One jarring example of environmental gentrification is the High Line Park in New York. Designers, urban planners, and government officials praise the High Line as a model of civic engagement and historic preservation (Loughran, 2014). However, construction of the High Line and its subsequent international fame have spawned rapid and pronounced gentrification in the surrounding neighborhoods. Residents of the nearby Meatpacking District, previously a working-class area, were priced out and replaced by residents of high-priced condominiums and customers of luxury retail. While much of the initial narrative surrounding the develop- ment of the High Line lauded a community-borne effort to redevelop the former rail line, in reality the founders used their connections with New York’s elite to push through their agenda. The two founders of the High Line sought public input in planning meetings, but the voices of the residents were drowned out by special interests in the mayor’s office and vocal celebrities (Loughran, 2014). As research has shown, users of the High Line are categorically different from nearby residents; instead of performing as a democratic public space, the park has become a tourist attraction bringing in wealthy, well-educated visitors (Reichl, 2016).

As articles related to this theme note, an absence of community engagement—or the type of engagement pursued—in planning and construction unjustly excludes resident voices. As Checker notes in her ethnography (2011), a plan to create new green space in Harlem for the purposes of sustainability was decided “top-down” and did not adequately represent the desires of the community it was intended to serve. That project sought to reconstruct two “pocket” parks into one, larger park that would likely have attracted gentrifiers and economic development. Her ethnography illustrated how residents, primarily minorities, were excluded from planning conversations and were told the new park would be beneficial, allowing the city to meet certain sustainability goals. Yet the city ignored desires of the residents that would be directly impacted by the project.

This theme highlighted the democratic ideals of public resistance and neighborhood activism. In a study by Collins and colleagues (2016), empowered residents found space for both new and long-time residents in their parks and even bridged class divides. To do so, Gibson (2015) asserts that the political capital of more privileged residents must be spent working for the interests of the whole community to achieve equity. Although Chapple and Zuk (2016) noted parks are rarely used as a “warning sign” of gentrification, the authors argue they should be; new parks and green spaces constructed without input from local residents can be exclusionary and spur gentrification (McKendry & Janos, 2015).

Theme : The “just green enough” approach can attenuate environmental gentrification The fifth theme describes the potential of thoughtful, community-engaged planning to result in green spaces that benefit existing residents without spurring gentrification that would dis- place them. This is vital, as a lack of access to health-promoting public spaces is also a social justice issue. Not providing green amenities for fear of driving gentrification perpetuates this injustice.

In the literature review by Wolch et al. (2014), evidence of gentrification catalyzed by “greening” practices was present in the United States and China. Through second-hand geo- graphic information system (GIS) data, Wolch et al. illustrated the environmental injustice of limited access to parks and green space in the United States and China. The notion of creat- ing “just green enough” spaces was put forth as a potential solution to unequal distribution of quality green spaces.

The prime example of the “just green enough” approach was provided by Curran and Hamilton (2012), who reported that the Newtown Creek community contested the often-held

440 L. E. MULLENBACH AND B. L. BAKER

notion that gentrification is inevitable following environmental clean-up. Community mem- bers were integral in planning the Newtown Creek Nature Walk, constructed after cleaning a Superfund site, which established rapport between long-time residents and newer gentrifiers. The Newtown Creek Nature Walk was a demonstration of how communities can fend off real estate speculators and environmental gentrification. As one member of the environmental nonprofit that partnered with local residents put it, they are “not just coming in and fixing the problem and then all the developers come in and benefit from it …people are benefitting from it” (Curran & Hamilton, 2012, p. 1033). The activism from nonprofit members and Brooklyn residents created a public green space meant to serve nearby residents.

An important notion that arose from this theme is that “sustainability” policies can be paradoxical. As discussed by Checker (2011), sustainability policies can overemphasize envi- ronmental sustainability and neglect social sustainability by neglecting to engage community members in the redevelopment. Furthermore, the question remains of whether vulnerable communities must settle for a “just green enough” environment to defend against gentrifica- tion and whether that is a just or fair outcome. Making parks “just green enough” may fend off environmental gentrification, but should lower-income communities be deprived of a higher quality amenity?

Theme : Types of methods and disciplinary approaches had systematic relationships to outcomes and conclusions Just as various disciplines were represented in the sample of articles, a variety of research methods were also represented in the sample. Eleven articles used qualitative methods, six used quantitative methods, four used mixed methods, and the remaining six did not con- duct empirical research (e.g., conceptual piece, literature review). Analysis of these articles illuminated an interesting pattern regarding research methods. Some studies used aggregated social data (e.g., Census data), such as race/ethnicity, income, education, and other demo- graphic characteristics, as they related to other big data, primarily housing and residential information, such as property values, public housing locations, and zoning. Use of these quan- titative methods was associated with positive assessments of gentrification processes. On the other hand, qualitative studies that conducted interviews and/or observations more often focused on individuals’ experiences associated with gentrification, especially cultural shifts in the neighborhood. Qualitative methods were associated with comparatively more negative assessments of gentrification outcomes. Of the studies that used mixed methods, compara- tively more findings were also mixed.

Put another way, articles that classified gentrification outcomes as positive tended to use quantitative methods, a neoliberal framework (i.e., reliance upon the market to drive positive outcomes), and have a narrower focus (e.g., on one outcome variable, such as property val- ues or specific sociodemographic changes). Articles that classified gentrification outcomes as negative tended to use qualitative methods, such as observations, second-hand sources (e.g., newspapers), and key informant interviews. When studies focused on singular outcome vari- ables, such as property values, results may seem more positive than is justified. On the other hand, when Essoka (2010) examined rates of displacement from Environmental Protection Agency-sanctioned brownfield redevelopment, he found that populations vulnerable to envi- ronmental injustice disproportionately experienced gentrification. These conflicting results demonstrate that what research questions are asked, and who is asked, help shape whether gentrification is seen as positive or negative.

LEISURE SCIENCES 441

Table . Evaluations of findings of empirical articles.

Article Evaluation Article Evaluation

Qualitative Methods Quantitative Methods Anguelovski,  – Chapple & Zuk  +/− Belanger  +/− Eckerd,  + Checker  – Essoka,  +/− Collins, et al.  +/− Reichl,  – Curran & Hamilton  + Voicu & Been  + Dooling,  – Mixed Methods Gibson,  – Beauregard,  +/− Iglitzin,  – Dastrup & Gould  +/− McKendry & Janos  – De Sousa et al.,  + Tach,  +/− Sharaievska, et al.  – Twigge Molecey,  –

Note. Evaluations marked +/− indicate the study presented outcomes that were both positive and negative.

Thus, use of certain methods, frameworks, or disciplinary orientations may have indirectly influenced findings reported in this sample. When viewed from a purely economic or neolib- eral perspective, gentrification outcomes, particularly increased property values, may seem positive (e.g., Voicu & Been, 2008). When viewed from a social justice perspective, gentrifica- tion may seem negative, especially in cases of displacement and exclusion (e.g., McKendry & Janos, 2015). Table 2 summarizes positive and negative evaluations of gentrification outcomes within the reviewed articles.

Discussion

This systematic review yielded a greater understanding of how city policies may contribute to environmental gentrification (see Themes 1 and 3). Much of the literature is in agreement that community input is vital to avoid negative gentrification outcomes (see Theme 4). The process of seeking community input must occur carefully, as many areas vulnerable to envi- ronmental injustice have less power and political voice (Boyce, Klemer, Templet, & Willis, 1999; Pastor, 2003; Portney & Berry, 1997). However, buffering of these vulnerable communi- ties from environmental gentrification can be successful, in cases where parks are “just green enough” (see Theme 5).

The role of leisure research

Given calls for leisure scholars to focus on social justice and environmental justice issues (e.g., Floyd et al., 2008), it is surprising to note how few leisure scholars have conducted research on gentrification. While some research has been done on individuals’ perceptions of land- scape change (Glover, Stewart, & Gladdys, 2008), this has yet to extend to landscape change in evolving urban areas. Several recent articles published in leisure journals have encour- aged researchers to pursue social justice and inclusion within leisure contexts (Glover, 2015; Henderson, 2014; Stewart, 2014). Henderson (2014) implored her fellow leisure scholars to conduct leisure research with an environmental justice lens, stating that “all researchers can and should have a role in addressing how leisure research can change social systems and lead to justice” (p. 345).

442 L. E. MULLENBACH AND B. L. BAKER

Even though many articles in this review discussed how environmental gentrification impacts use of leisure spaces, leisure scholars were the minority of the authors. Leisure schol- ars can—and have an obligation to—contribute to discussions of gentrification. We have paid little attention to environmental gentrification, despite possessing theories and approaches appropriate for such study. The experiences of park users, for example, cannot be measured with traditional big data, such as property values, demographics, or residential mobility. How- ever, assessing the park social environment and constraints to participation in recreation are two specific ways to contribute. Additionally, broader sociological investigations of park sys- tems will capture the experiences and perspectives of people living through environmental gentrification and can highlight possibilities for improving outcomes.

Another area where leisure scholars can contribute is evaluating “place-making” initiatives. Processes associated with gentrification impact more than real estate and property values; this study showed that gentrification can lead to discrimination in parks (Sharaievska, Stodolska, Shinew, & Kim, 2010), feelings of exclusion from public spaces (Bélanger, 2012), and threats to the democratic nature of public space (Reichl, 2016). We have clear opportunities to better understand the psychological displacement that occurs from environmental gentrification. How did residents use the public space before its renovation? How effective was the commu- nity engagement during the planning process? How have things changed in the aftermath of investment—do long-time residents mingle with newcomers, or is the park or green space segregated? Addressing these research questions could help further understand the impacts of environmental gentrification.

Opportunities for collaboration

Environmental gentrification is a complex issue that requires multiple disciplinary perspec- tives. Thus, opportunities for leisure scholars to pair with colleagues from other disciplines should be pursued. As cities increasingly implement place-making initiatives or employ neoliberal planning and zoning, gentrification will continue, and the consequences described in this sample of articles will continue. The expertise of many fields will help find solutions to issues associated with gentrification.

Examples of successful policies that ward off negative gentrification outcomes may exist but seldom appear in academic literature. For example, a promising initiative in Philadelphia, known as Rebuild Philadelphia, to renovate public schools, parks, libraries, and community centers is proactively seeking minority, female, and local contractors to carry out renovations. Additionally, Rebuild is investing considerable resources in soliciting input from residents whom these public spaces will serve. The targeted locations are dispersed across the city; a strategy that seeks to mitigate gentrification, as many areas—rather than just one—become more desirable. Initiatives such as this one have rarely been empirically evaluated and pub- lished in academic literature. Similarly, leisure researchers can and should partner with urban planning, public policy, and community development researchers to assess such innovative policies.

Future research

Addressing the sixth theme of this study, future research should use a combination of qualita- tive and quantitative methods to increase the probability of including a variety of perspectives. Multiple research methods are recommended to elicit the complexity of gentrification and accommodate diverse perspectives. For instance, qualitative methods may not capture broad

LEISURE SCIENCES 443

changes, such as increasing tax revenues, and therefore lead to disproportionately negative assessments of gentrification. On the other hand, studies using aggregated, depersonalized data can lead to disproportionately positive assessments of gentrification. Studies that do not account for who has the income, the power, or the increased property values can lead to false assumptions that gentrification provides only positive outcomes for residents (Slater, 2009). In employing multiple research methods, researchers may capture a broader range of potential outcomes.

To extend leisure scholarship’s relevance in the future, the issue of environmental gentrifi- cation must be addressed. Gentrifying areas present opportunities for new research questions. For example, we can ask how the neighborhood social environment changes following reno- vated leisure spaces. How did the investments affect social capital? Did investing in the civic commons lead to greater social integration, or did it leave people out? We can also ask how res- idents engage in programming and events following these investments. Do large-scale invest- ments lead to greater participation and use? Is there increased interaction between long-time users and new users of leisure spaces?

Finally, a wider variety of environmental settings must be studied. Although this system- atic review was limited to North America, it only uncovered articles from 12 cities, and four studies were completed in New York City alone. A larger number and variety of places must be studied to expand our understanding of the phenomenon of gentrification. As the effects of gentrification extend beyond housing and residential change to include the environmental gentrification of public spaces, it is especially important to broaden the location of research (Hamnett, 2003).

Conclusion

While this review addresses an important issue, it is also recognized that urban environmen- tal gentrification is just one example of processes that marginalize and displace vulnerable populations (see Borras & Franco, 2010 and Zoomers, 2010). Nevertheless, it remains use- ful and important to thoroughly understand the issue of environmental gentrification mov- ing forward. This review revealed that successful practices and designs are those that con- sider the viewpoints of marginalized groups, those that carefully consider consequences of development aimed at imaginary future residents, and those that plan for long-term program- ming and community engagement. Leisure scholars can evaluate these practices and in this way respond to Johnson (2014) by engaging in ongoing discussions of social justice issues. In reviewing prior literature, this study affirmed that gentrification can lead to displacement from public spaces, in addition to displacement from housing. Social justice-oriented leisure scholars are beginning to take note (Johnson & Glover, 2013; Shinew, Glover, & Parry, 2004). To the extent that urban planning strategies are resulting in marginalization, a discipline that purports to fight social injustice must step up to find better alternatives for those strategies. By understanding the problems, potential solutions, and success stories, this systematic review provides a step toward reaching those lofty goals.

References

Anguelovski, I. (2016). Healthy food stores, greenlining and food gentrification: Contesting new forms of privilege, displacement and locally unwanted land uses in racially mixed neighborhoods. Inter- national Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 39(6), 1209–1230.

444 L. E. MULLENBACH AND B. L. BAKER

Atkinson, R. (2002). Does gentrification help or harm urban neighbourhoods?: An assessment of the evidence-base in the context of new urban agenda. Bristol, England: ESRC Centre for Neighbour- hood Research.

Atkinson, R. (2003). Introduction: Misunderstood savior or vengeful wrecker? The many meanings and problems of gentrification. Urban Studies, 40(12), 2343–2350.

Beauregard, R. A. (1990). Trajectories of neighborhood change: The case of gentrification. Environment and planning A, 22(7), 855–874.

Bélanger, H. (2012). The meaning of the built environment during gentrification in Canada. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 27(1), 31–47.

Borras, S., & Franco, J. (2010). Towards a broader view of the politics of global land grab: Rethinking land issues, reframing resistance. Initiatives in Critical Agrarian Studies Working Paper Series, 1, 1–39.

Boyce, J. K., Klemer, A. R., Templet, P. H., & Willis, C. E. (1999). Power distribution, the environment, and public health: A state-level analysis. Ecological Economics, 29(1), 127–140.

Branas, C. C., Kondo, M. C., Murphy, S. M., South, E. C., Polsky, D., & MacDonald, J. M. (2016). Urban blight remediation as a cost-beneficial solution to firearm violence. American Journal of Public Health, 106(12), 2158–2164.

Campbell Coalition. (n.d.). What is a systematic review? Retrieved from http://www.camp bellcollaboration.org/what_is_a_systematic_review/

Chapple, K., & Zuk, M. (2016). Forewarned: The use of neighborhood early warning systems for gentri- fication and displacement. Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research, 18(3), 109–130.

Checker, M. (2011). Wiped out by the “greenwave”: Environmental gentrification and the paradoxical politics of urban sustainability. City & Society, 23(2), 210–229.

Collins, B., & Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (2016). Skid row, gallery row and the space in between: Cultural revitalisation and its impacts on two Los Angeles neighbourhoods. Town Planning Review, 87(4), 401–427.

Curran, W., & Hamilton, T. (2012). Just green enough: Contesting environmental gentrification in Greenpoint, Brooklyn. Local Environment, 17(9), 1027–1042.

Cutter, S. L. (1995). Race, class, and environmental justice. Progress in Human Geography, 19(1), 111–122.

Dahmann, N., Wolch, J., Joassart-Marcelli, P., Reynolds, K., & Jerrett, M. (2010). The active city? Dis- parities in provision of urban public recreation resources. Health & Place, 16(3), 431–445.

Dastrup, S., & Ellen, I. G. (2016). Linking residents to opportunity: Gentrification and public housing. Cityscape, 18(3), 87–107.

De Sousa, C. A., Wu, C., & Westphal, L. M. (2009). Assessing the effect of publicly assisted brownfield redevelopment on surrounding property values. Economic Development Quarterly, 23(2), 95–110.

Delaney, D. (2004). Tracing displacements: Or evictions in the nomosphere. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 22(6), 847–860.

Dooling, S. (2009). Ecological gentrification: A research agenda exploring justice in the city. Interna- tional Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 33(3), 621–639.

Eckerd, A. (2011). Cleaning up without clearing out? A spatial assessment of environmental gentrifica- tion. Urban Affairs Review, 47(1), 31–59.

Essoka, J. D. (2010). The gentrifying effects of brownfields redevelopment. Western Journal of Black Studies, 34(3), 299–315.

Floyd, M. F., Bocarro, J. N., & Thompson, T. D. (2008). Research on race and ethnicity in leisure studies: A review of five major journals. Journal of Leisure Research, 40(1), 1–22. doi:10.1080/00222216.2008.11950130

Floyd, M. F., & Johnson, C. Y. (2002). Coming to terms with environmental justice in outdoor recreation: A conceptual discussion with research implications. Leisure Sciences, 24(1), 59–77. doi:10.1080/01490400252772836

Freeman, L. (2006). There goes the ‘hood: Views of gentrification from the ground up. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Gibson, T. A. (2015). The rise and fall of Adrian Fenty, mayor-triathlete: Cycling, gentrification and class politics in Washington, DC. Leisure Studies, 34(2), 230–249. doi:10.1080/02614367.2013.855940

Glover, T. D. (2015). Leisure research for social impact. Journal of Leisure Research, 47(1), 1–14. doi:10.1080/00222216.2015.11950348

LEISURE SCIENCES 445

Glover, T. D., Stewart, W. P., & Gladdys, K. (2008). Social ethics of landscape change: Toward community-based land-use planning. Qualitative Inquiry, 14(3), 384–401. doi:10.1177/1077800407309409

Gordon-Larsen, P., Nelson, M. C., Page, P., & Popkin, B. M. (2006). Inequality in the built environ- ment underlies key health disparities in physical activity and obesity. Pediatrics, 117(2), 417–424. doi:10.1542/peds.2005-0058

Gould, K. A., & Lewis, T. L. (2016). Green gentrification: Urban sustainability and the struggle for envi- ronmental justice. Abingdon, England: Routledge.

Haase, D., Kabisch, S., Haase, A., Andersson, E., Banzhaf, E., Baró, F., … & Krellenberg, K. (2017). Greening cities–To be socially inclusive? About the alleged paradox of society and ecology in cities. Habitat International, 64, 41–48.

Hamnett, C. (2003). Gentrification and the middle-class remaking of inner London, 1961–2001. Urban studies, 40(12), 2401–2426. doi:10.1080/0042098032000136138

Henderson, K. A. (2014). The imperative of leisure justice research. Leisure Sciences, 36(4), 340–348. doi:10.1080/01490400.2014.916971

Heynen, N., Perkins, H. A., & Roy, P. (2006). The political ecology of uneven urban green space the impact of political economy on race and ethnicity in producing environmental inequality in Mil- waukee. Urban Affairs Review, 42(1), 3–25. doi:10.1177/1078087406290729

Iglitzin, L. B. (1995). The Seattle commons. Policy Studies Journal, 23(4), 620–635. doi:10.1111/j.1541- 0072.1995.tb00538.x

Immergluck, D. (2009). Large redevelopment initiatives, housing values and gentrification: The case of the Atlanta Beltline. Urban Studies, 46(8), 1723–1745. doi:10.1177/0042098009105500

Jennings, V., Floyd, M. F., Shanahan, D., Coutts, C., & Sinykin, A. (2017). Emerging issues in urban ecology: Implications for research, social justice, human health, and well-being. Population and Environment, 39(1), 69–86. doi:10.1007/s11111-017-0276-0

Jennings, V., Johnson Gaither, C., & Gragg, R. S. (2012). Promoting environmental justice through urban green space access: A synopsis. Environmental Justice, 5(1), 1–7. doi:10.1089/env.2011.0007

Joassart-Marcelli, P. (2010). Leveling the playing field? Urban disparities in funding for local parks and recreation in the Los Angeles region. Environment and Planning A, 42(5), 1174–1192. doi:10.1068/a42198

Johnson, A. J., & Glover, T. D. (2013). Understanding urban public space in a leisure context. Leisure Sciences, 35(2), 190–197. doi:10.1080/01490400.2013.761922

Johnson, C. W. (2014). “All you need is love”: Considerations for a social justice inquiry in leisure studies. Leisure Sciences, 36(4), 388–399. doi:10.1080/01490400.2014.917006

Johnson-Gaither, C. (2011). Latino park access: Examining environmental equity in a new destination county in the South. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 29(4), 37–52.

Lang, S., & Rothenberg, J. (2017). Neoliberal urbanism, public space, and the greening of the growth of the growth machine: New York City’s High Line Park. Environment and Planning, 49, 1743–1761. doi:10.1177/0308518X16677969

Lees, L. (2003a). Super-gentrification: The case of Brooklyn Heights, New York City. Urban Studies, 40(12), 2487–2509. doi:10.1080/0042098032000136174

Lees, L., Slater, T., & Wyly, E. (2008). Gentrification. New York, NY: Routledge. Loughran, K. (2014). Parks for profit: The High Line, growth machines, and the uneven development

of urban public spaces. City & Community, 13(1), 49–68. doi:10.1111/cico.12050 Marcuse, P. (2016). Gentrification, social justice, and personal ethics. International Journal of Urban and

Regional Research, 39(6), 1263–1269. doi:10.1111/1468-2427.12319 McKendry, C., & Janos, N. (2015). Greening the industrial city: Equity, environment, and economic

growth in Seattle and Chicago. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Eco- nomics, 15(1), 45–60. doi:10.1007/s10784-014-9267-0

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A method sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), 1–6. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097

Mowen, A. J., & Rung, A. L. (2016). Park-based social capital: Are there variations across visitors with different socio-demographic characteristics and behaviors? Leisure/Loisir, 40(3), 297–324. doi:10.1080/14927713.2016.1253178

446 L. E. MULLENBACH AND B. L. BAKER

Pastor, M. (2003). Building social capital to protect natural capital: The quest for environmental jus- tice. In Natural assets: Democratizing environmental ownership (pp. 77–97). Washington, DC: Island Press.

Pearsall, H. (2010). From brown to green? Assessing social vulnerability to environmental gentrifi- cation in New York City. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 28(5), 872–886. doi:10.1068/c08126

Phillips, M. (1993). Rural gentrification and the processes of class colonisation. Journal of Rural Studies, 9(2), 123–140. doi:10.1016/0743-0167(93)90026-G

Portney, K. E., & Berry, J. M. (1997). Mobilizing minority communities: Social capital and participation in urban neighborhoods. American Behavioral Scientist, 40(5), 632–644. doi:10.1177/0002764297040005009

Reichl, A. J. (2016). The High Line and the ideal of democratic public space. Urban Geography, 37(6), 904–925. doi:10.1080/02723638.2016.1152843

Rigolon, A. (2016). A complex landscape of inequity in access to urban parks: A literature review. Land- scape and Urban Planning, 153, 160–169. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.05.017

Sharaievska, I., Stodolska, M., Shinew, K. J., & Kim, J. (2010). Perceived discrimination in leisure settings in Latino urban communities. Leisure/Loisir, 34(3), 295–326. doi:10.1080/14927713.2010.521319

Shaw, S., & Sullivan, D. M. (2011). “White night”: Gentrification, racial exclusion, and perceptions and participation in the arts. City & Community, 10(3), 241–264. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6040.2011.01373.x

Shinew, K. J., Floyd, M. F., & Parry, D. C. (2004). Understanding the relationship between race and leisure activities and constraints: Exploring an alternative framework. Leisure Sciences, 26(2), 181– 199. doi:10.1080/01490400490432109

Shinew, K. J., Glover, T. D., & Parry, D. C. (2004). Leisure spaces as potential sites for interra- cial interaction: Community gardens in urban areas. Journal of Leisure Research, 36(3), 336–355. doi:10.1080/00222216.2004.11950027

Slater, T. (2009). Missing Marcuse: On gentrification and displacement. City, 13(2-3), 292–311. doi:10.1080/13604810902982250

Smith, N. (1987). Gentrification and the rent gap. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 77(3), 462–465. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8306.1987.tb00171.x

Smith, N. (2002). New globalism, new urbanism: Gentrification as global urban strategy. Antipode, 34, 427–450. doi:10.1111/1467-8330.00249

Stewart, W. (2014). Leisure research to enhance social justice. Leisure Sciences, 36, 325–339. doi:10.1080/01490400.2014.916961

Tach, L. M. (2014). Diversity, inequality, and microsegregation: Dynamics of inclusion and exclusion in a racially and economically diverse community. Cityscape, 16(3), 13.

Twigge Molecey, A. (2014). Exploring resident experiences of indirect displacement in a neighbour- hood undergoing gentrification: The case of Saint-Henri in Montreal. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 23(1), 1–22.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). Overview of the brownfields program. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/brownfields/overview-brownfields-program

Voicu, I., & Been, V. (2008). The effect of community gardens on neighboring property values. Real Estate Economics, 36(2), 241–283. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6229.2008.00213.x

Wolch, J. R., Byrne, J., & Newell, J. P. (2014). Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities “just green enough.” Landscape and Urban Planning, 125, 234–244. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.01.017

Zoomers, A. (2010). Globalisation and the foreignisation of space: Seven processes driving the current global land grab. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 37(2), 429–447. doi:10.1080/03066151003595325

LEISURE SCIENCES 447