Jump to content

Course:GEOG350/2024/Places of Unsafety: A Case Study of Downtown Eastside

From UBC Wiki

Introduction

The public and private realms, and the safe and unsafe areas constituting a city dictate how we perceive, interact, and move within them, and even how broader socioeconomic and political forces shape the cities we live in. The distinction between public and private affects our sense of privacy in one’s own home versus in public, and how we act in a part of a city, such as how we engage with the public community, the social dynamics we form in public, and how these dynamics shift between these public/private boundaries. However, the capacity to engage with spaces and people, or the ability to retain a sense of privacy that is assumed to be normal in safe, public and private spaces is greatly impaired in unsafe spaces, both for those living in safe spaces, and those living in the unsafe.

Definitions

People generally describe safe places to be places that promote positive social connections and emotions[1], where people have a sense of agency, and familiarity operating within the space[2]. The physical built environment of a space also contributes to someone’s sense of safety, with feelings of safety typically associated with images or the incorporation of nature, along with the use of specific colours[2]. There is no fear of, or potential risk for any form of harm, violence, or harassment in these places. In these places, engaging with spaces and people, creating positive interactions, is an integral part that constitutes it.

Unsurprisingly, unsafe places are much the opposite of safe ones. In these places, there is an element of risk to one’s physical, mental, and emotional wellbeing simply by being there; places where violence is more commonplace or probable[1]. Some actions, experiences, and events that can cause a sense of unsafety include stigma and risky use of substances[1], use of alcohol[2], negative social interactions with others and negative emotions related to said place[2]. Environments that also appear destitute, or neglected also evoke feelings of unsafety[1]. Various factors that intersect to make a place unsafe can compound to intensify existing unsafe places or create more unsafe places if left unsolved[3].

However, places are not inherently ‘safe’ or ‘unsafe’, but are shaped to be depending on factors of different scales. They can be shaped by structural forces, such as the shift to neoliberalism[4], or broader forces, such as global consensus and opinions towards a place[5], but also by smaller forces, such as the experiences developing in a place, the events, and the relationships formed in these places[1][6], triggered by both human and non-human actors[1]

At the same time, the safety or unsafety of a place is subjective to each person, dependent on not only their external experiences, and identity[2], but also internal experiences and memories contained in a place[7], or lack of, biasing their view of a place[2].

Outline

As the unsafe affects how everyone is able to operate in their everyday, then understanding what causes a space to be perceived as unsafe, how that perception affects residents of unsafe spaces, and how to truly turn an unsafe space into a safe one is integral in the pursuit for equitable cities. An overview on the perceived unsafety in the Downtown Eastside (DTES) will be explored, along with city failures in creating its reputation. DTES, arguably the most unsafe place in Vancouver, known for its crime and disrepair[8], and its high rates of substance use and homelessness, will be investigated as a case study, cross-referenced to more friendly Kitsilano. Drivers of the perceived unsafety and safety of the DTES and Kitsilano respectively will be analyzed, followed by possible solutions actors can take to make places safe for all.

Overview of issue/focus

Unsafe places, places that make people emotionally and psychologically feel their wellbeing threatened just by the idea of being near, and especially in these places, exist all around the world, including in Vancouver. The most notorious in Vancouver is the DTES; People steer away, and plans are drawn around and away from the DTES, with most people wanting to pretend these places do not exist. Not only does the perception of an unsafe place affect the mobility of those more fortunate, their perception only reaffirms to those living within it that they too, are unsafe, creating social exclusion and unease, an ‘us’ versus ‘them’, making it difficult for those associated with unsafe places to find the supports they need to become socially accepted members of society. The high number of services and care centers in unsafe areas, such as with the DTES, only serve to solidify the perception that “there is something wrong with this place” to those living inside and outside it. Recognizing this issue, the city of Vancouver always directs much of their time, money, and attention into these areas, with constant investments into areas such as the DTES setting aside capital grants or plans of revitalization in their budget in hopes to improve these places[9]. Despite their best efforts, these unsafe places inevitably are becoming bigger, more pronounced, with more people finding themselves homeless in Vancouver every year[10], burdened by the inability to afford housing here, especially with stagnating wages. In this direction, unsafe places in Vancouver will only keep growing.

To have a city where everyone has the agency to create a future for themselves, where opportunity and liveability is accessible, it is then necessary to turn unsafe places into safe ones, where the most destitute who have been pushed to live in its boundaries are no longer limited in agency by the places they live in.

Vancouver's role in the worsening of the Downtown Eastside

Contrary to what it is today, the DTES was not always considered an unsafe place[11]. The unsavoury reputation it has today is a result of institutional, governmental, and policy failures in the wake of changing economic and political systems[4]. One of the original neighbourhoods of Vancouver, it initially had an industrial presence, but with time, the downtown core shifted gradually west[11]. Post World Wars, the DTES became more affordable as a result of its older and degraded housing[4], becoming composed of marginalized peoples who relied on its newfound affordability.  Health inspectors from the Vancouver Health Department (VHD), spurred to maintain bylaws, performed routine inspections in the neighbourhood. However, their harsh inspections reduced the housing availability in the DTES[4], resulting in the creation of more forgiving policies in the 1970s to revitalize the neighbourhood’s single-residence occupancies SROs and housing stock[4]. Balancing the necessary, but occasionally unforgiving health and building bylaw inspections with these policies was a difficult balance, but a solution was found in the Rental-Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program (Rental-RRAP) in 1973, a federal program for preserving deteriorating housing through providing loans and grants[4]. It considerably improved conditions in the DTES, with the repairs in the neighbourhood, more affordable rents, and the increased sense of livability and safety apparent[4]. Despite its success, the Rental-RRAP was discontinued on April 27, 1989, due to federal government recalls of the program stemming from the shift towards a more neoliberal government (Masuda 833). Reductions in the funding for social housing also occurred[12]. It may be easier to pin the current state of the DTES on structural factors, but ultimately, the city of Vancouver failed the neighbourhood. The VHD’s power had shifted and dwindled following the introduction of the Rental-RRAP (Mausda 830), and then came the creation of the Vancouver Coastal Health, a product of the neoliberalizing health care system that muddled who was supposed to take responsibility for the public health of the DTES between the city and province[4]. This culminated into the rapid re-deterioration of housing in the DTES, along with the health of its residents in the face of the AIDS and substance use crisis that had begun to emerge in the DTES; the city had abandoned the neighbourhood[4].

Safety of the DTES and Kitsilano

The Downtown Eastside highlighted in red in the context of the city of Vancouver

With a now longstanding history of failed housing environments, and lacking infrastructure and upkeep of buildings, the DTES will be cross-referenced with Kitsilano, a place considered to be a safe neighbourhood in contrast. The DTES faces high levels of crime, along with a multitude of drug arrests, and significant substance use problems in its population, especially in its past. In 2002, 36% of substance use related arrests in Vancouver took place in the DTES, along with 19% of crimes against people[13]. An increasing trend was found in the frequency of substance use in DTES between 1996 (following the discontinued Rental-RRAP program, and neoliberalization of government and public health actions) to 2005[14]. In 2023, the crimes committed in the DTES made up 8.3% of the city of Vancouver’s crimes in that year. Kitsilano made up 3.2% of crimes in comparison[15].

The Kitsilano neighbourhood, highlighted in red in the context of the city of Vancouver

Kitsilano, as opposed to other safe neighbourhoods in Vancouver, was chosen due to having relatively similar housing types to DTES, meaning as a built environment, and a physical place, is comparable to DTES. 43% of the housing in DTES is composed of apartments with fewer than five stories[16] and 67% of housing in Kitsilano is composed of the same[17]. The state of housing in the DTES is and has been deteriorating, many of the units decades old[4]. Some of the houses in Kitsilano are over a century old, yet are still maintained and cherished well in contrast[18]. If Kitsilano, a neighbourhood with a comparable built form and age to its housing stock can be safe, whereas DTES cannot be, it shows that what contributes to the feeling of unsafety in places is not solely based on the state of the place itself. Furthermore, by comparing neighbourhoods of similar build, it will also be easier to pick out the differences that do exist between them, and identify if these differences then can influence the safety of place.

Case Study of the issue

Weak Identity to Place

As the perception people have of a place seems to reach further beyond just the physical place itself, there must be something else driving that perception. A provoking thought that is being explored more in geography is that, as Casey puts it, “there is no place without self and no self without place”[19]. Places are inextricably linked to the self; the identities of the people living there. This idea is reflected in a real-world example laid out by Massey, where a proposal to turn a few old buildings in a place known for agriculture into a place of more economic activity split between people who moved there for the presumed tranquil nature of the place, and those who had lived there longer, and thought of it as a place where they worked, where economic activity would only benefit them[5]. How this place went on to develop and change depended entirely on the people living within it, and their sense of self there. An explanation, or at least an indicator of why DTES is considered to be an unsafe place then, is because of the perception that it is dangerous. Casey also proposes the idea that with a stronger identity, or self, the stronger the connection to a place, or the stronger the presence of a place becomes[19]. DTES however, has a presence that people generally frown upon. If the DTES is known to be an unsavoury place, then how are the identities of people living within it affected? Fast and Cunningham had frequent contact with homeless youth in the area since around 2008, and a notable idea presented by one of the youth was that they didn’t want to be like the people “stuck down [there]”[20], implying the DTES. They did not want their identity to match with what the DTES was known for, despite living there themselves. They did not want to develop an identity related to the perceived unsafety of DTES. This shows the higher possibility for a weak sense of self and place with DTES for those living inside it, which contrasts to safer neighbourhoods like Kitsilano, or any ‘safe’ place in the world. People typically have some sort of attachment to where they work and live, and each place often has a few things about it that sets it apart from other places, showing their strength of identity, along with the strength of safe places.

Social connections and the perception of safety

Example of an alleyway in the Downtown Eastside, safe for residents due to connections to the place

However, while the DTES may feel unsafe for some people living outside and inside its boundaries, it is also a place that many people call home, feel safe in, and pursue their livelihoods and income in. In various interviews with people living in the DTES, Ivsins et al. noted various people who felt safe in the alleyways of the DTES[1]. These alleyways, often filled with conventionally sketchy, risky activities, are places of security and familiarity to these residents, with one interviewee explaining that “the same people are in that alley every day.”, and describing it as a  “...tight thing you know we have”[1]. Evidently, there are people in the DTES who have a deep connection and identity to the place, and the people and social communities thriving within the neighbourhood. Mainly composed of marginalized groups, from those who use substances, face homelessness, or fall under multiple of these stigmatized identities, most people in the DTES have faced similar struggles[1]. Through this mutual understanding of others’ situations, people are intimately acquainted with each other there, and will take care of each other, especially in times of need[1]. In comparison, the homeless youth interviewed by Fast and Cunningham, who disassociated themselves from the people in the DTES and their identities, felt unsafe. An integral component that contributes to a sense of safety is the presence of positive social relationships within that space, so it only stands that the lack of made by these homeless youth instilled a sense of placelessness and unease in these individuals. What causes a place to be perceived as unsafe then is not based solely on its built environment, the people, their actions, and the state of all these actors; it is also dependent on the feeling of belonging, of feeling you have a place, and an identity that builds up the place you interact with.

This idea becomes even more apparent when analyzing the pasts of some of the youth interviewed by Fast and Cunningham, where they found a place for themselves in the DTES, and when analyzing how the perception of safety develops in Kitsilano.

Connection to built environment and the perception of safety

In truth, many of the homeless youth interviewed by Fast and Cunningham used to feel a sense of safety in the past in a shelter called ‘The Lighthouse’, located in the DTES. Similarly to those interviewed by Ivsins et al. who described the characteristics of the DTES’s alleyways, The Lighthouse was described as a “derelict” and “perpetually in shadow” shelter, where drug deals, open substance use, arguments, and fights took place[20]; objectively, an unsafe place. Thriving social relationships existed between the youth staying there, contributing to the sense of safety, but what made The Lighthouse unique as a place that could be safe was how its residents interacted with the physical environment itself. Some of its long standing residents were able to personalize what little space they had in The Lighthouse, able to express their identities by decorating the walls near their beds. As one of the interviewed youth put it, “We really tried to make homes for ourselves there”[20].

Kitsilano, objectively much safer in environment, is also home, and a safe place for many Vancouverites. Described by the City of Vancouver as a neighbourhood known for its food scene, with retail and restaurants throughout it, it is also lauded by travel magazines for its famous beach, having an incredibly positive reputation both locally and globally[18]. On top of this is the maintenance of the buildings and housing there[18][21], allowing people to form a positive opinion of the neighbourhood, and grow attached to where they live. Like the struggling youth from The Lighthouse, with the presence of private spaces for the people of Kitsilano, and the ability to express themselves in their own homes, and grow familiar with the public spaces, a sense of safety is easily fostered there.

In both the cases above, what makes these places feel safe is the presence of place attachment. Place attachment, as Olajammi and Koskinen-Koivisto describe, is the positive emotions and connotations a person associates to a specific place[22][23][24]. These places often make people feel safe and secure, which often motivates people to stay there. Additionally, it is easier to become more attached to places that are maintained well, or have some natural elements tied to them[22][25]. This also points to why place attachment comes easily to the people of Kitsilano, with a famous beach, along with its well-managed urban canopies and its high presence of trees within the urban fabric[21]. Typically, places rife with disorder, and violence lessen place attachment[22], however, in the absence of a physically, or emotionally safe environment, like in the case of the interviewees of Fast and Cunningham, having a private space that can be personalized, and be made to feel like a home, creates place attachment and the sense of safety.

Placelessness and unsafety

There emerges an idea: Placelessness is what makes a place unsafe. Having a sense of place is tied to two factors: the first is having strong social ties to a place. People in the DTES interviewed by Ivsins et al. felt safe in objectively dangerous alleyways, due to holding a familiarity of those who frequented them. The second factor is the level of attachment to a physical space within the place. Be it in a dilapidated shelter in the DTES with just a small wall to call yours, or a house to call home in the objective safety in Kitsilano, having the freedom to become attached to how a space is decorated, a person’s presence infallible to its existence, regardless of the state of both places, people felt safety in both.

This explains why the general public, people who do not live in the DTES, would feel unsafe in the infamous neighbourhood, but feel safe in Kitsilano. If there is an absence of social ties to a place, the only thing to judge a place on, besides word of mouth concerning the place, is its physical built environment. While in a private space, a positive attachment can form more easily just from having a personal space, in public spaces, the state of the external environment is what affects the sense of safety. Therefore, the DTES, an objectively unsafe place with degrading buildings and risky events occurring in public will instill a sense of unease in comparison to Kitsilano, with well-preserved buildings, and an abundance of trees and nature to form attachments to easily. The distinctive identity of Kitsilano also enables the formation of place attachment[26].

Lesson learned

Places are subjective from person to person. What is safe for one is unsafe for another. Those in the DTES find safety in their close ones as a result, in the community they have built up; that is not the case for those external to it. Even those living within it can feel unsafe, if their sense of identity there is weak. Safety is perceived based on the physical environment in the absence of social relationships; Kitsilano, then, is generally safe for all, unlike the DTES. This leads to the idea of placelessness being the cause for perceptions of unsafety. The opposite also holds true; a sense of place results in the sense of safety.  

Sensitivity of place and importance of local communities

As a person’s sense of place plays a big part in the perceived unsafety and safety of all places around the world, understanding how spaces can become safe for everyone is imperative. Each place in the world is likely to be home for somebody, or a place that holds meaning. Challenging spaces rashly then, is a reckless idea. Even minuscule changes to landscapes that are familiar to its residents, especially long standing ones, can affect their physical, mental, and emotional health[27], resulting in a sense of loss[28]. Taken in a negative context, this can be seen with the Inuit people in Rigolet, Newfoundland and Labrador, who expressed extreme frustration towards climate change, and its presence in changing the environment they called home, where deep historical and cultural ties were rooted, and where they work, played, and found peace in[27]. If large, structural forces can easily change the safe sense of place set for those accustomed to the space, governments must take care when trying to make a space safe for people external to the space too. Melaka and George Town residents from Malaysia, cities with rich histories of culture, with numerous heritage sites, stress the importance of acknowledging and working together with its local community to retain the culture behind these sites while simultaneously creating an enjoyable, safe experience for external presences, like tourists[29]. In the case of the DTES, its strong social community between marginalized peoples is a core aspect in making it feel safe for its residents, so to retain that integral connection, working with the services, and people who uphold that community is important when making changes to it that keep the DTES’ sense of place feel safe for those within it, while also lessening the main factors that feel dangerous for everyone else, being its deteriorating environment, and risky activities. This idea extends to all other ‘unsafe’ places throughout the world; acknowledging the strengths it has, and working with the people involved in shaping that place is imperative.

References

  1. ↑ 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 Ivsins, Andrew et al. “From risky places to safe spaces: Re-assembling spaces and places in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside.” Health & place vol. 59 (2019): 102164, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2019.102164. Accessed 13 June 2024.
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 Muir-Cochrane, Eimear et al. “The inpatient psychiatric unit as both a safe and unsafe place: implications for absconding.” International journal of mental health nursing vol. 22, no. 4, 2013, pp. 304-12, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1447-0349.2012.00873.x. Accessed 14 June 2024.
  3. ↑ Borg, Anna-Lena. “‘This place does not feel safe’: safe and unsafe spaces in Swedish school-age educare.” Children’s Geographies, vol. 21, no. 6, 2023, pp. 1044-1057, doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2023.2175315open_in_new. Accessed May 29 June 2024.
  4. ↑ 4.00 4.01 4.02 4.03 4.04 4.05 4.06 4.07 4.08 4.09 Masuda, Jeffrey, and Right to Remain Research Collective. “Abandoning the SRO: Public Health Withdrawal from Sanitary Enforcement in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside.” Journal of urban history vol. 49, no. 4, 2023, pp. 821-843, https://doi.org/10.1177/00961442211018795. Accessed 12 June 2024.
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Massey, Doreen. “Places and Their Pasts.” History Workshop Journal, no. 39, 1995, pp. 182–92, JSTOR, jstor.org/stable/4289361. Accessed 2 June 2024.
  6. ↑ Duff, Cameron. “The place and time of drugs.” The International journal on drug policy, vol. 25, no. 3, 2014, pp. 633-9, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2013.10.014. Accessed 13 June 2024.
  7. ↑ Johnson, Jay T. “Place-based learning and knowing: critical pedagogies grounded in Indigeneity.” GeoJournal, vol. 77, 2012, pp. 829–836, doi.org/10.1007/s10708-010-9379-1. Accessed 14 June 2024.
  8. ↑ Boyd, Jade, and Thomas, Kerr. “Policing 'Vancouver's Mental Health Crisis': A Critical Discourse Analysis.” Critical Public Health vol. 26, no. 4, 2016, pp. 418-433. https://doi.org/10.1080/09581596.2015.1007923. Accessed 13 June 2024.
  9. ↑ City of Vancouver. “2024 Budget.” City of Vancouver, vancouver.ca/files/cov/2024-budget-city-of-vancouver.pdf. Accessed 2 June 2024.
  10. ↑ Homelessness Services Association of BC. “2023 Homeless Count in Greater Vancouver.” Greeted Vancouver Reaching Home Community Entity, 2023, hsa-bc.ca/_Library/2023_HC/2023_Homeless_Count_for_Greater_Vancouver.pdf. Accessed 2 June 2024.
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 Proudfoot, Jesse. “The Derelict, the Deserving Poor, and the Lumpen : A History of the Politics of Representation in the Downtown Eastside.” Stan Douglas: Abbott & Cordova, 2011, pp. 88-104, doi.org/10.14288/1.0392621. Accessed 14 June 2024.
  12. ↑ Wood, Evan, and Kerr, Thomas. “What Do You Do When You Hit Rock Bottom? Responding to Drugs in the City of Vancouver.” International Journal of Drug Policy, vol. 17, no. 2, 2006, pp. 55–60, doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2005.12.007. Accessed 13 June 2024.
  13. ↑ Linden, Isabelle Aube et al. “Research on a vulnerable neighborhood-the vancouver downtown eastside from 2001 to 2011.” Journal of urban health : bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, vol. 90, no. 3, 2013, pp. 559-73, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-012-9771-x. Accessed 5 June 2024.
  14. ↑ Werb, Dan et al. “Modelling crack cocaine use trends over 10 years in a Canadian setting.” Drug and alcohol review, vol. 29, no. 3, 2010, pp. 271-7, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-3362.2009.00145.x. Accessed 5 June 2024.
  15. ↑ Vancouver Police Department. “2023 reported crime incident statistics by neighbourhood.” Vancouver Police Department, vpd.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/neighbourhood-year-end-2023.pdf. Accessed 16 June 2024.
  16. ↑ City of Vancouver. “2020 Strathcona Social Indicators Profile.” City of Vancouver, vancouver.ca/files/cov/social-indicators-profile-strathcona.pdf. Accessed 2 June 2024.
  17. ↑ City of Vancouver. “2020 Kitsilano Social Indicators Profile.” City of Vancouver, vancouver.ca/files/cov/social-indicators-profile-kitsilano.pdf. Accessed 2 June 2024.
  18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 18.2 City of Vancouver. “Kitsilano.” City of Vancouver, https://vancouver.ca/news-calendar/kitsilano.aspx. Accessed 20 June 2024.
  19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 Casey, Edward S. “Between Geography and Philosophy: What Does It Mean to Be in the Place-World?” Annals of the Association of American Geographers, vol. 91, no. 4, 2001, pp. 683–93, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3651229. Accessed 2 June 2024.
  20. ↑ 20.0 20.1 20.2 Fast, Danya, and Cunningham, David. ““We Don’t Belong There”: New Geographies of Homelessness, Addiction, and Social Control in Vancouver’s Inner City.” City & Society, 30, pp. 237-262, https://doi.org/10.1111/ciso.12177. Accessed 2 June 2024.
  21. ↑ 21.0 21.1 Lu, Yuhao et al. “Modeling the Shading Effect of Vancouver’s Urban Tree Canopy in Relation to Neighborhood Variations.” Arboriculture & Urban Forestry, vol.48, no. 2, 2022, pp. 95-112, https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2022.008, Accessed 20 June 2024.
  22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 22.2 Ojalammi, Sanna, and Koskinen-Koivisto, Eerika. “ATTACHMENT TO PLACE AND COMMUNITY TIES IN TWO SUBURBS OF JYVÄSKYLÄ, CENTRAL FINLAND.” Geographical Review, vol. 114, no. 1, 2023, pp. 51-69, https://doi.org/10.1080/00167428.2022.2161383. Accessed 19 June 2024.
  23. ↑ Jorgensen, Bradley. and Stedman, Richard. “SENSE OF PLACE AS AN ATTITUDE: LAKESHORE OWNERS ATTITUDES TOWARD THEIR PROPERTIES.” Journal of Environmental Psychology, vol. 21, no. 3, 2001, pp. 233-248, https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2001.0226. Accessed 20 June 2024.
  24. ↑ Mesch, Gustavo, and Manor, Orit. “Social Ties, Environmental Perception, And Local Attachment.” Environment and Behavior, vol. 30, no. 4, 1998, pp. 504 - 519, https://doi.org/10.1177/001391659803000405. Accessed 20 June 2024.
  25. ↑ Eisenhauer et al. “Attachments to Special Places on Public Lands: An Analysis of Activities, Reason for Attachments, and Community Connections.” Society & Natural Resources, vol. 13, no. 5, 2000, pp. 421-444, https://doi.org/10.1080/089419200403848. Accessed 20 June 2024.
  26. ↑ Ilovan, Oana-Ramona, and Markuszewska, Iwona. “Introduction: Place Attachment – Theory and Practice.” Preserving and Constructing Place Attachment in Europe, edited by Oana-Ramona Ilovan and Iwona Markuszewska, vol. 131, 2022, pp. 1–29, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09775-1_1.
  27. ↑ 27.0 27.1 Willox, Ashlee et al. “"From this place and of this place:" climate change, sense of place, and health in Nunatsiavut, Canada.” Social Science & Medicine, vol. 75, no. 3 2012, pp. 538-47, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.03.043. Accessed 21 June 2024.
  28. ↑ Chamlee-Wright, Emily, and Storr, Virgil. ““THERE'S NO PLACE LIKE NEW ORLEANS”: SENSE OF PLACE AND COMMUNITY RECOVERY IN THE NINTH WARD AFTER HURRICANE KATRINA.” Journal of Urban Affairs, vol. 31, no. 5, 2009, pp. 615-634, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9906.2009.00479.x. Accessed 21 June 2024.
  29. ↑ Tan, Siow-Kian et al. “Sense of place and sustainability of intangible cultural heritage – The case of George Town and Melaka.” Tourism Management, vol. 64, 2018, pp. 376-387,  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.02.012. Accessed 21 June 2024.
This resource was created by the UBC Wiki Community.


Retrieved from "https://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Course:GEOG350/2024/Places_of_Unsafety:_A_Case_Study_of_Downtown_Eastside&oldid=840866"