Eco-gentrification

Eco-gentrification, or Ecological gentrification.

From Wikipedia: Environmental gentrification: Environmental, ecological or green gentrification is a process in which cleaning up pollution or providing green amenities increases local property values and attracts wealthier residents to a previously polluted or disenfranchised neighbourhood.[1][2] Green amenities include green spaces, parks green roofs, gardens and green and energy efficient building materials. These initiatives can heal many environmental ills from industrialization and beautify urban landscapes. Additionally, greening is imperative for reaching a sustainable future. However, if accompanied by gentrification, such initiatives can have an ambiguous social impact if the poor (especially renters) are displaced or forced to pay higher housing costs.[2] First coined by Sieg et al. (2004)[3], environmental gentrification is a relatively new concept, although it can be considered as a new hybrid of the older and wider topics of gentrification and environmental justice. Various studies have analyzed the social implications of greening projects specifically with regards to housing affordability and displacement of vulnerable citizens."

"Sarah Dooling coined the term ‘ecological gentrification’ in 2009.

"Contradictions of the Climate‐Friendly City: New Perspectives on Eco‐Gentrification and Housing Justice."
Jennifer L. Rice, Daniel Aldana Cohen, Joshua Long, Jason R. Jurjevich.
First published: 01 March 2019 https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12740.

"Abstract:
As local governments and corporations promote ‘climate friendliness’, and a low‐carbon lifestyle becomes increasingly desirable, more middle‐ and upper‐income urban residents are choosing to live near public transit, on bike‐ and pedestrian‐friendly streets, and in higher‐density mixed‐use areas. This rejection of classical forms of suburbanization has, in part, increased property values in neighborhoods offering these amenities, displacing lower‐income, often non‐white, residents. Increased prevalence of creative and technology workers appears to accelerate this trend. We argue that a significant and understudied socio‐environmental contradiction also occurs where the actual environmental outcomes of neighborhood transformation may not be what we expect. New research on greenhouse gas emissions shows that more affluent residents have much larger carbon footprints because of their consumption, even when reductions in transportation or building energy emissions are included. We describe an area in Seattle, Washington, the location of Amazon's headquarters, experiencing this contradiction and show a distinct convergence of city investments in low‐carbon infrastructure, significant rises in housing prices and decreases in lower‐income and non‐white residents. We conclude with a discussion of a range of issues that require more attention by scholars interested in housing justice and/or urban sustainability."