Associations between gentrification, census tract-level socioeconomic status, and cycling infrastructure expansions in Montreal, Canada.
Cycling infrastructure
Equity
Gentrification
Hurdle modeling
Material deprivation
Visible minority
Journal
SSM - population health
ISSN: 2352-8273
Titre abrégé: SSM Popul Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101678841
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2024
Mar 2024
Historique:
received:
28
04
2023
revised:
18
01
2024
accepted:
17
02
2024
medline:
1
3
2024
pubmed:
1
3
2024
entrez:
1
3
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Cycling infrastructure investments support active transportation, improve population health, and reduce health inequities. This study examines the relationship between changes in cycling infrastructure (2011-2016) and census tract (CT)-level measures of material deprivation, visible minorities, and gentrification in Montreal. Our outcomes are the length of protected bike lanes, cyclist-only paths, multi-use paths, and on-street bike lanes in 2011, and change in total length of bike lanes between 2011 and 2016 at the CT level. Census data provided measures of the level of material deprivation and of the percentage of visible minorities in 2011, and if a CT gentrified between 2011 and 2016. Using a hurdle modeling approach, we explore associations among these CT-level socioeconomic measures, gentrification status, baseline cycling infrastructure (2011), and its changes (2011-2016). We further tested if these associations varied depending on the baseline level of existing infrastructure, to assess if areas with originally less resources benefited less or more. In 2011, CTs with higher level of material deprivation or greater percentages of visible minorities had less cycling infrastructure. Overall, between 2011 and 2016, cycling infrastructure increased from 7.0% to 10.9% of the road network, but the implementation of new cycling infrastructure in CTs with no pre-existing cycling infrastructure in 2011 was less likely to occur in CTs with a higher percentage of visible minorities. High-income CTs that were ineligible for gentrification between 2011 and 2016 benefited less from new cycling infrastructure implementations compared to low-income CTs that were not gentrified during the same period. Montreal's municipal cycling infrastructure programs did not exacerbate socioeconomic disparities in cycling infrastructure from 2011 to 2016 in CTs with pre-existing infrastructure. However, it is crucial to prioritize the implementation of cycling infrastructure in CTs with high populations of visible minorities, particularly in CTs where no cycling infrastructure currently exists.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Cycling infrastructure investments support active transportation, improve population health, and reduce health inequities. This study examines the relationship between changes in cycling infrastructure (2011-2016) and census tract (CT)-level measures of material deprivation, visible minorities, and gentrification in Montreal.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
Our outcomes are the length of protected bike lanes, cyclist-only paths, multi-use paths, and on-street bike lanes in 2011, and change in total length of bike lanes between 2011 and 2016 at the CT level. Census data provided measures of the level of material deprivation and of the percentage of visible minorities in 2011, and if a CT gentrified between 2011 and 2016. Using a hurdle modeling approach, we explore associations among these CT-level socioeconomic measures, gentrification status, baseline cycling infrastructure (2011), and its changes (2011-2016). We further tested if these associations varied depending on the baseline level of existing infrastructure, to assess if areas with originally less resources benefited less or more.
Results
UNASSIGNED
In 2011, CTs with higher level of material deprivation or greater percentages of visible minorities had less cycling infrastructure. Overall, between 2011 and 2016, cycling infrastructure increased from 7.0% to 10.9% of the road network, but the implementation of new cycling infrastructure in CTs with no pre-existing cycling infrastructure in 2011 was less likely to occur in CTs with a higher percentage of visible minorities. High-income CTs that were ineligible for gentrification between 2011 and 2016 benefited less from new cycling infrastructure implementations compared to low-income CTs that were not gentrified during the same period.
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
Montreal's municipal cycling infrastructure programs did not exacerbate socioeconomic disparities in cycling infrastructure from 2011 to 2016 in CTs with pre-existing infrastructure. However, it is crucial to prioritize the implementation of cycling infrastructure in CTs with high populations of visible minorities, particularly in CTs where no cycling infrastructure currently exists.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38426032
doi: 10.1016/j.ssmph.2024.101637
pii: S2352-8273(24)00037-5
pmc: PMC10901850
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
101637Informations de copyright
© 2024 The Authors.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no conflict of interest.