Advertisement

Journal of Urban Health

, Volume 82, Issue 4, pp 532–542 | Cite as

Community experiences and perceptions related to demolition and gut rehabilitation of houses for urban redevelopment

  • Janice BowieEmail author
  • Mark Farfel
  • Heather Moran
Original Articles: Various Topics

Abstract

Reports about current residential demolition practices received from residents and plans for large-scale urban redevelopment in East Baltimore provided impetus for this study to assess community concerns and develop approaches to addressing them. This article describes the following themes regarding residents’ experiences with demolition and gut rehabilition of older housing performed as part of urban redevelopment: (1) lack of notification and awareness about protective measures; (2) concerns about environmental and safety hazards; (3) psychosocial impact from displacement, disruption in daily life, and inattention to community concerns; and (4) recommendations to improve redevelopment practices, including ideas to control neighborhood exposure to environmental hazards potentially exacerbated by residential demolition and gut rehabilitation. the findings from focus groups substantiated and deepened our understanding of earlier anecdotal reports of residents’ concerns and emphasized the need for including community perceptions and ideas in addressing environmental and psychosocial issues related to urban redevelopment.

Keywords

Demolition Focus groups Gut rehabilition Housing Qualitative Urban redevelopment 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    U. S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Healthy People 2010: Vol 1. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; 2000.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fauth RC, Leventhal T, Brooks-Gunn J. Short-term effects of moving from public housing in poor to middle-class neighborhoods on low-income minority adults’ outcomes. Soc Sci Med. 2004;59:2271–2284.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Thomson H, Petticrew M, Douglas M. Health impact assessment of housing improvements: incorporating research evidence. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2003; 57:11–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fullilove MT. Root shock: the consequences of African American dispossession. J Urban Health. 2001;78:72–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Leventhal T, Brooks-Gunn J. Moving to opportunity: an experimental study of neighborhood effects on mental health. Am J Public Health. 2003;93:1576–1582.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    fullilove MT, Fullilove RE. What’s housing got to do with it? Am J Public Health. 2000;90:183–184.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    President’s Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children. Eliminating Childhood Lead Poisoning: A Federal Strategy Targeting Lead Paint Hazards 2000. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/lead/fedstrategy 2000.pdf.Accessed December 8, 2004.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Krieger J, Higgins DL. Housing and health: time again for public health action. Am J Public Health 2002;92:758–768PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Preventing Lead Poisoning in Children. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 1991.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Managing Elevated Blood Lead Levels Among Young Children: Recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention. Atlanta, GA: CDC; 2002.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Malveaux FJ, Fletcher-Vincent SA. Environmental risk factors of childhood asthma in urban center. Environ Health Perspect. 1995; 103(suppl 6):59–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Huxley P, Evans S, Leese M, et al. Urban regeneration and mental health. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2004;39:280–285.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Thomson H, Petticrew M, Morrison D. Health effects of housing improvements: systematic review of intervention studies. BMJ, 2001;323:187–190.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Review of Studies Addressing Lead Abatement Effectiveness: Updated Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics; 1998. Report no. EPA747-B-98-001.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Farfel M, Orlova A, Lees P, Rohde C, Ashley P, ChisolmJ. A study of urban housing demolitions as sources of lead in ambient dust; demolition practices and exterior dustfall. Environ Health Perspect. 2003;111:1228–1234.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Farfel MR, Orlova A, Lees PSJ, Ashley P, Rohde C. A study of urban housing demolitions as a source of lead on streets, sidewalks and alleys. Environ Res. In press.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cole DC, Eyles J. Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches to assessing impacts of environments on human health and well-being in local community studies. Toxicology and Industrial Health. 1997;13:259–265.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fullilove MT, Heon V, Jimenez W, Parsons C, Green LL, Fullilove RE. Injury and anomie: effects of violence on an inner-city community. Am J Public Health. 1998;88: 924–927.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    East Baltimore Biotech Park. Fact Sheet. Available at: http://www.baltimorecity.gov/ news/biotech/ebbiotech.html.Accessed April 14, 2003.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    National Cancer Institute. Making Health Communication Work. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 2002. NIH Publication, No. 02-5145.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hughes D, DuMont K. Using focus groups to facilitate culturally anchored research. Am J Community Psychol. 1993;21:775–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Miles MB, Huberman AM, Qualitative Data Analysis, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1994.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Israel BA, Schulz AJ, Parker EA, Becker AB. Review of community-based research: assessing partnerships approaches to improve public health. Annu Rev Public Health. 1998;19:173–202.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Demolition is Happening: Protect Yourself (Notification Pamphlet) and What to Do About Demolition Hazards: booklet for Residents. Baltimore, MD: Kennedy Krieger Institute; 2002. Grant 5 RO1 ES10679.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bashir SA. Home is where the harm is: inadequate housing as a public health crisis. Am J Public Health. 2002;92:733–738.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Oxford University Press on behalf of the New York Academy of Medicine 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Health Policy and ManagementThe Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public HealthBaltimore

Personalised recommendations