Gentrification, policing, and potential pathways to health: A scoping review

Abstract

Policing is a social determinant of health that disproportionately affects racially, socially, and economically marginalized communities. Gentrification is hypothesized to alter policing, yet findings have not been synthesized across studies. We conducted a scoping review of studies examining gentrification’s effects on direct policing (e.g., person–police encounters) and indirect policing (e.g., vicarious exposure through media or word-of-mouth) and related outcomes. Searches across multiple electronic databases identified 2680 records; after screening titles and abstracts, 42 full texts were reviewed and 26 were included (14 qualitative, 9 quantitative, 3 multi-method). Studies varied widely in how gentrification was defined; few were from public health or medicine. No study examined indirect policing in the context of gentrification. We identified three pathways through which gentrification increases direct policing: resident-led calls for service (via 911/311), police-led expansions of order-maintenance policing in gentrifying areas, and investment-led policing to protect new commercial development. Adverse effects were concentrated among longer-term Black, Latine, unstably housed, and gender minority residents. Health-related studies reported significant negative psychosocial impacts linked to these dynamics. Overall, gentrification appears to increase population-level exposure to direct policing via residents, police, and investors, with potential contributions to poorer mental health among longer-term residents. The review also highlights critical gaps, including sparse health-specific research and the absence of research on indirect policing.

1. Introduction

Exposure to policing is increasingly considered a health risk. Police encounters can increase the risk of physical and mental distress, substance use, and associated outcomes (including overdose) and may ultimately result in traumatic or even lethal episodes of violence with ensuing community-wide health and social consequences (Hirschtick et al., 2019; Simckes et al., 2021; Victor et al., 2021). Encounters resulting in detention and incarceration trigger an additional cascade of individual and community-level harms, including financial, housing and food insecurity, loss of employment and educational opportunities, exposures to violence and health services interruptions, and family separation and youth foster care involvement (Blankenship et al., 2018; Roberts, 2003). Further, policing and its adverse health sequelae have been disproportionately concentrated in minoritized populations and particularly in Black communities, constituting a driver of racial and ethnic disparities (Alang et al., 2017; Herd, 2025; Jindal et al., 2022). These patterns are not random but are rooted in broader systems of structural racism and racial capitalism. Structural racism refers to the totality of ways in which societies foster racial discrimination through mutually reinforcing systems (e.g., housing, education, criminal legal systems) that shape the distribution of resources and health risks (Robinson, 1983). Racial capitalism describes the specific economic process by which resources of value (e.g., real estate, land) are extracted from a racially marginalized group to generate economic value for the power-holding (often White) group (Robinson, 1983; Rucks-Ahidiana, 2021).

Within these frameworks, gentrification can be understood as one potential factor that increases police exposure among racially and economically minoritized groups. Gentrification has been defined as “the process in which neighborhoods with low socio-economic status experience increased investment and an influx of new residents of higher socio-economic status” (Hwang and Lin, 2016). Historical patterns of structurally racist extraction (e.g., redlining, discriminatory lending) and disinvestment have created neighborhoods which are now more prime targets for reinvestment and redevelopment, illustrating gentrification as both a consequence and continued driver of racial capitalism (Robinson, 1983). Prior literature has found that an increase of White or higher-income new residents (potential markers of gentrification) into a neighborhood is associated with greater potential exposure to police for longer-term neighborhood residents (Beck, 2020). This may be due to increased citizen-policing by new residents contesting where and how existing residents can spend time by calling 911 or engaging police in proactive enforcement (Beck and Goldstein, 2018). Greater police exposure in gentrifying neighborhoods may also be due to increased patrol established to protect new political or capital interests in the area (Newman et al., 2016; Sharp, 2013). Both mechanisms have the potential to amplify the potential harms of over-policing in communities of color, especially in Black communities where gentrification has historically been concentrated (Freeman and Cai, 2015).

Gentrification is an important public health issue partly due to the significant and complex ways it can impact physical and mental health outcomes at a population level (Cole, 2020; Cole et al., 2025; Schnake-Mahl et al., 2020; G. S. Smith et al., 2020; Pineault et al., 2025). Several recent reviews synthesize evidence that health impacts of gentrification are heterogeneous and disproportionately borne by longer-term, lower-income residents, including elevated psychological distress and stress-related morbidity (Delong, 2023; Hernandez et al., 2024; Pineault et al., 2025; Brown et al., 2025). Longer-term and lower-income residents of gentrifying areas have particularly elevated psychological distress, suggesting that there may still be heterogeneity in outcomes even within minoritized groups. There are several hypothesized reasons for why these dynamics occur including fractured social networks due to explicit or de facto displacement out of the neighborhood; socio-cultural displacement in favor of new residents’ preferences; loss of services and amenities catering to existing residents; uncomfortable or hostile interactions with gentrifiers who view residents’ behaviors as suspicious; and avoiding health-promoting spaces such as parks to avoid newer residents (Gibson, 2004; K. S. Shaw and Hagemans, 2015; Anguelovski et al., 2021; Linton et al., 2023). Additionally, there is some evidence that, even in cases where gentrification is deleterious to health, positive interventions or strategies can act as a source of resilience to buffer its adverse effects including strong social support and community empowerment, legal protections for tenants, home ownership, and greater neighborhood control of local development may also serve as protective factors (Ghaffari et al., 2017; Thurber et al., 2021).

Policing and security constitute one of the salient, though relatively unexplored, pathways linking gentrification and health. Neighborhood redevelopment can bring intensified police surveillance, enforcement, and criminalization that heighten stress, disrupt social cohesion, and contribute to both mental and physical health strain (G. S. Smith et al., 2020). Longer-term residents in gentrified areas have also seen increases in violent victimization and other acute and chronic traumas from gentrifiers, raising feelings of insecurity in their neighborhood and leading to coping with drugs or alcohol to address the mental health impacts of these traumas (Anguelovski et al., 2021). Gentrifiers’ public complaints via 911 or 311 calls may further amplify police presence, creating a cycle whereby neighborhood collective efficacy is weakened and reliance on police enforcement becomes more entrenched (Beck and Goldstein, 2018).

A scoping review was conducted to summarize the current state of research on the association between exposure to policing and gentrification. As described, several scoping and systematic reviews have synthesized the literature regarding gentrification and health, and policing and health (Simckes et al., 2021), finding robust evidence that gentrified neighborhoods and overpoliced neighborhoods (often predominantly Black and Brown neighborhoods) tend to have poorer health outcomes (Cole et al., 2025; G. S. Smith et al., 2020; Anguelovski et al., 2021). However, evidence specifically characterizing the ways that gentrification may affect the health of different groups by changing their exposure to the policing environment has not been synthesized and evaluated rigorously, to date. A scoping review was chosen given that current evidence of gentrification-policing links is methodologically heterogeneous (e.g., qualitative studies, mixed-methods, geospatial analyses), with varied definitions and outcomes that preclude systematic review or meta-analysis. The present review examines how gentrification changes policing exposure and practices and the implications for health, including motivations for police presence and differential impacts on minoritized groups. The research questions guiding this scoping review are: 1) Does gentrification affect policing exposure and practices (e.g., police presence, enforcement, surveillance)?; 2) Through which pathways might gentrification affect policing?; 3) Which population groups (e.g., by race/ethnicity, age, socioeconomic status) are most affected by the intersections of gentrification and policing? Though our search strategy did not rely on studies including health or social outcomes, we also describe the health and social effects of changes to policing in the wake of gentrification if the study described these findings. Because policing is a key social determinant that can shape health, we also sought to identify, where present, reported health-relevant mechanisms and health outcomes within this literature.

2. Methods

2.1. Conceptual framework

This review is guided by a framework from Simckes et al. (2021) describing pathways through which population health is affected by policing. Critically, the framework describes two mechanisms by which policing impacts population health: 1) direct exposures, i.e., physical encounters between a person(s) and police, including being stopped and/or questioned by police, frisked or patted down, asked for identification, harassed or assaulted, or arrested, and; 2) indirect exposure, i.e., perceptions of police, fear of police, vicarious experiences of police violence such as through disturbing media reports and imagery (Simckes et al., 2021). Both types of policing exposures are proposed to impact short- and long-term health outcomes at the individual (e.g., injury, mortality, mental health), community (e.g., community violence), and systems levels (e.g., access to resources). Individual characteristics including race, ethnicity, and income are proposed to moderate the relationship between policing and health outcomes, as are contextual factors that characterize communities such as neighborhood racial composition, poverty level, or local housing policies (Simckes et al., 2021).

This scoping review followed the Arksey and O’Malley framework and the PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines (Arksey and O’Malley, 2005; Tricco et al., 2018). In conjunction with a university informaticist, the team identified relevant databases in which to search (i.e., ProQuest, EBSCO, SCOPUS, and PubMed) and study inclusion/exclusion criteria. For each database, we then determined a search strategy using key words and Boolean operators to search abstract, title, and keywords (see Supplementary Material A).

Due to variations in the language often used to describe the process of gentrification (Bhavsar et al., 2020; Finio, 2022), we utilized a broad search strategy to obtain research articles. Truncated terms were used to capture variation in terminology, e.g., gentrif* caught the terms gentrification, gentrified, gentrifies, gentrify, and gentrifying.

Articles meeting inclusion criteria included results about gentrification or similar neighborhood change process and described exposure to policing (indirect or direct). Specifically, studies must have examined gentrification as an exposure, not an outcome, i.e., this review is concerned with effects of gentrification processes rather than exploring why neighborhoods gentrify or which factors lead to gentrification. Additionally, articles were excluded if they did not have original research findings (e.g., reflections, commentaries, or historical narratives); were inaccessible online; not available in English (as there was not funding for translation); and if they included only general measures of neighborhood improvement or urban development (e.g., greening or park spaces) and not specifically gentrification. We excluded non-peer-reviewed sources to ensure a consistent level of methodological rigor and reporting quality across studies. Given the exploratory nature of the topic, limiting inclusion to peer-reviewed studies enhanced comparability and interpretability of findings. Search results were not limited by year.

We used Covidence, a web-based tool for systematic and scoping reviews, to organize citations and as a platform for review and extraction. Author CT searched and downloaded all references from databases (conducted between April 4–15, 2024) and uploaded them into Covidence. Authors CT and KG reviewed all titles and abstracts based on inclusion criteria; discussion from co-authors resolved discrepancies. Authors KG, HK, NF, and AW completed the full-text review, with conflict resolved by author CT, and then extracted data based on an extraction spreadsheet developed by the authors. We extracted the following data from each article: study location; sample description and size; research methodology (i.e., quantitative, qualitative, or multi- or mixed method); outcomes assessed (for quantitative articles); discipline; unit of analysis and type of population sampled; definition of gentrification used and associated indicators; phase of gentrification; type of policing assessed (i.e., direct and/or indirect); vulnerable groups particularly affected; and main results. For each article, we also extracted any findings related to health or social effects of gentrification, if applicable. We conceptualized health broadly (consistent with the World Health Organization definition) as “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity” (World Health Organization, 2025). Health, therefore, is inclusive of: 1) physical health (e.g., cardiovascular disease, respiratory conditions); 2) mental health (e.g., stress, anxiety, depression, trauma-related symptoms); 3) substance use and related harms (e.g., patterns of use, solitary use, overdose); 4) physical safety (e.g., exposure to violence); and 5) social wellbeing and determinants that plausibly affect health (e.g., social support, perceived safety, access to services).

3. Results

The initial search yielded N = 2680 titles for screening, N = 114 of which were duplicates and removed from further screening (Fig. 1). N = 2566 titles and abstracts were then screened, yielding N = 42 articles for full-text review. N = 16 studies were excluded based on exclusion criteria. This left N = 26 full-text studies for data extraction and synthesis.

Fig. 1.

Flow of study screening.

From these N = 26 articles, the team extracted key study characteristics (Table 1). Nine studies used quantitative methods (Beck, 2020; Collins et al., 2021; Golash-Boza et al., 2022a; Golash-Boza et al., 2022b; Harmon-Darrow et al., 2023; Johns et al., 2023; Laniyonu, 2017; Lautenschlager, 2022; Riley et al., 2024), n = 14 studies used qualitative methods (Argento et al., 2018; A. B. Collins et al., 2019; Holt et al., 2020; Kinkel, 2017; Lyons et al., 2017; Maharawal, 2017; Parekh, 2014; Pennay et al., 2014; Raco, 2003; Ramírez, 2020; Scherer et al., 2021; Shaw, 2000; Shmool et al., 2015; Zur, 2022), and n = 3 studies used a mix of qualitative and quantitative methods (Goldfischer, 2020; Harris et al., 2020; J. Smith et al., 2021). Most studies analyzed individual-level data: n = 12 studies used data from existing residents (Argento et al., 2018; A. B. Collins et al., 2019; Goldfischer, 2019; Harris et al., 2020; Holt et al., 2020; Lyons et al., 2017; Maharawal, 2017; Parekh, 2014; Pennay et al., 2014; Ramírez, 2020; Shmool et al., 2015; J. Smith et al., 2021) while the remaining studies used data from gentrifiers or new residents (Harris et al., 2020; Parekh, 2014; Pennay et al., 2014; Shaw, 2000), police (Goldfischer, 2020; Kinkel, 2017; Pennay et al., 2014; Zur, 2022), policymakers (Pennay et al., 2014), health service providers (Kinkel, 2017; Pennay et al., 2014), and business owners in neighborhoods (Pennay et al., 2014). One study sampled the population such that it was representative of 2010 Census demographics in the cities of interest (New York City and Baltimore, Maryland) (Harmon-Darrow et al., 2023).

Table 1.

Frequency of key study characteristics.

Variables	N	References
Type of policing
Directa	26	Argento et al. (2018); Beck (2020); A. B. Collins et al. (2019); Collins et al. (2021); Golash-Boza et al. (2022a); Golash-Boza et al. (2022b); Goldfischer, 2019; Harmon-Darrow et al. (2023); Harris et al. (2020); Holt et al., 2020; Johns et al. (2023); Kinkel (2017); Laniyonu, 2017; Lautenschlager, 2022; Lyons et al. (2017); Maharawal (2017); Parekh, 2014; Pennay et al. (2014); Raco (2003); Ramírez (2020); Riley et al. (2024); Scherer et al. (2021); Shaw (2000); Shmool et al. (2015); J. Smith et al. (2021); Zur, 2022
Indirectb	0
Methodology
Quantitative	9	Beck (2020); Collins et al. (2021); Golash-Boza et al. (2022a); Golash-Boza et al. (2022b); Harmon-Darrow et al. (2023); Johns et al. (2023); Laniyonu, 2017; Lautenschlager, 2022; Riley et al. (2024)
Qualitative	14	Argento et al. (2018); A. B. Collins et al. (2019); Holt et al., 2020; Kinkel (2017); Lyons et al. (2017); Maharawal (2017); Parekh, 2014; Pennay et al. (2014); Raco (2003); Ramírez (2020); Scherer et al. (2021); Shaw (2000); Shmool et al. (2015); Zur, 2022
Mixed or multi-method	3	Goldfischer, 2019; Harris et al. (2020); J. Smith et al. (2021)
Sample
Individuals
Longer-term residents	12	Argento et al. (2018); A. B. Collins et al. (2019); Goldfischer, 2019; Harris et al. (2020); Holt et al., 2020; Lyons et al. (2017); Maharawal (2017); Parekh, 2014; Pennay et al. (2014); Ramírez (2020); Shmool et al. (2015); J. Smith et al. (2021)
Gentrifiers	4	Harris et al. (2020); Parekh, 2014; Pennay et al. (2014); Shaw (2000)
Police	4	Goldfischer, 2019; Kinkel (2017); Pennay et al. (2014); Zur, 2022
Policymakers	1	Pennay et al. (2014)
Service providers	2	Kinkel (2017); Pennay et al. (2014)
Business owners	1	Pennay et al. (2014)
City population	1	Harmon-Darrow et al. (2023)
Ecological
Census tracts	8	Beck (2020); Collins et al. (2021); Golash-Boza et al. (2022a); Golash-Boza et al. (2022b); Johns et al. (2023); Laniyonu, 2017; Lautenschlager, 2022; Riley et al. (2024)
Census block group	2	Harris et al. (2020); J. Smith et al. (2021)
Unspecified/other	4	Collins et al. (2021); Goldfischer, 2019; Raco (2003); Scherer et al. (2021)
Gentrification explicitly defined
Yes	13	A. B. Collins et al. (2019); Collins et al. (2021); Golash-Boza et al. (2022a); Golash-Boza et al. (2022b); Harmon-Darrow et al. (2023); Harris et al. (2020); Holt et al., 2020; Johns et al. (2023); Laniyonu, 2017; Lyons et al. (2017); Riley et al. (2024); J. Smith et al. (2021); Zur, 2022
No	13	Argento et al. (2018); Beck (2020); Goldfischer, 2019; Kinkel (2017); Lautenschlager, 2022; Maharawal (2017); Parekh, 2014; Pennay et al. (2014); Raco (2003); Ramírez (2020); Scherer et al. (2021); Shaw (2000); Shmool et al. (2015)
Indicators of gentrification
Economic
Property values	3	Golash-Boza et al. (2022a); Goldfischer, 2019; J. Smith et al. (2021)
Rent	5	Golash-Boza et al. (2022a); Johns et al. (2023); Laniyonu, 2017; Lautenschlager, 2022; Riley et al. (2024)
Income	7	Beck (2020); Collins et al. (2021); Golash-Boza et al. (2022a); Golash-Boza et al. (2022b); Harris et al. (2020); Johns et al. (2023); Riley et al. (2024)
Occupation	1	Beck (2020)
Racial
“People of color”	2	Goldfischer, 2019; Harris et al. (2020)
Black residents	1	Golash-Boza et al. (2022b)
Other social
Education level	7	(2020); Golash-Boza et al. (2022a); Harris et al. (2020); Laniyonu, 2017; Lautenschlager, 2022; Riley et al. (2024); J. Smith et al. (2021)
Residents’ age	1	Golash-Boza et al. (2022a)
Perceptions of gentrification	1	Harmon-Darrow et al. (2023)
Phase of gentrification
Gentrifying	6	Beck (2020); Collins et al. (2021); Goldfischer, 2019; Johns et al. (2023); Riley et al. (2024); J. Smith et al. (2021)
Gentrified	23	Argento et al. (2018); A. B. Collins et al. (2019); Golash-Boza et al. (2022a); Golash-Boza et al. (2022b); Goldfischer, 2019; Harmon-Darrow et al. (2023); Harris et al. (2020); Holt et al., 2020; Johns et al. (2023); Kinkel (2017); Laniyonu, 2017; Lautenschlager, 2022; Maharawal (2017); Parekh, 2014; Pennay et al. (2014); Raco (2003); Ramírez (2020); Scherer et al. (2021); Shaw (2000); Shmool et al. (2015); J. Smith et al. (2021); Zur, 2022
Discipline
Public health	5	Argento et al. (2018); A. B. Collins et al. (2019); Holt et al., 2020; Pennay et al. (2014); Riley et al. (2024)
Criminology	2	Golash-Boza et al. (2022a); Lautenschlager, 2022
Sociology/anthropology	4	Goldfischer, 2019; Lautenschlager, 2022; Maharawal (2017); Scherer et al. (2021)
Urban studies	9	Beck (2020); Collins et al. (2021); Harris et al. (2020); Kinkel (2017); Laniyonu, 2017; Parekh, 2014; Raco (2003); Ramírez (2020); J. Smith et al. (2021)
Geography	5	Johns et al. (2023); Parekh, 2014; Ramírez (2020); Shaw (2000); Zur, 2022
Social work	1	Golash-Boza et al. (2022b)
Psychology	2	Harmon-Darrow et al. (2023); Shmool et al. (2015)
Unknown	1	Lyons et al. (2017)
Vulnerable populations studied
Black residents	11	A. B. Collins et al. (2019); Golash-Boza et al. (2022a); Golash-Boza et al. (2022b); Holt et al., 2020; Johns et al. (2023); Lautenschlager, 2022; Maharawal (2017); Parekh, 2014; Ramírez (2020); Riley et al. (2024); J. Smith et al. (2021)
Latino/a residents	3	Harris et al. (2020); Lautenschlager, 2022; Maharawal (2017)
Indigenous or person of color (not specified)	7	Beck (2020); A. B. Collins et al. (2019); Harmon-Darrow et al. (2023); Riley et al. (2024); Scherer et al. (2021); Shaw (2000); Shmool et al. (2015)
Housing insecure	4	Goldfischer, 2019; Laniyonu, 2017; Scherer et al. (2021); Zur, 2022
Low-income	2	Collins et al. (2021); Riley et al. (2024)
Sex workers	3	Argento et al., 2018; Kinkel (2017); Lyons et al. (2017)
People who use drugs	4	A. B. Collins et al. (2019); Kinkel (2017); Pennay et al. (2014); Zur, 2022

^aDirect exposure, i.e., physical encounters between a person(s) and police, including being stopped and/or questioned by police, frisked or patted down, asked for identification, harassed or assaulted, or arrested.

^bIndirect exposure, i.e., perceptions of police, fear of police, vicarious experiences of police violence such as through disturbing media reports and imagery.

Half (n = 13) of the studies provided an explicit definition of gentrification (A. B. Collins et al., 2019; Collins et al., 2021; Golash-Boza et al., 2022a; Golash-Boza et al., 2022b; Harmon-Darrow et al., 2023; Harris et al., 2020; Holt et al., 2020; Johns et al., 2023; Laniyonu, 2017; Lyons et al., 2017; Riley et al., 2024; J. Smith et al., 2021; Zur, 2022), but only two studies used the same definition (Collins et al., 2021; Laniyonu, 2017). However, all quantitative studies (n = 9) reported the indicator variables used to operationalize gentrification (Beck, 2020; Collins et al., 2021; Golash-Boza et al., 2022a; Golash-Boza et al., 2022b; Harmon-Darrow et al., 2023; Johns et al., 2023; Laniyonu, 2017; Lautenschlager, 2022; Riley et al., 2024). All studies included some form of economic indicators including median property values (Golash-Boza et al., 2022a; Goldfischer, 2019; J. Smith et al., 2021), rent (Golash-Boza et al., 2022a; Johns et al., 2023; Laniyonu, 2017; Lautenschlager, 2022; Riley et al., 2024), and household income (Beck, 2020; Collins et al., 2021; Golash-Boza et al., 2022a; Golash-Boza et al., 2022b; Harris et al., 2020; Jindal et al., 2022; Riley et al., 2024). One study used increases in “professional occupations” as a gentrification indicator (Beck, 2020). For social variables, three studies included changes in the percent of neighborhood composition by Black residents or “people of color” in their gentrification indicators (Golash-Boza et al., 2022b; Goldfischer, 2019; Harris et al., 2020). Two studies explicitly did not include changes in racial composition as an indicator of gentrification because a goal of the analyses was to examine change in a census tract’s racial composition as an outcome (Lautenschlager, 2024; Riley et al., 2024). Additional social variables include education level (n = 7, i.e., Bachelor’s degree or greater) (Beck, 2020; Golash-Boza et al., 2022a; Harris et al., 2020; Laniyonu, 2017; Lautenschlager, 2022; Riley et al., 2024; J. Smith et al., 2021) and residents’ age (n = 1) (Harmon-Darrow et al., 2023).

While most studies retrospectively focused on neighborhoods that had gentrified, some (n = 6) studies also focused on areas in the process of gentrifying but had not fully completed the process (Beck, 2020; Collins et al., 2021; Goldfischer, 2019; Johns et al., 2023; Riley et al., 2024; J. Smith et al., 2021). Studies were most often conducted from an urban studies discipline (n = 9) (Beck, 2020; Collins et al., 2021; Harris et al., 2020; Kinkel, 2017; Laniyonu, 2017; Parekh, 2014; Raco, 2003; Ramírez, 2020; J. Smith et al., 2021), followed by geography (n = 5) (Johns et al., 2023; Parekh, 2014; Ramírez, 2020; Shaw, 2000; Zur, 2022), sociology and anthropology (n = 4) (Goldfischer, 2020; Lautenschlager, 2022; Maharawal, 2017; Scherer et al., 2021), and public health or medicine (n = 4) (Argento et al., 2018; A. B. Collins et al., 2019; Holt et al., 2020; Pennay et al., 2014; Riley et al., 2024). Finally, the racialized groups were most often studied in this context include Black (n = 11) (A. B. Collins et al., 2019; Golash-Boza et al., 2022a; Golash-Boza et al., 2022b; Holt et al., 2020; Johns et al., 2023; Lautenschlager, 2022; Maharawal, 2017; Parekh, 2014; Ramírez, 2020; Riley et al., 2024; J. Smith et al., 2021), Latine (n = 3) (Harris et al., 2020; Lautenschlager, 2022; Maharawal, 2017), and Indigenous or people of color (not specified) (n =7) residents (Beck, 2020; A. B. Collins et al., 2019; Harmon-Darrow et al., 2023; Riley et al., 2024; Scherer et al., 2021; Shaw, 2000; Shmool et al., 2015).

3.1. Pathways linking gentrification and policing

Direct policing refers to interpersonal interactions between individuals and police including harassment, violence, arrest, and other direct experiences (Simckes et al., 2021). Overall, studies tended to find statistically significant or qualitatively meaningful relationships between gentrification and direct police exposures including arrest or fear of arrest (Beck, 2020; A. B. Collins et al., 2019; Golash-Boza et al., 2022a; J. Smith et al., 2021), fatalities (Johns et al., 2023), and order-maintenance policing inflicted on communities (Beck, 2020; Collins et al., 2021; Golash-Boza et al., 2022b; Goldfischer, 2019; Harris et al., 2020; Laniyonu, 2017; Lautenschlager, 2022; Parekh, 2014; Pennay et al., 2014; Riley et al., 2024; J. Smith et al., 2021) (Table 2). Where studies differed was the driving force(s) behind increased policing in these areas. Our review and synthesis found three motivating forces described as possible explanatory factors linking increases in direct policing practices and gentrification: citizen-led, police-led, and investment-led.

Table 2.

Gentrification definition, study design, main results, and policing exposure pathway of included studies (N = 26).

Citation Location	Definition of gentrification	Outcomes	Sample and tract eligibility criteria (if applicable)b	Results	Policing exposure pathway
QUANTITATIVE
Golash-Boza et al., 2022a Washington, DC, USA	“The replacement of low-income, inner-city working-class residents by middle-or upper-class households” (Hammel & Wyly, 1996)	Race-specific arrest rates (2013–17)	N=179 census tracts N=80 eligible to gentrify (i.e., below DC’s median income in 2000)	– No overall link between gentrification and arrests in eligible tracts – In affluent tracts, gentrification linked to lower Black drug arrest rates – In historically Black tracts, rising White population associated with higher Black arrest rates – More 311 calls associated with more Black arrests in all tracts	Citizen-led
Riley et al., 2024 Seattle, Washington, USA	“Racialized neighborhood change characterized by neighborhoods with historical disinvestment and economic decline experiencing reinvestment and in-migration of wealthier populations marked by above- average increases in income, education, home values and/or rents” (Schnake-Mahl et al., 2020; N. Smith, 1982)	Police stops (2017–19): A) police- or B) 911-initiated C) frisk-involved	N=135 census tracts N=40 tracts eligible to gentrify (i.e., tracts that have median incomes less than 80% of the median income for the metropolitan area as of 2000) N=27 census tracts gentrified High redlined = historically disadvantaged	– Gentrified tracts had higher stop rates (18.9/1000) than gentrifiable but not yet gentrified (7.1 per 1000) and not gentrified areas (5.2 per 1000) – Stop rates for Black and Indigenous people were 25x and 51x higher respectively, than whites – Tracts that were gentrified or historically disadvantaged had more stops of all types	Citizen-led, police-led
				– Frisk-involved stops are significantly higher in historically disadvantaged and gentrified tracts compared to most advantaged tracts	Police-led
Golash-Boza et al., 2022b Washington, DC, USA	“The process whereby [middle-class people] move into disinvested neighborhoods and signs of disinvestment are replaced by investment” (Hwang & Sampson, 2014)	Stop-and-frisk incidents among adults 18 years+ (2013–17)	N=179 census tracts N=120 tracts eligible to gentrify (i.e., below the median income in 2000 and/or majority Black)	– 82.9% of stop-and-frisk targets were Black – A higher gentrification score was associated with more stop- and-frisk incidents (b=0.007, p<0.05) but only for Black adults – Significant interaction: more neighborhood disorder amplified this relationship	Police-led
Lautenschlager, 2024 8 US cities	No definition	Stop-and-frisk rate per 1,000 residents per census tract (2016–17)	N=4,041 census tracts total N=1,346 tracts eligible to gentrify (i.e., rank in the bottom 50% of NYC tracts by median household income and median rent price in 2000)	– Stop rates did not differ between gentrified and non-gentrified tracts – Tracts adjacent to gentrified tracts had 53% higher stop rate than adjacent eligible-but-not-gentrified tracts – Spatial effect: Stop-and-frisk rate decreased as Black (0.007%, p <0.001) and Latine (1.1%, p<0.001) population increased	Police-led
Beck, 2020 New York City, New York, USA	No definition	Rate of each event per 1,000 residents (2009–15): A) Stop-and-frisks B) order-maintenance arrestsc C) proactive arrestsd D) 311 calls	N=2,038 census tracts N=501 tracts eligible to gentrify (i.e., median household income below city median and percentage of housing units built since 1990 at the start of study period [2009])	– More White residents led to fewer stops/proactive arrests, but more order-maintenance arrests (+5% per 1% increase)	Police-led
				– Property value increases in gentrification-eligible tracts leading to more arrests – But no association in already-gentrified tracts	Investment-led
				– 311 calls increased as middle-class population increased but 311 calls were not associated with stops or low-level arrests	Citizen-led
Laniyonu, 2018 New York City, New York, USA	“The transformation of urban areas previously characterized by low levels of investment and suffering from high levels of socioeconomic marginalization to areas characterized by high levels of investment and occupancy by higher income, better educated, and (often) Whiter residents” (Zuk et al., 2018)	A) Per-capita stop-and-frisks (2010–14) B) 311 calls for service for order-maintenance reasonse (2010–14)	N=2166 census tracts N=620 tracts eligible to gentrify (i.e., rank in the bottom 50% of NYC tracts by median household income and median rent price in 2000)	– Tracts that switched from not gentrified to gentrified between 2010–14 saw 51–90% increase in stops per capita per year – Effect was stronger in adjacent tracts rather than gentrified ones	Police-led
Collins et al. (2021) Los Angeles, California, USA	Uses (Laniyonu, 2018; Zuk et al., 2018) definition above.	Sidewalk or “homeless” citationsf (2011, 2013, 2015, 2016)	N=978 census tracts (no eligibility criteria) N=3912 citations	– Gentrifying tracts had more sidewalk/homeless citations – Tracts with increasing low-income residents had fewer citations	Police-led
Harmon-Darrow et al., 2023 Baltimore, Maryland and New York City, New York, USA	Economic transformation of neighborhoods from low to high value	Lifetime exposure to police victimizationg	N=1000 participants Sampled to be representative of 2010 Census demographics	– Higher perceived gentrification revitalization associated with lower reported neglect by police – This association was stronger for people of color than white residents. – However, higher perceived gentrification disruption associated with more physical violence and neglect by police	Unclear or unspecified
Johns et al., 2023 Florida (West Central and Southeastern regions), USA	“Wealthier individuals move into underdeveloped areas with lower housing costs and neglected infrastructure to invest and renovate dilapidated structures” (N. Smith, 1979)	Fatal police encounters (2000–20)	Unclear N, census tracts covering over 2 million Florida residents Gentrification-eligible tracts: those containing both the bottom 50th percentile of median income and bottom 50th percentile of median rent price across Florida	– Most fatal encounters happened in tracts eligible to gentrify or adjacent to gentrifying areas—not in gentrifying or affluent tracts	Unclear or unspecified
MIXED OR MULTI-METHOD
Harris et al., 2020 Chicago, Illinois, USA	New residents (generally college-educated and middle or upper class) often move to previously disinvested areas that were mostly inhabited by low-income people of color	Quant: 311 calls for graffiti (2011–18)	Quant: N=81 census block groups in proximity to new greenspace Qual: N=20 white residents of gentrified neighborhoods N=9 white gentrifiers N=17 youth of color	Quant: – Since park opened in 2011, 311 graffiti calls rose 2.4% yearly – Rent increases and more college grads were tied to more 311 calls – No link between scale of gentrification and call volume Qual: – White residents reported “rowdy” youth, assumed gang activity – Called police on youth “sitting around” – Youth avoided the new gentrified greenspace in white-majority areas or used it when empty – Cultural erasure through removal of mural depicting Black and Latine culture after 311 call complaints	Citizen-led
Goldfischer, 2020 New York City, New York, USA	No definition	Quant: 311 calls for “homeless-related” reasons (2015–16)h	Qual: Document analysis (police manual, regulations); Ethnography with homeless organization. N=10 interviews with law enforcement and other public officials Quant: Unclear	Qual: – NYPD rebranded “encampments” as “hotspots,” framing homelessness as threat – Police confirmed complaints increased – Enforcement targeted visible “hotspots” in gentrifying areas Quant: – 338% rise in 311 “homeless-related” complaints (2015–16) – Calls concentrated in gentrified neighborhoods	Citizen-led, police-led
J. Smith et al., 2021 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA	“Socioeconomic upgrading of a previously, low-income central city neighborhood, characterized by the influx of residents of a higher socioeconomic status relative to incumbent residents and rising home values and rents,” from Ding et al., 2016	Quant: A) aggregated arrest rates (2013) B) order-maintenance arrestsi C) total real property forfeituresj (1993–2017)	Quant: N=625 census block groups Qual: N=130 Black residents of Grays Ferry neighborhood	Quant: – Gentrified tracts had more arrests, order-maintenance policing, and property forfeiture – Adjacent tracts also saw increased arrests, but not other outcomes	Police-led
				Qual: – Police filed forfeiture petitions based on vague claims of “nuisance” – Targeted Black/Latine neighborhoods experiencing or at risk of gentrification
QUALITATIVE
Citation Location	Definition of gentrification	Sample	Results	Policing exposure pathway
Holt et al. (2020) a Washington, DC, USA	The process by which middle-class individuals (often White) move into lower-income neighborhoods (often Black), based on Glass, 1960	N=83 participants Self-identified Black man ages 18–44 who have been sexually active in past 3 months and live in one of nine DC neighborhoods with known gentrification	– As white residents increased, participants felt overpoliced, stressed and overwhelmeda – Some felt safer post-gentrification, but many felt confined to homea	Police-led
			– New amenities and businesses in the area are “not for” the existing residents – Increased police surveillance protects that revitalization investment, creating de facto segregated spaces	Investment-led
			– White neighbors engaged in citizen policing out of fear and skepticism of Black neighbors, leading to hypervigilance and fear from Black residentsa	Citizen-led
Argento et al. (2018)a Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada	No definition	N=61 participants Self-identified men (cis- or transgender) 19 years of age or older who bought or sold sex within the past year. Purposefully sampled for variation in experiences in sex industry locations (e.g., street, indoor venues, and online/Internet).	– The 2010 Winter Olympics increased police presence and enforcement in the former Boystown neighborhood, an area with a large queer male population and sex trade – Loss of Boystown as a safe space seen because of urban planning changes due to the 2010 Winter Olympics – Men felt socially isolated and lost supportive social networks because of displacementa	Investment- led
			– Displaced sex workers to less safe areas or online to buffer exposure to police a – New residents stigmatized sex work and called police – Some sex workers reported changing services (e.g., riskier services) due to fewer clientsa	Citizen-led
Ramírez (2020) a Oakland, California, USA	No definition	N/A (ethnography of implementation of gang injunction zones in Oakland in 2010, and two incidents in 2015 involving tensions between gentrifiers and long-term residents)	– Gang injunctions (designated zones in neighborhoods restricting gang members in a database to not enter) were implemented in gentrifying neighborhoods – Gang injunctions enforced in gentrifying areas, targeting Black youth – The community was de facto displaced through discomfort living in the neighborhooda	Police-led
			– Longstanding cultural practices (e.g., drumming, choirs) were shut down after citizen complaintsa – Gentrifiers reframed culture as public nuisance, leading to police actiona	Citizen-led
Maharawal, 2017 a San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA	No definition	N/A (ethnographic case study of increasingly intensive policing in a rapidly gentrifying area using Black Lives Matter [BLM] protests as example)	– In the case of Oakland, then-mayor Jerry Brown (1999) pushed downtown redevelopment initiative to bring higher-income residents into area – Redevelopment paired with zero-tolerance and data-driven policing – BLM protests challenged gentrification and policing through disruptive actions targeting features of new, gentrified neighborhood: blocking roads, protesting at gentrified restaurants	Investment-led
			– Case: Alex Nieto shot 59 times after 911 calls from White residents who misjudged the Taser he carried for his job – Gentrification brought state violence and spatial control over poor, racialized residentsa	Citizen-led
Lyons et al., 2017 a Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada	“Global urban strategy tied to the development and accumulation of wealth that transforms neighborhoods to suit new residents” (Kern, 2015; N. Smith, 2002)	N=33 participants 14 years or older who self-report their gender identity or expression as different from sex assigned at birth and have exchanged sex for money	– Trans sex workers displaced multiple times by gentrification and policinga – Trans sex workers then moved to the Downtown Eastside neighborhood, but there are signs of gentrification (e.g., construction, new businesses) – Sex workers concerned they will eventually be displaced from this area too – Sex workers moved to increasingly isolated locations (e.g., near railroad tracks) to not draw police attention, but this compromised safety and required new safety strategiesa	Citizen-led, Investment-led
			– New residents and businesses complained, triggering police removal – Street harassment and police calls increased	Citizen-led
Kinkel, 2017 a Frankfurt, Hesse, Germany	No definition	Unclear N Interviewed 1) constabulary police 2) special units for prostitution, drug use 3) detectives policing prostitution 4) municipal police 5) social-service providers who see sex workers	– Redevelopment near sex work zones led to complaints from new residents – Police responded more to resident pressure than offenses – Indoor venues drew less scrutiny than street-based work – New residents’ “power to complain” derived from new residents’ relative affluent and greater influence over policymakers – The concentrated area is also home to the drug market, meaning that people who use drugs cannot be displaced – Police prefer sex workers and people using drugs concentrated in one area because they say it makes controlling sex workers and substance use easiera	Citizen-led
A. B. Collins et al., 2019 a Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada	The process of transforming vacant or low-income inner-city areas into economic, recreational, and residential use by middle- and upper-income individuals	N=72 participants People who use drugs and people who engage in the street-based drug scene	– Gentrification led to intense surveillance, belongings destroyed, and displacement. – Police presence near harm reduction sites deterred use for fear of arrest or police interactiona – Enforcement disproportionately targeted Indigenous and racialized people who use drugs, even during overdoses – Fear of arrest, police engagement, and complaints by new businesses serving gentrifiers pushed people out of spaces where overdose prevention services were located a – This led to new “hot spots” of drug use and overdosea	Police-led
Raco, 2003 Reading, Berkshire, United Kingdom	No definition	N/A (case study of the small agricultural town of Reading which experienced rapid economic growth between 1980s and 1990s, then embarked on major urban regeneration in late 1990s with changing policing and safety dynamics of public spaces as a result)	– Gentrification tied to surveillance, securitization, and partnerships between police and developers – Policing strategies vary based upon local socio-political context; police practices are highly dependent upon local actors and political forces – Police established security in the area by changes to physical design elements, surveillance technologies, and increasing enforcement	Police-led, investment-led
Parekh, 2015 a New Orleans, Louisiana, USA	No definition	N/A (ethnography of long-term vs. “newly arriving” residents of Tremé neighborhood in New Orleans)	– Both longstanding and newer residents expressed desires for neighborhood safety but differed greatly in how that should be achieved – Long-term residents preferred community-based safety (e.g., “nosy grandmothers”) – Gentrifiers defaulted to calling police for noise disturbances, often from music (e.g., parties and gatherings in parks, bars, second-line parades)a – Gentrification caused conflict over use of public space	Citizen-led
Pennay et al., 2014 a Melbourne, Queensland, Australia	No definition	N=54 service providers N=23 health workers with access to street drinkers N=13 traders/shopkeepers in neighborhoods N=16 police from precincts closest to these areas N=9 local government officials from municipalities	– Drinking by young men of color seen as threatening vs. older White drinkers seen as relaxing – Influx of new businesses catering to gentrifiers meant that street drinkers no longer had familiar pubs to congregate in, turned to drinking on the street – Street drinkers were viewed as “disrupting the pace at which the area was evolving”	Investment-led
		N=20 street drinkers N=24 residents of these neighborhoods	– Police mention specifically targeting street drinkers in their patrol – Participants described engaging in riskier drinking indoors, often alone, and felt upset and lonely due to loss of their social network from displacementa	Police-led
Zur, 2023 Tel Aviv, Israel	“A particular manifestation of uneven development, where a group, by virtue of its class and wealth, comes to dominate a specific locale to the detriment of other social groups, particularly the working class” (Lawton, 2019)	N=15 police officers in South Tel Aviv	– Police engaged in “situational crime prevention,” or redesigning public spaces to deter crimes and homelessness – City converted a large unused plot of land with homeless encampments into a public park – Police expressed frustration at a lack of clear and effective options to both deal with these complaints and offer help to people in need	Police-led
			– New residents and police formed a “digital coalition” via a phone app to report complaints – Existing residents did not have access to the same technology because of lack of phones – Police caught in tension between community expectations and state limits	Citizen-led
Shmool et al., 2015 New York City, New York, USA	No definition	Unclear total N, but N=14 focus groups across all City boroughs Participants were neighborhood adult residents, most self-identified as African American and/or Latino. One focus group was with adolescents	– Participants described a rise in profiling, harassment, unfair treatment of long-term residents of color attributed to gentrification – Participants also described displacement of long-term residents – Gentrification and policing closely linked to racism – Gentrification raised rents, displaced residents of color, and intensified racial tensions	Police-led
Shaw (2000) Sydney, New South Wales, Australia	No definition	N=36 participants Residents (primarily non-Aboriginal) of neighborhoods surrounding The Block, an Aboriginal settlement in Sydney, adjacent to gentrified neighborhoods	– Non-Aboriginal residents had conflicted views: pity for police vs. racist assumptions about Aboriginal residents – Police blamed for both under- and overpolicing. – Efforts included non-policing collaboration with Aboriginal leaders	Unclear or unspecified
Scherer et al., 2021 a Edmonton, Alberta, Canada	No definition	Unclear (ethnography of area of downtown Edmonton where a new professional hockey arena was built)	– “Therapeutic policing” aimed to morally discipline the urban poor – This type of policing often places demand on under-resourced nonprofit sector, particularly mobile assistance vans	Police-led
			– “Punitive policing” displaced poor populations to make way for redevelopment – In gentrified areas with increasing police presence, participants adapted behaviors to avoid police (i.e., gaining “cop wisdom”); finding areas to panhandle which have less surveillancea	Investment-led

^aIndicates results related to health or social impacts.

^bThis refers to the authors’ explicitly stated definition of the concept of gentrification; see Table 1 for indicator variables used to define gentrification in quantitative analyses.

^cInclusive of prostitution, criminal mischief (e.g., property destruction, vandalism), disorderly conduct, theft of services (e.g., turnstile jumping on subway).

^dInclusive of trespassing, drug possession, weapon possession, intoxicated driving, possession of stolen property.

^eChronic king, roller-skating, or skateboarding; a derelict vehicle, disorderly youth, public drinking, graffiti, a homeless encampment, illegal fireworks, a noise complaint, panhandling, squeegee men, urinating in public, or illegal vending.

^fCitations and charges associated with homelessness such as removal/possession of shopping trollies, public urination/defecation or storing possessions in public.

^gAssessed via Police Practices Inventory, specifically: physical violence with weapon, physical violence w/o weapon, psychological violence, neglect.

^hMet any of the following three criteria: They were filed under the complaint category ‘homeless encampment’, the responding agency was noted as the Department of Homeless Services (DHS), or the description accompanying the complaint mentioned ‘homeless’ in its text.

ⁱInclus of vandalism, prostitution, narcotics, gambling, liquor law violations, public drunkenness, disorderly conduct, and vagrancy/loitering.

^jSeizure any property allegedly involved in narcotics crime.

3.1.1. Citizen-led

Across the studies reviewed, gentrification reconfigures citizen–police contact by increasing 311 or 911 complaints from new residents. These calls are often about everyday activities or typical urban experiences like noise, presence of homeless encampments, or youth “hanging around,” normalizing and legitimizing police intervention in routine life. Golash-Boza et al. (2022a) and Riley et al. (2024) connect the surge in complaints to higher stop and arrest rates among Black residents while Harris and co-authors (2020) show how routine youth activities in new green spaces are recast as disorder by newcomers. Goldfischer (2019) traces how complaints about homelessness transform encampments into police “hotspots,” institutionalizing an “otherness” narrative that renders marginalized groups as threats. Similarly, Ramírez (2020) and Parekh (2015) find that long-standing cultural practices like drumming circles or community gatherings come under scrutiny once new residents begin calling the police. Tools such as app-based reporting further expand new residents’ capacity to mobilize police, reinforcing what Kinkel (2017) terms a disproportionate “power to complain” (Zur, 2023).

A few studies complicate this pattern. Beck (2020) reports that more 311 calls do not always yield more arrests, potentially because displaced populations relocate illicit activities elsewhere, withdraw from public space, or because many 311 complaints concern non-arrestable issues (Argento et al., 2018; Lyons et al., 2017). Even so, the broader literature indicates that citizen complaints play a central role in organizing police attention in gentrifying neighborhoods, intensifying surveillance and enforcement against longer-term residents typically from marginalized groups.

3.1.2. Police-led

This review also found that police surveillance often intensifies in gentrified neighborhoods, with officers targeting both the spaces themselves and adjacent areas. The following results suggest that police surveillance in gentrifying neighborhoods functions less as crime prevention and more as a state-sanctioned mechanism of social regulation—an effort to maintain order and control marginalized populations with a goal of achieving and sustaining favorable public perception.

Order-maintenance policing, enforcement of minor infractions to regulate public behavior, emerges as a central mechanism through which gentrification reshapes public safety. Beck (2020) finds that as White residents move into previously disinvested neighborhoods, street stops decline while order-maintenance activity increases, rising 5% for every 1% increase in White population. Similarly, in areas experiencing rising property values during early-stage gentrification, police make more order-maintenance arrests, suggesting that these practices help stabilize the newer social order as neighborhood composition shifts.

These forms of policing disproportionately target marginalized groups. Collins et al. (2022) documents heightened citation activity against unhoused residents for minor infractions (e.g., sleeping on sidewalks) in gentrified neighborhoods, a pattern not observed where low-income populations increase. Stop-and-frisk, another order-maintenance tactic, is used disproportionately against Black residents in gentrifying contexts (Golash-Boza et al., 2022b), indicating that the same tools are selectively applied.

Beyond everyday enforcement patterns, gentrification also expands more formal mechanisms of social control. Ramírez (2020) describes gang-injunction zones that criminalized the mere presence of Black youth, regardless of gang affiliation. Raco (2003) and Zur (2023) show how new surveillance systems and police-led “revitalization” projects such as clearing encampments to construct parks further intensified displacement and regulation, often at the request of more politically empowered new residents.

Qualitative research reinforces these trends, with long-time residents reporting feeling surveilled, constrained, and treated as suspicious for simply occupying public space. Moreover, policing intensifies not only within the gentrifying areas themselves but to some extent also in adjacent neighborhoods, producing a spillover effect in which heightened surveillance radiates outward (Laniyonu, 2018; Lautenschlager, 2022; J. Smith et al., 2021). Together, these findings reveal how gentrification transforms policing from crime prevention to the active management of public behavior and space, often in racially inequitable ways.

3.1.3. Business and investment

Police surveillance in gentrifying neighborhoods is closely aligned with new business development and rising investment, often functioning to prepare and protect redevelopment. Rising property values correlate with order-maintenance arrests, especially in the earliest stages of gentrification (Beck, 2020), indicating that policing primes areas for higher-income residents and businesses. At the institutional level, partnerships between developers and police mean enforcement priorities are shaped by political and economic pressures (Raco, 2003), channeling police attention toward safeguarding commercial interests and reshaping neighborhoods to match fiscal and political goals.

Case studies clearly show these dynamics at play. The new Edmonton hockey arena prompted punitive policing to manage marginalized groups around the venue (Scherer et al., 2021). In Vancouver, Olympic redevelopment and commercial investment displaced queer and transgender sex worker communities to “clean up” space for business (Argento et al., 2018; Lyons et al., 2017). New neighborhood amenities become heavily surveilled, with police targeting longtime residents perceived as disrupting the neighborhood’s desired evolution (Holt et al., 2020; Pennay et al., 2014). Taken together, the literature suggests that policing in gentrifying neighborhoods operates not only as social control but as a direct instrument for advancing and protecting business interests.

3.2. Indirect policing

Indirect policing refers to vicarious experiences of policing through others or the environment, including ambient surveillance or police presence in an area (Simckes et al., 2021). No studies have yet explored vicarious trauma that arises from being exposed to police violence through media or second-hand accounts. While some studies included in this review described feelings of unease, discomfort, or paranoia that arose from greater police presence in their gentrified neighborhood, these responses were typically based on past direct—not vicarious—experiences with police (Pennay et al., 2014; Scherer et al., 2021).

3.3. Individual- and community-level health and social effects

Not all studies described the consequences of or reactions to increased policing in the wake of gentrification. These have been exclusively documented in qualitative or multi-method research with a qualitative component, while quantitative studies tended to focus on quantifying links between gentrification and policing (rather than impacts).

At the individual level, qualitative studies in this review found that changes in policing due to gentrification reshaped how people navigated daily life, often leading to feelings of stress, fear, isolation, and anxiety about potential displacement and reduced safety. Several studies describe the psychosocial stresses of living in newly gentrified neighborhoods that come from feeling marginalized and excluded in your own space: Holt et al. (2020) document how low-income Black men in gentrified DC neighborhoods felt stressed due to gentrification-induced neighborhood changes, resulting in hypervigilance to new threats from gentrifiers or police, amplifying stress and psychological alienation from their sense of home. Harris et al. (2020) found that Black and Latine youth avoided new green spaces in white-majority areas out of fear of White gentrifiers and anxiety about them calling police. It should be noted, however, that both studies showed that some residents noted perceived improvements in their sense of psychological safety due to increased policing (Harris et al., 2020; Holt et al., 2020). Similarly, Pennay et al. (2014) and Scherer et al. (2021) highlighted that displacement due to increased police presence led to riskier health behaviors—like heavily drinking alone indoors—or adaptive behaviors to avoid surveillance, such as developing “cop wisdom,” i.e., cognitive and behavioral strategies to reduce police contact arising from hypervigilance in overpoliced neighborhoods (Pennay et al., 2014; Scherer et al., 2021; Stuart, 2016).

At the community level, perceived collective stress, loss of belonging, and social isolation were recurrent themes, as intensified policing in gentrifying areas fractured social networks and displaced residents into unfamiliar or isolated spaces. Gentrification eroded cultural practices, displaced long-standing residents, and reshaped urban space in ways that deepened social inequities: Harris et al. (2020) and Ramírez (2020) noted cultural erasure through the removal of murals and suppression of public music, and Parekh (2015) described gentrifiers using the threat of police to stifle traditions such as “second-line” parades in New Orleans and outdoor concerts. However, Maharawal (2017) highlighted collective resistance through Black Lives Matter protests that challenged exclusionary redevelopment. These shifts undermined the protective effects of place-based belonging, cultural practices, and social connection thereby weakening these health-promoting factors (Kawachi and Berkman, 2001). Fractured social networks via displacement can lead to selling sex or using drugs in unfamiliar or isolated, less safe locations, thereby increasing health risks such as overdose or client-perpetrated violence against sex workers (Rhodes et al., 2011; Platt et al., 2018; Shannon et al., 2008). For example, in several studies, queer male and transgender sex workers lost supportive ties and were pushed toward online work to protect themselves from potential violence from clients or police (Argento et al., 2018; Lyons et al., 2017; Pennay et al., 2014; Scherer et al., 2021). Across cases, exclusion from local networks and hypervigilant “cop wisdom” can introduce health harms linked to isolation such as exposure to violence (Stuart, 2016). In some studies, displacement from gentrified areas led marginalized populations into smaller but denser areas, allowing for easier policing. Lyons et al. (2017) and Kinkel (2017) documented ongoing or inevitable displacement, with sex workers and people who use drugs (PWUD) concentrated in police-controlled zones. Collins et al. (2019) and Zur (2023) similarly found that new businesses and dispersal of PWUD created new “hot spots” for drug use and overdose, concentrating PWUD in geographic areas and making policing of drug use easier. Collectively, these studies show that gentrification-induced policing not only disrupts community cohesion but can also produce new geographies of control, surveillance, and inequality that can negatively affect health.

4. Discussion

We conducted a scoping review of the current literature regarding policing in the context of gentrification in cities around the world. Across studies we found a consistent relationship between neighborhoods experiencing some measure of gentrification and changes (often increases in force) to policing behaviors after this process. These changes appear to work through at least three potential pathways: citizens directly calling emergency and non-emergency numbers for police assistance; the fiscal interests of investors in the gentrified area leaning on city officials to protect those interests via increased security and enforcement in the area; and from police themselves, often with order-maintenance policing. Exposure to direct policing (and the resulting health and social impacts) are concentrated within the existing residents of gentrified areas, typically low-income, Black, or Latine neighborhoods. These findings build on prior work by Simckes and colleagues (2021) concerning population health effects of policing by demonstrating that gentrification is one factor influencing which populations are exposed to police and by identifying critical gaps in the literature that could further advance our understanding of policing and gentrification’s effects on health.

Studies found a range of individual- and community-level effects arising from policing changes in the wake of gentrification which can contribute to our understanding of urban health risk environments and health disparities among vulnerable and minoritized populations. Psychosocial impacts are the most frequently discussed in the literature including stress, anxiety, and depression, and are often accompanied by a loss of physical safety and sense of home (Argento et al., 2018; Harris et al., 2020; Holt et al., 2020; Lyons et al., 2017). Black and Latine individuals were subject to the harshest scrutiny by police and tended to experience the effects of gentrification most acutely as majority-Black or Latine neighborhoods tended to be those undergoing gentrification (Freeman and Cai, 2015). Importantly, these psychosocial stress reactions are closely intertwined with subsequent behavioral adaptations among residents of heavily policed neighborhoods. Persistent exposure to policing and/or the anticipation of police interactions may produce chronic stress responses (Tyler et al., 2015; Dunbar and Jones, 2020). Individuals may develop forms of “cop wisdom” which require sustained vigilance and constant risk assessment (Stuart, 2016). Heightened actual and anticipatory stress from changes to policing in the wake of gentrification may contribute to weathering, or the cumulative physiological toll of chronic stress, on Black and Latine populations (Geronimus, 1996; Geronimus et al., 1991). Racism, discrimination, and other systemic inequities elevate stress responses, increasing biological vulnerability to illness and, according to the weathering hypothesis, leading to disproportionately high rates of hypertension, diabetes, and other chronic conditions and may be one explanation for reviews consistently finding negative health impacts of gentrification, especially for racial minorities (Cole et al., 2025; G. S. Smith et al., 2020; Anguelovski et al., 2021). The results of this review provide evidence of the policing-gentrification relationship as an important stressor in Black and Latine communities, one that should be further studied and addressed to promote more equitable health outcomes for these groups.

Within this risk environment (Rhodes, 2002), vulnerable populations bore the brunt of policing effects through adaptive behavioral changes with impacts on health and social connections. People experiencing unsheltered homelessness, people who use drugs, and sex workers responded to greater policing in the neighborhood by changing behaviors to avoid citizen and police attention (Argento et al., 2018; Kinkel, 2017; Lyons et al., 2017; A. B. Collins et al., 2019; Kinkel, 2017; Pennay et al., 2014; Zur, 2022). Behavioral modifications included rushing drug use, using drugs alone to not draw attention, or selling sex in an unfamiliar, hidden location (Argento et al., 2018; Kinkel, 2017; Lyons et al., 2017; A. B. Collins et al., 2019; Kinkel, 2017; Pennay et al., 2014; Zur, 2022). These adaptations, while intended to protect health, are shaped by structural constraints and may elevate both immediate health risks and chronic stress levels. These behaviors have important implications for prevention and harm reduction of unintentional overdose, skin and soft tissue infections, and infectious disease (e.g., HIV, sexually transmitted infections) acquisition (Baker et al., 2019; Strathdee et al., 2011, 2015). Gender-based violence inflicted upon sex workers can also proliferate more easily in unfamiliar, hidden locations. This is especially true for sexual and gender minorities who sell sex and who often rely on social networks to stay safe while on the street (Glick et al., 2022; Logie et al., 2021). Increased policing due to gentrification not only affects health and health behaviors but also alters the cultural fabric of a neighborhood such that resources and ownership of the neighborhood become concentrated among a privileged group of new residents. The examples of cultural erosion in the literature (community gatherings, playing music) likely contribute to weakening social networks in gentrified neighborhoods, reinforcing the effects of gentrification and sustaining systems of inequity that allow displacement and over-policing to flourish.

4.1. Gaps identified

Several important gaps in the literature were identified. The starkest gap is in how gentrification is defined, or if it is defined at all in the research. This issue is not new, and several others have documented the wide variety of definitions in other reviews (Bhavsar et al., 2020; Finio, 2022). The present findings extend this literature and reinforce the importance of future research to refine and validate the constituent elements of gentrification to reach broader consensus. Others have called for a definition of gentrification that includes both economic and social variables to capture multiple dimensions of the concept but, as shown in this review, inclusion of both is inconsistent (Bhavsar et al., 2020; Corrigan et al., 2021). Without a consensus definition of gentrification, it is difficult for researchers and practitioners to compare results across studies, ultimately limiting a full understanding of gentrification’s effects, and hindering the ability to craft protective or health-promoting policies with actionable targets.

Although qualitative studies dominate this area, few quantitative or mixed-method investigations exist. Qualitative work provides rich detail on how gentrification-induced policing affects mental health, substance use, and other outcomes and gives voice to those most affected. To estimate the magnitude and generalizability of these effects at the population level, however, more quantitative research is needed. Mixed-methods designs can explore how gentrification is conceptualized by the affected populations, aid in hypothesis generation, and test relationships statistically within the same study. Most studies to date are not participatory; expanding community-engaged research would enhance validity and relevance of research findings. Finally, nearly all existing studies are retrospective and cross-sectional, limiting insight into how gentrification and policing evolve over time. Addressing these gaps will require prospective, mixed method approaches that follow communities across different stages of neighborhood change to better understand health and social outcomes.

Most research comes from urban studies or criminology disciplines, with little from public health or medicine. Though criminal legal involvement is a social determinant of health, public health research thus far has lagged other disciplines like criminology, sociology, or geography. Public health brings its own lenses through which to view gentrification and policing that differs from these other disciplines: a critical focus on how structural factors like policing and changing neighborhood dynamics affect downstream population-level health outcomes that are often missed in other fields (Cole et al., 2025; G. S. Smith et al., 2020; Anguelovski et al., 2021). For example, no studies in this review examined indirect policing in the context of gentrification; studying indirect policing could shed light on broader psychosocial impacts of gentrification, outcomes that are typically not the purview of research in fields adjacent to the criminal legal system. The lack of research on gentrification and indirect policing suggests that broader or spillover psychosocial impacts of policing (in the context of gentrification) are likely underestimated; inaccurate understanding of the potential health burden of gentrification-induced policing can lead to inadequate resource allocation and limit effective policy responses. Indeed, understanding the gentrification-policing relationship likely depends on multidisciplinary teams bring diverse frameworks to the research.

This review has several limitations. First, this review was intentionally scoped to examine studies that conceptualize policing as an outcome or correlate of neighborhood change, to characterize how shifts in neighborhood conditions are associated with policing exposures relevant to health. Policing may also function as a mechanism that facilitates or accelerates gentrification processes, including in citizen-led or state-mediated pathways, and would be a fruitful area of future research to better understand the policing to gentrification relationship. Next, the lack of consensus in the definition of gentrification may have influenced the search strategy and therefore the studies selected for review. We restricted inclusion to English-language publications, likely omitting relevant evidence from non-English international contexts. Further, limiting included articles to those peer-reviewed likely also omitted relevant or emerging evidence, though we chose this inclusion criterion to uphold a baseline of methodological rigor. Future work could extend this review to incorporate gray literature to capture other perspectives. Next, although studies spanned several different settings, heterogeneity of housing and neighborhood development policies, racial politics, and police-community relationships limit generalizability. Therefore, findings should be interpreted with caution and consideration of the context in which the work was conducted. Finally, because many included studies did not set out to measure health effects, our synthesis of health outcomes is primarily descriptive and based on reported experiences rather than causal estimates. Nevertheless, synthesizing these descriptive findings can support future research that addresses health outcomes because of gentrification-induced policing changes.

This scoping review of the literature found consistent evidence of greater police presence and interaction in neighborhoods undergoing gentrification. Specifically, three pathways emerged that may explain this relationship: citizen-led efforts (via 311 and 911 calls) by newer residents problematizing and othering typical behaviors of longer-term residents; police-led efforts, often through order-maintenance policing, to exert social control over longer-term residents who are often Black, Latine, or low-income; and business-led efforts to protect new investments in gentrified neighborhoods by leaning on police for heightened enforcement and displacement of existing residents. Several gaps in the literature emerged that, if addressed, can inform rigorous research into the gentrification-policing relationship and, ultimately, lead to policies that support equitable neighborhood development and public safety.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2026.119553.

Data availability

No data was used for the research described in the article.