↓ Skip to main content

“Weathering” HOPE VI: The Importance of Evaluating the Population Health Impact of Public Housing Demolition and Displacement

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Urban Health, May 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
93 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
201 Mendeley
Title
“Weathering” HOPE VI: The Importance of Evaluating the Population Health Impact of Public Housing Demolition and Displacement
Published in
Journal of Urban Health, May 2011
DOI 10.1007/s11524-011-9582-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Danya E. Keene, Arline T. Geronimus

Abstract

HOPE VI has funded the demolition of public housing developments across the United States and created in their place mixed-income communities that are often inaccessible to the majority of former tenants. This recent uprooting of low-income, urban, and predominantly African American communities raises concern about the health impacts of the HOPE VI program for a population that already shoulders an enormous burden of excess morbidity and mortality. In this paper, we rely on existing literature about HOPE VI relocation to evaluate the program from the perspective of weathering-a biosocial process hypothesized by Geronimus to underlie early health deterioration and excess mortality observed among African Americans. Relying on the weathering framework, we consider the effects of HOPE VI relocation on the material context of urban poverty, autonomous institutions that are health protective, and on the broader discourse surrounding urban poverty. We conclude that relocated HOPE VI residents have experienced few improvements to the living conditions and economic realities that are likely sources of stress and illness among this population. Additionally, we find that relocated residents must contend with these material realities, without the health-protective, community-based social resources that they often rely on in public housing. Finally, we conclude that by disregarding the significance of health-protective autonomous institutions and by obscuring the structural context that gave rise to racially segregated public housing projects, the discourse surrounding HOPE VI is likely to reinforce health-demoting stereotypes of low-income urban African American communities. Given the potential for urban and housing policies to negatively affect the health of an already vulnerable population, we argue that a health-equity perspective is a critical component of future policy conversations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 201 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 1%
India 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 196 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 43 21%
Student > Master 40 20%
Researcher 28 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 20 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 10 5%
Other 25 12%
Unknown 35 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 79 39%
Medicine and Dentistry 30 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 6%
Environmental Science 9 4%
Psychology 8 4%
Other 18 9%
Unknown 44 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 May 2022.
All research outputs
#4,467,986
of 24,619,469 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Urban Health
#481
of 1,358 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,951
of 116,231 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Urban Health
#8
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,619,469 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,358 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 116,231 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.