The annual gentrification map for NYC was produced using the classification method proposed in this experiment to highlight the spatial and temporal distribution of gentrification. The time-series gentrification maps illustrate areas experienced gentrification since 2000. The data was aggregated to Census tract level for displaying a visually friendly result. The raw building level data is also provided but not presented in the paper since it is not readable using the static map.

Map shows gentrification typology by census tract based off the 2018 UT Uprooted report. Census tracts are divided into categories of susceptible, early type 1, dynamic, late, continued loss, missing home value data, and other, based on neighborhood vulnerability, demographic change, and housing market conditions.

The Gentrification, Urban Interventions, and Equity (GENUINE) Tool is a map-based gentrification tool for Canadian metro areas. The primary envisioned use for GENUINE is policy evaluation and research studies that assess the potential health and societal impacts of gentrification processes. Accompanying maps for each Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) are published online. The mapping platform simultaneously shows four gentrification measures for each CMA, facilitating comparisons between measures. We developed GENUINE to integrate gentrification measures relevant to the Canadian context, adapting four published gentrification measures that have been applied to U.S. and Canadian census data. We computed these measures for all 36 Canadian CMAs to illustrate where gentrification occurred between 2006 and 2016. The GENUINE data were developed by Caislin Firth, Benoit Thierry, Daniel Fuller, Meghan Winters, and Yan Kestens, as part of the gentrification workgroup of INTErventions, Research, and Action in Cities Team with funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. GENUINE measures have been developed using 2006 and 2016 census tract areas to identify areas that have gentrified by 2016. Please refer to the Technical Document for methods used to calculate each gentrification measure. GENUINE data were linked to all 2016 six-digit DMTI spatial single link postal code locations in Canada by CANUE staff. NOTE: all postal codes within a Census Tract are assigned the same value. Summing data is not appropriate. Original census tract data can be downloaded directly from links provided in the technical documentation.

This dataset contains files created, digitized, or georeferenced by Chris DeRolph for mapping the pre-urban renewal community within the boundaries of the Riverfront-Willow St. and Mountain View urban renewal projects in Knoxville TN. Detailed occupant information for properties within boundaries of these two urban renewal projects was extracted from the 1953 Knoxville City Directory. The year 1953 was chosen as a representative snapshot of the Black community before urban renewal projects were implemented. The first urban renewal project to be approved was the Riverfront-Willow Street project, which was approved in 1954 according to the University of Richmond Renewing Inequality project titled ‘Family Displacements through Urban Renewal, 1950-1966’ (link below in the 'Other shapefiles' section). For ArcGIS Online users, the shapefile and tiff layers are available in AGOL and can be found by clicking the ellipsis next to the layer name and selecting 'Show item details' for the layers in this webmap https://knoxatlas.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=43a66c3cfcde4f5f8e7ab13af9bbcebecityDirectory1953 is a folder that contains:JPG images of 1953 City Directory for street segments within the urban renewal project boundaries; images collected at the McClung Historical CollectionTXT files of extracted text from each image that was used to join occupant information from directory to GIS address datashp is a folder that contains the following shapefiles:Residential:Black_owned_residential_1953.shp: residential entries in the 1953 City Directory identified as Black and property ownersBlack_rented_residential_1953.shp: residential entries in the 1953 City Directory identified as Black and non-owners of the propertyNon_Black_owned_residential_1953.shp: residential entries in the 1953 City Directory identified as property owners that were not listed as BlackNon_Black_rented_residential_1953.shp: residential entries in the 1953 City Directory not listed as Black or property ownersResidential shapefile attributes:cityDrctryString: full text string from 1953 City Directory entryfileName: name of TXT file that contains the information for the street segmentsOccupant: the name of the occupant listed in the City Directory, enclosed in square brackets []Number: the address number listed in the 1953 City DirectoryBlackOccpt: flag for whether the occupant was identified in the City Directory as Black, designated by the (c) or (e) character string in the cityDrctryString fieldOwnerOccpd: flag for whether the occupant was identified in the City Directory as the property owner, designated by the @ character in the cityDrctryString fieldUnit: unit if listed (e.g. Apt 1, 2d fl, b'ment, etc)streetName: street name in ~1953Lat: latitude coordinate in decimal degrees for the property locationLon: longitude coordinate in decimal degrees for the property locationrace_own: combines the BlackOccpt and OwnerOccpd fieldsmapLabel: combines the Number and Occupant fields for map labeling purposeslastName: occupant's last namelabelShort: combines the Number and lastName fields for map labeling purposesNon-residential:Black_nonResidential_1953.shp: non-residential entries in the 1953 City Directory listed as Black-occupiedNonBlack_nonResidential_1953.shp: non-residential entries in the 1953 City Directory not listed as Black-occupiedNon-residential shapefile attributes:cityDrctryString: full text string from 1953 City Directory entryfileName: name of TXT file that contains the information for the street segmentsOccupant: the name of the occupant listed in the City Directory, enclosed in square brackets []Number: the address number listed in the 1953 City DirectoryBlackOccpt: flag for whether the occupant was identified in the City Directory as Black, designated by the (c) or (e) character string in the cityDrctryString fieldOwnerOccpd: flag for whether the occupant was identified in the City Directory as the property owner, designated by the @ character in the cityDrctryString fieldUnit: unit if listed (e.g. Apt 1, 2d fl, b'ment, etc)streetName: street name in ~1953Lat: latitude coordinate in decimal degrees for the property locationLon: longitude coordinate in decimal degrees for the property locationNAICS6: 2022 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) six-digit business code, designated by Chris DeRolph rapidly and without careful considerationNAICS6title: NAICS6 title/short descriptionNAICS3: 2022 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) three-digit business code, designated by Chris DeRolph rapidly and without careful considerationNAICS3title: NAICS3 title/short descriptionflag: flags whether the occupant is part of the public sector or an NGO; a flag of '0' indicates the occupant is assumed to be a privately-owned businessrace_own: combines the BlackOccpt and OwnerOccpd fieldsmapLabel: combines the Number and Occupant fields for map labeling purposesOther shapefiles:razedArea_1972.shp: approximate area that appears to have been razed during urban renewal based on visual overlay of usgsImage_grayscale_1956.tif and usgsImage_colorinfrared_1972.tif; digitized by Chris DeRolphroadNetwork_preUrbanRenewal.shp: road network present in urban renewal area before razing occurred; removed attribute indicates whether road was removed or remains today; historically removed roads were digitized by Chris DeRolph; remaining roads sourced from TDOT GIS roads dataTheBottom.shp: the approximate extent of the razed neighborhood known as The Bottom; digitized by Chris DeRolphUrbanRenewalProjects.shp: boundaries of the East Knoxville urban renewal projects, as mapped by the University of Richmond's Digital Scholarship Lab https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/renewal/#view=0/0/1&viz=cartogram&city=knoxvilleTN&loc=15/35.9700/-83.9080tiff is a folder that contains the following images:streetMap_1952.tif: relevant section of 1952 map 'Knoxville Tennessee and Surrounding Area'; copyright by J.U.G. Rich and East Tenn Auto Club; drawn by R.G. Austin; full map accessed at McClung Historical Collection, 601 S Gay St, Knoxville, TN 37902; used as reference for street names in roadNetwork_preUrbanRenewal.shp; georeferenced by Chris DeRolphnewsSentinelRdMap_1958.tif: urban renewal area map from 1958 Knox News Sentinel article; used as reference for street names in roadNetwork_preUrbanRenewal.shp; georeferenced by Chris DeRolphusgsImage_grayscale_1956.tif: May 18, 1956 black-and-white USGS aerial photograph, georeferenced by Chris DeRolph; accessed here https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/scene/metadata/full/5e83d8e4870f4473/ARA550590030582/usgsImage_colorinfrared_1972.tif: April 18, 1972 color infrared USGS aerial photograph, georeferenced by Chris DeRolph; accessed here https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/scene/metadata/full/5e83d8e4870f4473/AR6197002600096/usgsImage_grayscale_1976.tif: November 8, 1976 black-and-white USGS aerial photograph, georeferenced by Chris DeRolph; accessed here https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/scene/metadata/full/5e83d8e4870f4473/AR1VDUT00390010/

About this itemThis story map explores the relationship between community gardening and gentrification in Minneapolis, MN. We use maps and qualitative data from interviews to highlight the complicated connections between gardening, neighborhood identity, community, culture, and gentrification. We hope that this story map is a resource for gardeners to think about how their community gardens can be a positive asset to their neighbors and conclude with best practices or strategies that gardeners might consider adopting to make their gardens more inclusive. Author/ContributorRebecca Walker and Kelsey PoljacikOrganizationMapping Unequal Environments, Humphrey School of Public Affairs, University of MinnesotaOrg Websitearcg.is/1miei0

This dataset includes the data used to develop Maps 8 and 9 for the Connect SoCal 2024 Equity Analysis Technical Report, adopted on April 4, 2024. The dataset includes two fields with information about gentrification during two time periods (2000-2010 and 2010-2019) in the SCAG region based on ACS data. In this dataset, gentrification is defined as: (1) tract median household income in the bottom 40 percent of the countywide income distribution at the beginning of the period, (2) increase in college-educated people (as the percentage of population aged 25 years and older at the beginning of the period) in the top 25 percent of the countywide distribution, (3) no less than 100 people aged 25 years at the beginning of the period, and (4) over 50 percent of the tract land area within a census defined urbanized area. The dataset also includes a field with information about areas with a high number of eviction filings between 2010 and 2018 in the SCAG region with data from the Eviction Lab. In this dataset, "high eviction filings" is defined as an average annual eviction filing rate over three. This dataset was prepared to share more information from the maps in Connect SoCal 2024 Equity Analysis Technical Report. For more details on the methodology, please see the methodology section(s) of the Equity Analysis Technical Report: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/23-2987-tr-equity-analysis-final-040424.pdf?1712261887 For more details about SCAG's models, or to request model data, please see SCAG's website: https://scag.ca.gov/data-services-requests.

Percent changes to demographic metrics in Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC) categories. Education and racial data start in 1940 and income data start in 1960.

The dataset titled "Gentrification, Urban Interventions, and Equity (GENUINE_techrguide.pdf)" falls under the domain of Environment. It is tagged with keywords such as Change, Environments, Gentrification, Housing, Income, Neighbourhood, and Urban. The dataset is in PDF format and was published on April 1, 2020. The data spans from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2016, and covers the geographical area of Canada. The dataset is visible to the public, but its use is limited to the purposes stated in the CANUE Data Sharing and Use Agreement and should not be re-distributed. The dataset is owned and authored by CANUE (Canadian Urban Environmental Health Research Consortium) and Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, and can be contacted via info@canue.ca. The dataset was accessed on September 18, 2023, and is identified by the number 18. It is in English language and does not have a persistent or globally unique identifier. The data in the dataset is resolved once and has a quality indicator of NoData = -9999 for numeric fields and NoData=null for category fields. The dataset is owned by the organization CANUE. The dataset provides a map-based gentrification tool for Canadian metro areas and is intended for policy evaluation and research studies that assess the potential health and societal impacts of gentrification processes. The license for accessing the dataset is not specified. The dataset includes a resource named 'Gentrification, Urban Interventions, and Equity (GENUINE_techrguide.pdf)'. The metadata for the dataset was created on September 18, 2023, and was last modified on August 20, 2024.

Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC) maps illustrated patterns of segregation in United States cites in the 1930s. As the causes and drivers of demographic and land use segregation vary over years, these maps provide an important spatial lens in determining how patterns of segregation spatially and temporally developed during the course of the past century. Using a high-resolution land-use time series (1937-2018) of Denver Colorado USA, in conjunction with 80 years of U.S. Census data, we found divergent land-use and demographics patterns across HOLC categories were both pre-existent to the establishment of HOLC mapping, and continued to develop over time. Over this period, areas deemed “declining” or “hazardous” had more diverse land use compared “desirable” areas. “Desirable” areas were dominated by one land-use type (single-family residential), while single-family residential diminished in prominence in the “declining/hazardous” areas. This divergence became more established decades after HOLC mapping, with impact to racial metrics and low-income households. We found changes in these demographic patterns also occurred between 2000 and 2019, highlighting how processes like gentrification can develop from both rapid demographic and land-use changes. This study demonstrates how the legacy of urban segregation develops over decades and can simultaneously persist in some neighborhoods while providing openings for fast-paced gentrification in others.

Urban Displacement Project’s (UDP) Estimated Displacement Risk (EDR) model for California identifies varying levels of displacement risk for low-income renter households in all census tracts in the state from 2015 to 2019(1). The model uses machine learning to determine which variables are most strongly related to displacement at the household level and to predict tract-level displacement risk statewide while controlling for region. UDP defines displacement risk as a census tract with characteristics which, according to the model, are strongly correlated with more low-income population loss than gain. In other words, the model estimates that more low-income households are leaving these neighborhoods than moving in.This map is a conservative estimate of low-income loss and should be considered a tool to help identify housing vulnerability. Displacement may occur because of either investment, disinvestment, or disaster-driven forces. Because this risk assessment does not identify the causes of displacement, UDP does not recommend that the tool be used to assess vulnerability to investment such as new housing construction or infrastructure improvements. HCD recommends combining this map with on-the-ground accounts of displacement, as well as other related data such as overcrowding, cost burden, and income diversity to achieve a full understanding of displacement risk.If you see a tract or area that does not seem right, please fill out this form to help UDP ground-truth the method and improve their model.How should I read the displacement map layers?The AFFH Data Viewer includes three separate displacement layers that were generated by the EDR model. The “50-80% AMI” layer shows the level of displacement risk for low-income (LI) households specifically. Since UDP has reason to believe that the data may not accurately capture extremely low-income (ELI) households due to the difficulty in counting this population, UDP combined ELI and very low-income (VLI) household predictions into one group—the “0-50% AMI” layer—by opting for the more “extreme” displacement scenario (e.g., if a tract was categorized as “Elevated” for VLI households but “Extreme” for ELI households, UDP assigned the tract to the “Extreme” category for the 0-50% layer). For these two layers, tracts are assigned to one of the following categories, with darker red colors representing higher displacement risk and lighter orange colors representing less risk:• Low Data Quality: the tract has less than 500 total households and/or the census margins of error were greater than 15% of the estimate (shaded gray).• Lower Displacement Risk: the model estimates that the loss of low-income households is less than the gain in low-income households. However, some of these areas may have small pockets of displacement within their boundaries. • At Risk of Displacement: the model estimates there is potential displacement or risk of displacement of the given population in these tracts.• Elevated Displacement: the model estimates there is a small amount of displacement (e.g., 10%) of the given population.• High Displacement: the model estimates there is a relatively high amount of displacement (e.g., 20%) of the given population.• Extreme Displacement: the model estimates there is an extreme level of displacement (e.g., greater than 20%) of the given population. The “Overall Displacement” layer shows the number of income groups experiencing any displacement risk. For example, in the dark red tracts (“2 income groups”), the model estimates displacement (Elevated, High, or Extreme) for both of the two income groups. In the light orange tracts categorized as “At Risk of Displacement”, one or all three income groups had to have been categorized as “At Risk of Displacement”. Light yellow tracts in the “Overall Displacement” layer are not experiencing UDP’s definition of displacement according to the model. Some of these yellow tracts may be majority low-income experiencing small to significant growth in this population while in other cases they may be high-income and exclusive (and therefore have few low-income residents to begin with). One major limitation to the model is that the migration data UDP uses likely does not capture some vulnerable populations, such as undocumented households. This means that some yellow tracts may be experiencing high rates of displacement among these types of households. MethodologyThe EDR is a first-of-its-kind model that uses machine learning and household level data to predict displacement. To create the EDR, UDP first joined household-level data from Data Axle (formerly Infogroup) with tract-level data from the 2014 and 2019 5-year American Community Survey; Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) data from various sources compiled by California Housing and Community Development; Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) Origin-Destination Employment Statistics (LODES) data; and the Environmental Protection Agency’s Smart Location Database.UDP then used a machine learning model to determine which variables are most strongly related to displacement at the household level and to predict tract-level displacement risk statewide while controlling for region. UDP modeled displacement risk as the net migration rate of three separate renter households income categories: extremely low-income (ELI), very low-income (VLI), and low-income (LI). These households have incomes between 0-30% of the Area Median Income (AMI), 30-50% AMI, and 50-80% AMI, respectively. Tracts that have a predicted net loss within these groups are considered to experience displacement in three degrees: elevated, high, and extreme. UDP also includes a “At Risk of Displacement” category in tracts that might be experiencing displacement.What are the main limitations of this map?1. Because the map uses 2019 data, it does not reflect more recent trends. The pandemic, which started in 2020, has exacerbated income inequality and increased housing costs, meaning that UDP’s map likely underestimates current displacement risk throughout the state.2. The model examines displacement risk for renters only, and does not account for the fact that many homeowners are also facing housing and gentrification pressures. As a result, the map generally only highlights areas with relatively high renter populations, and neighborhoods with higher homeownership rates that are known to be experiencing gentrification and displacement are not as prominent as one might expect.3. The model does not incorporate data on new housing construction or infrastructure projects. The map therefore does not capture the potential impacts of these developments on displacement risk; it only accounts for other characteristics such as demographics and some features of the built environment. Two of UDP’s other studies—on new housing construction and green infrastructure—explore the relationships between these factors and displacement.Variable ImportanceFigures 1, 2, and 3 show the most important variables for each of the three models—ELI, VLI, and LI. The horizontal bars show the importance of each variable in predicting displacement for the respective group. All three models share a similar order of variable importance with median rent, percent non-white, rent gap (i.e., rental market pressure calculated using the difference between nearby and local rents), percent renters, percent high-income households, and percent of low-income households driving much of the displacement estimation. Other important variables include building types as well as economic and socio-demographic characteristics. For a full list of the variables included in the final models, ranked by descending order of importance, and their definitions see all three tabs of this spreadsheet. “Importance” is defined in two ways: 1. % Inclusion: The average proportion of times this variable was included in the model’s decision tree as the most important or driving factor.2. MeanRank: The average rank of importance for each variable across the numerous model runs where higher numbers mean higher ranking. Figures 1 through 3 below show each of the model variable rankings ordered by importance. The red lines represent Jenks Breaks, which are designed to sort values into their most “natural” clusters. Variable importance for each model shows a substantial drop-off after about 10 variables, meaning a relatively small number of variables account for a large amount of the predictive power in UDP’s displacement model.Figure 1. Variable Importance for Low Income HouseholdsFor a description of each variable and its source, see this spreadsheet.Figure 2. Variable Importance for Very Low Income HouseholdsFor a description of each variable and its source, see this spreadsheet. Figure 3. Variable Importance for Extremely Low Income HouseholdsFor a description of each variable and its source, see this spreadsheet.Source: Chapple, K., & Thomas, T., and Zuk, M. (2022). Urban Displacement Project website. Berkeley, CA: Urban Displacement Project.(1) UDP used this time-frame because (a) the 2020 census had a large non-response rate and it implemented a new statistical modification that obscures and misrepresents racial and economic characteristics at the census tract level and (b) pandemic mobility trends are still in flux and UDP believes 2019 is more representative of “normal” or non-pandemic displacement trends.

Urban Displacement Project’s (UDP) Estimated Displacement Risk (EDR) model for California identifies varying levels of displacement risk for low-income renter households in all census tracts in the state from 2015 to 2019(1). The model uses machine learning to determine which variables are most strongly related to displacement at the household level and to predict tract-level displacement risk statewide while controlling for region. UDP defines displacement risk as a census tract with characteristics which, according to the model, are strongly correlated with more low-income population loss than gain. In other words, the model estimates that more low-income households are leaving these neighborhoods than moving in.This map is a conservative estimate of low-income loss and should be considered a tool to help identify housing vulnerability. Displacement may occur because of either investment, disinvestment, or disaster-driven forces. Because this risk assessment does not identify the causes of displacement, UDP does not recommend that the tool be used to assess vulnerability to investment such as new housing construction or infrastructure improvements. HCD recommends combining this map with on-the-ground accounts of displacement, as well as other related data such as overcrowding, cost burden, and income diversity to achieve a full understanding of displacement risk.If you see a tract or area that does not seem right, please fill out this form to help UDP ground-truth the method and improve their model.How should I read the displacement map layers?The AFFH Data Viewer includes three separate displacement layers that were generated by the EDR model. The “50-80% AMI” layer shows the level of displacement risk for low-income (LI) households specifically. Since UDP has reason to believe that the data may not accurately capture extremely low-income (ELI) households due to the difficulty in counting this population, UDP combined ELI and very low-income (VLI) household predictions into one group—the “0-50% AMI” layer—by opting for the more “extreme” displacement scenario (e.g., if a tract was categorized as “Elevated” for VLI households but “Extreme” for ELI households, UDP assigned the tract to the “Extreme” category for the 0-50% layer). For these two layers, tracts are assigned to one of the following categories, with darker red colors representing higher displacement risk and lighter orange colors representing less risk:• Low Data Quality: the tract has less than 500 total households and/or the census margins of error were greater than 15% of the estimate (shaded gray).• Lower Displacement Risk: the model estimates that the loss of low-income households is less than the gain in low-income households. However, some of these areas may have small pockets of displacement within their boundaries. • At Risk of Displacement: the model estimates there is potential displacement or risk of displacement of the given population in these tracts.• Elevated Displacement: the model estimates there is a small amount of displacement (e.g., 10%) of the given population.• High Displacement: the model estimates there is a relatively high amount of displacement (e.g., 20%) of the given population.• Extreme Displacement: the model estimates there is an extreme level of displacement (e.g., greater than 20%) of the given population. The “Overall Displacement” layer shows the number of income groups experiencing any displacement risk. For example, in the dark red tracts (“2 income groups”), the model estimates displacement (Elevated, High, or Extreme) for both of the two income groups. In the light orange tracts categorized as “At Risk of Displacement”, one or all three income groups had to have been categorized as “At Risk of Displacement”. Light yellow tracts in the “Overall Displacement” layer are not experiencing UDP’s definition of displacement according to the model. Some of these yellow tracts may be majority low-income experiencing small to significant growth in this population while in other cases they may be high-income and exclusive (and therefore have few low-income residents to begin with). One major limitation to the model is that the migration data UDP uses likely does not capture some vulnerable populations, such as undocumented households. This means that some yellow tracts may be experiencing high rates of displacement among these types of households. MethodologyThe EDR is a first-of-its-kind model that uses machine learning and household level data to predict displacement. To create the EDR, UDP first joined household-level data from Data Axle (formerly Infogroup) with tract-level data from the 2014 and 2019 5-year American Community Survey; Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) data from various sources compiled by California Housing and Community Development; Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) Origin-Destination Employment Statistics (LODES) data; and the Environmental Protection Agency’s Smart Location Database.UDP then used a machine learning model to determine which variables are most strongly related to displacement at the household level and to predict tract-level displacement risk statewide while controlling for region. UDP modeled displacement risk as the net migration rate of three separate renter households income categories: extremely low-income (ELI), very low-income (VLI), and low-income (LI). These households have incomes between 0-30% of the Area Median Income (AMI), 30-50% AMI, and 50-80% AMI, respectively. Tracts that have a predicted net loss within these groups are considered to experience displacement in three degrees: elevated, high, and extreme. UDP also includes a “At Risk of Displacement” category in tracts that might be experiencing displacement.What are the main limitations of this map?1. Because the map uses 2019 data, it does not reflect more recent trends. The pandemic, which started in 2020, has exacerbated income inequality and increased housing costs, meaning that UDP’s map likely underestimates current displacement risk throughout the state.2. The model examines displacement risk for renters only, and does not account for the fact that many homeowners are also facing housing and gentrification pressures. As a result, the map generally only highlights areas with relatively high renter populations, and neighborhoods with higher homeownership rates that are known to be experiencing gentrification and displacement are not as prominent as one might expect.3. The model does not incorporate data on new housing construction or infrastructure projects. The map therefore does not capture the potential impacts of these developments on displacement risk; it only accounts for other characteristics such as demographics and some features of the built environment. Two of UDP’s other studies—on new housing construction and green infrastructure—explore the relationships between these factors and displacement.Variable ImportanceFigures 1, 2, and 3 show the most important variables for each of the three models—ELI, VLI, and LI. The horizontal bars show the importance of each variable in predicting displacement for the respective group. All three models share a similar order of variable importance with median rent, percent non-white, rent gap (i.e., rental market pressure calculated using the difference between nearby and local rents), percent renters, percent high-income households, and percent of low-income households driving much of the displacement estimation. Other important variables include building types as well as economic and socio-demographic characteristics. For a full list of the variables included in the final models, ranked by descending order of importance, and their definitions see all three tabs of this spreadsheet. “Importance” is defined in two ways: 1. % Inclusion: The average proportion of times this variable was included in the model’s decision tree as the most important or driving factor.2. MeanRank: The average rank of importance for each variable across the numerous model runs where higher numbers mean higher ranking. Figures 1 through 3 below show each of the model variable rankings ordered by importance. The red lines represent Jenks Breaks, which are designed to sort values into their most “natural” clusters. Variable importance for each model shows a substantial drop-off after about 10 variables, meaning a relatively small number of variables account for a large amount of the predictive power in UDP’s displacement model.Figure 1. Variable Importance for Low Income HouseholdsFor a description of each variable and its source, see this spreadsheet.Figure 2. Variable Importance for Very Low Income HouseholdsFor a description of each variable and its source, see this spreadsheet. Figure 3. Variable Importance for Extremely Low Income HouseholdsFor a description of each variable and its source, see this spreadsheet.Source: Chapple, K., & Thomas, T., and Zuk, M. (2022). Urban Displacement Project website. Berkeley, CA: Urban Displacement Project.(1) UDP used this time-frame because (a) the 2020 census had a large non-response rate and it implemented a new statistical modification that obscures and misrepresents racial and economic characteristics at the census tract level and (b) pandemic mobility trends are still in flux and UDP believes 2019 is more representative of “normal” or non-pandemic displacement trends.

This web map shows the locations and details of Completed URA Redevelopment Projects in Hong Kong. It is a set of data made available by the Urban Renewal Authority under the Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (the “Government”) at https://portal.csdi.gov.hk ("CSDI Portal"). The source data is processed and converted to Esri File Geodatabase format and then uploaded to Esri’s ArcGIS Online platform for sharing and reference purpose. The objectives are to facilitate our Hong Kong ArcGIS Online users to use the data in a spatial ready format and save their data conversion effort. For details about the data, source format and terms of conditions of usage, please refer to the website of Hong Kong CSDI Portal at https://portal.csdi.gov.hk.

The National Urban Renewal Programme (PNRU), established by Law No 2003-710 of 1 August 2003 for the city and urban renewal (http://i.ville.gouv.fr/divbib/doc/loiborloo01082003.pdf), amended by the Act of 18 January 2005 and extended by the State/UESL Agreement of May 2006, provides for the conduct of urban renewal projects for the transformation of neighbourhoods in difficulty. The objectives of these projects are to improve urban spaces, to develop public facilities, to rehabilitate and reside in social rental housing, to demolish for aging or for a better urban organisation of housing, or to develop a new supply of housing with diverse forms and statutes. An urban renewal project or ANRU project is formalised by a five-year multi-annual partnership agreement that engages ANRU, developers and co-financers. This agreement specifies the programme, timetable and financial commitments of the ANRU project and identifies the neighbourhood(s) to be renovated as a matter of priority. These neighbourhoods may be classified as a sensitive urban area or, exceptionally at the request of the mayor of the municipality or the president of the competent EPCI and with the agreement of the minister responsible for housing and the city, neighbourhoods with similar economic and social characteristics (derogation provided for in Article 6 of the Act). This dataset contains all ANRU urban renewal projects for which an agreement is being prepared or signed. This data excludes completed ANRU projects and unagreed renovation operations initiated by the delegated ANRU credit prefectures outside the ANRU districts.

City of Eugene Urban Renewal District boundaries for Downtown and Riverfront districts. Program information can be found on the City website.

Adopted on 13 December 2000, the Solidarity and Urban Renewal Act (SRU) aims to restore a social balance in each territory and to address the shortage of social housing. Article 55 obliges certain municipalities to have a minimum number of social housing, proportional to their residential stock. The Equality and Citizenship Act of 27 January 2017 revised the conditions for the exemption of the municipalities of the SRU scheme, to allow the refocusing of the application of SRU obligations on the territories in which the demand for social housing is proven, and in particular the agglomerated territories or, failing that, well connected to the living and employment areas. These new provisions thus allow by decree, adopted on a proposal from the intercommunality of membership and after consulting the prefect of the region and the national commission SRU, to exempt municipalities where the application of the SRU obligations would not be relevant.

This layer shows the Building Envelope of a 3D Intelligent Map in an area of To Kwa Wan in Hong Kong. It is a set of data made available by the Urban Renewal Authority under the Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (the "Government") at https://GEODATA.GOV.HK/ ("Hong Kong Geodata Store"). The source data is in GML format and has been processed and converted into Esri File Geodatabase format and uploaded to Esri's ArcGIS Online platform for sharing and reference purpose. The objectives are to facilitate our Hong Kong ArcGIS Online users to use the data in a spatial ready format and save their data conversion effort.For details about the data, source format and terms of conditions of usage, please refer to the website of Hong Kong Geodata Store at https://geodata.gov.hk.

Adopted on 13 December 2000, the Law on Solidarity and Urban Renewal (SRU) aims to restore social balance in each territory and to address the shortage of social housing. Article 55 requires certain municipalities to have a minimum number of social housing units, proportional to their residential stock. Pursuant to Law No. 2013-61 of 18 January 2013, the requirements for the production of social housing have been strengthened. Municipalities with more than 3,500 inhabitants — and 1 500 inhabitants in Île-de-France — belonging to agglomerations or intercommunalities with more than 50,000 inhabitants, comprising at least one municipality with more than 15,000 inhabitants, must thus have 25 % social housing in relation to the main residences by 2025.

This scene shows the 3D Intelligent Map in an area of To Kwa Wan in Hong Kong. It is a set of data made available by the Urban Renewal Authority under the Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (the "Government") at https://GEODATA.GOV.HK/ ("Hong Kong Geodata Store"). The source data is in GML format and has been processed and converted into Esri File Geodatabase format and uploaded to Esri's ArcGIS Online platform for sharing and reference purpose. The objectives are to facilitate our Hong Kong ArcGIS Online users to use the data in a spatial ready format and save their data conversion effort.For details about the data, source format and terms of conditions of usage, please refer to the website of Hong Kong Geodata Store at https://geodata.gov.hk.

Feature layer generated from running the Summarize Within solution. Affordable Housing Inventory were summarized within Gentrification Typology

This layer shows the Floor Plan of a 3D Intelligent Map in an area of To Kwa Wan in Hong Kong. It is a set of data made available by the Urban Renewal Authority under the Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (the "Government") at https://GEODATA.GOV.HK/ ("Hong Kong Geodata Store"). The source data is in GML format and has been processed and converted into Esri File Geodatabase format and uploaded to Esri's ArcGIS Online platform for sharing and reference purpose. The objectives are to facilitate our Hong Kong ArcGIS Online users to use the data in a spatial ready format and save their data conversion effort.For details about the data, source format and terms of conditions of usage, please refer to the website of Hong Kong Geodata Store at https://geodata.gov.hk.