Animals and urban gentrification: Displacement and injustice in the trans-species city

Hubbard, Phil; Brooks, Andrew

doi:10.1177/0309132520986221

Cited by 36 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 133 publications

(159 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our findings point to the hypothesis that pet fees are yet another discriminatory practice that inevitably leads to poorer housing security and potentially increased evictions among already disadvantaged and marginalized populations. Additionally, considering previous research showing that people with pets may move to neighborhoods they deem “less desirable” in order to secure pet-friendly housing ( 11 ), it is possible that pet-related in-city residential mobility could contribute to gentrification, thus driving up housing costs in lower-income neighborhoods ( 58 , 59 ). Evidence from the condominium market shows that “no pets” policies tend to drive up prices for units that do allow pets, and thus landlords may have a monetary incentive for keeping these policies in place ( 60 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pet-Friendly for Whom? An Analysis of Pet Fees in Texas Rental Housing

Applebaum

Horecka²,

Loney

et al. 2021

Front. Vet. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous studies have underscored the difficulty low-income pet owners often face when attempting to secure affordable rental housing. Further exacerbating this housing disparity are fees charged on top of normal monthly rent to pet owners in “pet-friendly” rental housing. In this study, we aggregated rental housing listings from the twenty most populous cities in Texas, USA from a popular online rental database. We paired the rental listings with census tract information from the American Community Survey in order to investigate economic and racial/ethnic patterns in the spatial distribution of the properties. We find that less expensive pet-friendly listings were more likely to have pet fees charged on top of rent than rental units that were more expensive. Additionally, when pet fee burden was defined as a function of average income by census tract, low-income communities and communities of color were more likely than higher income and predominantly White communities to pay disproportionately higher fees to keep pets in their homes. We also find patterns of spatial inequalities related to pet fee burden by a metric of income inequality by city. The burden of pet rental fees may contribute to both housing insecurity and companion animal relinquishment. We discuss these findings as they relate to inequalities in housing, with particular attention to marginalized and disadvantaged people with pets. We conclude with recommendations for policy and practice.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pet-Friendly for Whom? An Analysis of Pet Fees in Texas Rental Housing

Applebaum

Horecka²,

Loney

et al. 2021

Front. Vet. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…5 This is not to say that nonhuman turn scholars pay no attention to historical or contemporary systems of domination. To the contrary: they deeply analyse and challenge modes of contemporary domination that hurt both humans and animals (Hubbard and Brooks, 2021;Margulies and Karanth, 2018). In this way, they also fully acknowledge surplus alienation, or how changing relations between human and nonhuman natures are (re)produced in and through systems of domination.…”

Section: Alienation Nature and The (Non)humanmentioning

confidence: 99%

The nonhuman turn: Critical reflections on alienation, entanglement and nature under capitalism

Büscher

2021

Dialogues in Human Geography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article critically reflects on contemporary discussions of human-nonhuman relations and their consequences for ecological politics. Recent critiques push back against popular ‘nonhuman turn’ appeals to ‘decentre’ humans and downplay distinctions between humans and nonhumans. The article seeks to both extend and nuance these critiques by emphasising how uneven developments from colonial to digital platform capitalism have intensified historical processes of alienation between humans and the rest of nature. This focus contextualises the nonhuman turn as a response to increasingly alienated forms of entanglement, which may hamper rather than enable challenging contemporary forms of domination. To address this, two conceptual shifts are proposed. First, a shift away from ‘decentring the human’ to a dialectics between more-than-human and ‘less-than-human’. This move emphasises how forms of capitalist domination continue to diminish (certain) humans and nonhumans and how challenging this requires pivoting between de- and recentring humans where needed. Second, a shift from ‘more-than-human’ to ‘more-than-life’, to emphasise how through extremely uneven histories of capitalist development the intensification of alienation has led to growing tensions between ontological relationality and epistemological and practical distinctions.

show abstract

“…The fact that debates about the cultivation of oysters has become such a flashpoint within debates about the development of the town underscores the point that oysters are widely understood as 'lively inhabitants', to the extent that some campaigners invoke a language of rights when they speak of the importance of oysters to the town (see also Hubbard and Brooks, 2021, on the animal 'right to remain'). The large area of trestle tables visible in the inter-tidal zone, tended daily by WOFC workers, is important here, reminding residents and visitors alike that the town is the custodian of this vibrant, lively non-human matter (Bennett, 2010).…”

Section: Lively Materiality and Contested Spacesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Oysteropolis: Animals in coastal gentrification

Brooks

Hubbard²

2021

Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gentrification scholars have increasingly acknowledged the importance of socio-nature in encouraging the revaluation of place. Yet relatively little has been said about the role that non-human animals play in changing the material, sensory and affective qualities of place and the ways that they provoke capital investment. In this paper, we provide a corrective by exploring the role of the oyster in the ongoing gentrification of a coastal community (Whitstable in Kent, South East England). The complex natural and social history of oysters in Whitstable shows that how animal agency has contributed to processes of gentrification. Oysters are visceral objects whose affective qualities create hierarchies of taste and distaste through processes of desire and disgust. This animal is a marker of class change that positions the ‘local’ within wider circuits of consumption. Further, oysters are labouring bodies that reconstitute the coastal ecosystem on which the town depends. The arguments illustrate that non-human animals can be – economically, culturally and ecologically – vital and lively components within the dynamic material processes that support gentrification.

show abstract

Animals and urban gentrification: Displacement and injustice in the trans-species city

Cited by 36 publications

References 133 publications

Pet-Friendly for Whom? An Analysis of Pet Fees in Texas Rental Housing

Pet-Friendly for Whom? An Analysis of Pet Fees in Texas Rental Housing

The nonhuman turn: Critical reflections on alienation, entanglement and nature under capitalism

Oysteropolis: Animals in coastal gentrification

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About