Gentrification, Cars, and Cancer
Author: Jared N. Schachner
Article: “Is Gentrification a Carcinogen? Neighborhood Change and Cancerous Vehicle Emissions in Los Angeles County”
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2022.2099936
Date of Publication: 4 July 2022
Does gentrification increase the level of cancer risk among neighborhood residents?
Existing research suggests a complicated relationship between gentrification and health. Some studies have shown that the increase in affluence characteristic of gentrification improves access to resources and amenities within a neighborhood, resulting in improved health outcomes (Candipan et al., 2022; Gibbons, 2019). Others find that the same process results in the alienation and displacement of existing residents, who subsequently suffer worse health outcomes (Agbai, 2021; Gibbons et al., 2018; Gibbons & Barton, 2016). Still others find that gentrification’s health implications vary depending on each neighborhood’s initial socio-demographic composition.
Jared Schachner’s research brings precision to this muddled picture by proposing a connection between gentrification and a specific health outcome that is one of the world’s leading causes of death: cancer. In “Is Gentrification a Carcinogen? Neighborhood Change and Cancerous Vehicle Emissions in Los Angeles County”, Schachner, inspired by previous research on air pollution-cancer risk by the National Cancer Institute 2020, hypothesizes that with gentrification comes an influx of wealthier residents—and their large, air-polluting vehicles—to the neighborhood, resulting in higher cancer risk among the residents who remain there.
Methods
To test his hypothesis, Schachner uses data on 900 census tracts in Los Angeles County in 2000 through the early 2010s, drawn from the census, Environmental Protection Agency’s National Air Toxics Assessment, and the Urban Displacement Project. Los Angeles was strategically chosen as a strategic case study as it is emblematic of post-industrial, automobile-dependent cities, where vehicle emissions account for a high percentage of air pollution—higher than manufacturing-related emissions (Karagulian et al., 2015; see also EPA, 2015). Schachner chose one such city, Los Angeles, to test his hypothesis.
Applying the Urban Displacement Project’s wide-used criteria, Los Angeles County tracts were assessed to have gentrified if, in 2000, they:
To measure the evolution of cancer risk levels in the 900 Los Angeles census tracts, Schachner used EPA estimates for the tract-level probability that an average resident will develop cancer within their lifetime (roughly 70 years) based on exposure to toxins from local sources and weather conditions. To measure vehicle density, he divides the aggregate number of vehicles associated with households residing in a given census tract by the tract’s area in square miles. Both the cancer risk and vehicle density measures were tracked twice: once in the early 2000s and again in the early 2010s.
Schachner then tests whether gentrification and changes in vehicle density coincide with increased cancer risk as hypothesized, while controlling for tracts’ population density and sociodemographic characteristics. The model also includes census place fixed effects to ensure that the observed relationship is occurring at the neighborhood level, and not the result of changes unfolding at larger scales.
Results
As Schachner predicted, Los Angeles neighborhoods that gentrified between 2002 and 2011 saw their estimated cancer risk levels grow by half a standard deviation more than neighborhoods that did not gentrify during this period– whether they were disadvantaged or affluent areas in the early 2000s. The comparison in cancer risk level trajectories between neighborhoods that gentrified and those that remained stably disadvantaged is especially stark, since the two types of neighborhoods exhibited very similar cancer risk levels in the early 2000s. Vehicle density greatly increased in gentrifying neighborhoods during this time, as well—at twice the rate of non-gentrifying neighborhoods within the county. In multivariate models, vehicle density appears to explain nearly half of the increase in gentrifying tracts’ cancer risk rates.
Schachner acknowledges limitations to the study, suggesting further research into other gentrification-related factors that could also play a role in driving cancer risk, such as the number and quality of local health clinics that offer preventive care. However, by revealing links between gentrification, vehicles, and cancer, this research makes a number of important contributions.
First, it shows that even setting aside displacement’s negative effects, gentrification can harm health in other ways. Second, it suggests that gentrification has health consequences that will not be addressed solely through the lens of housing affordability. Instead, policymakers must also consider whether public transportation, walkability, and tree canopy are needed to mitigate gentrification’s negative effects.
Author: Jared N. Schachner
Article: “Is Gentrification a Carcinogen? Neighborhood Change and Cancerous Vehicle Emissions in Los Angeles County”
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2022.2099936
Date of Publication: 4 July 2022
Does gentrification increase the level of cancer risk among neighborhood residents?
Existing research suggests a complicated relationship between gentrification and health. Some studies have shown that the increase in affluence characteristic of gentrification improves access to resources and amenities within a neighborhood, resulting in improved health outcomes (Candipan et al., 2022; Gibbons, 2019). Others find that the same process results in the alienation and displacement of existing residents, who subsequently suffer worse health outcomes (Agbai, 2021; Gibbons et al., 2018; Gibbons & Barton, 2016). Still others find that gentrification’s health implications vary depending on each neighborhood’s initial socio-demographic composition.
Jared Schachner’s research brings precision to this muddled picture by proposing a connection between gentrification and a specific health outcome that is one of the world’s leading causes of death: cancer. In “Is Gentrification a Carcinogen? Neighborhood Change and Cancerous Vehicle Emissions in Los Angeles County”, Schachner, inspired by previous research on air pollution-cancer risk by the National Cancer Institute 2020, hypothesizes that with gentrification comes an influx of wealthier residents—and their large, air-polluting vehicles—to the neighborhood, resulting in higher cancer risk among the residents who remain there.
Methods
To test his hypothesis, Schachner uses data on 900 census tracts in Los Angeles County in 2000 through the early 2010s, drawn from the census, Environmental Protection Agency’s National Air Toxics Assessment, and the Urban Displacement Project. Los Angeles was strategically chosen as a strategic case study as it is emblematic of post-industrial, automobile-dependent cities, where vehicle emissions account for a high percentage of air pollution—higher than manufacturing-related emissions (Karagulian et al., 2015; see also EPA, 2015). Schachner chose one such city, Los Angeles, to test his hypothesis.
Applying the Urban Displacement Project’s wide-used criteria, Los Angeles County tracts were assessed to have gentrified if, in 2000, they:
- (a) had housing costs below the county median
- (b) at least two of the following—a higher-than-median percentage of low-income, non-White, or renting residents, or a below-median percentage of college-educated residents
- (c) by 2012, they exceeded the county median for percentage of college-educated residents, income, and housing costs.
To measure the evolution of cancer risk levels in the 900 Los Angeles census tracts, Schachner used EPA estimates for the tract-level probability that an average resident will develop cancer within their lifetime (roughly 70 years) based on exposure to toxins from local sources and weather conditions. To measure vehicle density, he divides the aggregate number of vehicles associated with households residing in a given census tract by the tract’s area in square miles. Both the cancer risk and vehicle density measures were tracked twice: once in the early 2000s and again in the early 2010s.
Schachner then tests whether gentrification and changes in vehicle density coincide with increased cancer risk as hypothesized, while controlling for tracts’ population density and sociodemographic characteristics. The model also includes census place fixed effects to ensure that the observed relationship is occurring at the neighborhood level, and not the result of changes unfolding at larger scales.
Results
As Schachner predicted, Los Angeles neighborhoods that gentrified between 2002 and 2011 saw their estimated cancer risk levels grow by half a standard deviation more than neighborhoods that did not gentrify during this period– whether they were disadvantaged or affluent areas in the early 2000s. The comparison in cancer risk level trajectories between neighborhoods that gentrified and those that remained stably disadvantaged is especially stark, since the two types of neighborhoods exhibited very similar cancer risk levels in the early 2000s. Vehicle density greatly increased in gentrifying neighborhoods during this time, as well—at twice the rate of non-gentrifying neighborhoods within the county. In multivariate models, vehicle density appears to explain nearly half of the increase in gentrifying tracts’ cancer risk rates.
Schachner acknowledges limitations to the study, suggesting further research into other gentrification-related factors that could also play a role in driving cancer risk, such as the number and quality of local health clinics that offer preventive care. However, by revealing links between gentrification, vehicles, and cancer, this research makes a number of important contributions.
First, it shows that even setting aside displacement’s negative effects, gentrification can harm health in other ways. Second, it suggests that gentrification has health consequences that will not be addressed solely through the lens of housing affordability. Instead, policymakers must also consider whether public transportation, walkability, and tree canopy are needed to mitigate gentrification’s negative effects.
About the Author:
Jared N. Schachner is a Postdoctoral Research Associate at USC’s Sol Price School of Public Policy, where he is affili- ated with the Sol Price Center for Social Innovation. An urban sociologist by training, his research examines whether and how neighborhoods and schools mediate the intergenerational transmission of skills, health, and status.
Works Cited:
Agbai, C. O. (2021). Shifting neighborhoods, shifting health: A longitudinal analysis of gentrification and health in Los Angeles County. Social Science Research, 100, 102603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2021.102603
Candipan, J., Riley, A. R., & Easley, J. A. (2022). While some things change, do others stay the same? The heterogen- eity of neighborhood health returns to gentrification. Housing Policy Debate, 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10511482.2022.2076715
Gibbons, J. (2019). Are gentrifying neighborhoods more stressful? A multilevel analysis of self-rated stress. SSM -
Population Health, 7, 100358–100359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2019.100358
Gibbons, J., Barton, M., & Brault, E. (2018). Evaluating gentrification’s relation to neighborhood and city health. PLOS
ONE. 13(11):e0207432. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207432
Gibbons, J., & Barton, M. S. (2016). The association of minority self-rated health with black versus white gentrifica-
tion. Journal of Urban Health : Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 93(6), 909–922. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11524-016-0087-0.
Jared N. Schachner is a Postdoctoral Research Associate at USC’s Sol Price School of Public Policy, where he is affili- ated with the Sol Price Center for Social Innovation. An urban sociologist by training, his research examines whether and how neighborhoods and schools mediate the intergenerational transmission of skills, health, and status.
Works Cited:
Agbai, C. O. (2021). Shifting neighborhoods, shifting health: A longitudinal analysis of gentrification and health in Los Angeles County. Social Science Research, 100, 102603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2021.102603
Candipan, J., Riley, A. R., & Easley, J. A. (2022). While some things change, do others stay the same? The heterogen- eity of neighborhood health returns to gentrification. Housing Policy Debate, 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10511482.2022.2076715
Gibbons, J. (2019). Are gentrifying neighborhoods more stressful? A multilevel analysis of self-rated stress. SSM -
Population Health, 7, 100358–100359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2019.100358
Gibbons, J., Barton, M., & Brault, E. (2018). Evaluating gentrification’s relation to neighborhood and city health. PLOS
ONE. 13(11):e0207432. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207432
Gibbons, J., & Barton, M. S. (2016). The association of minority self-rated health with black versus white gentrifica-
tion. Journal of Urban Health : Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 93(6), 909–922. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11524-016-0087-0.