# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Importance of Tourism on Economies and Businesses

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Tourism is vital for the success of many economies around the world. There are several benefits of tourism on host destinations.  Tourism boosts the revenue of the economy, creates thousands of j

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
History of Gentrification in America: A Timeline | Next City

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Coined in 1964, gentrification has come to encapsulate cultural trends, economic cycles, discrete public policies. Follow the evolution of gentrification in the US.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Ethics Bowl format is rooted in ongoing dialogue and deliberation: a series of two-way exchanges between equals. It is designed to get students thinking , talking , and ultimately working together on some of the toughest moral issues of our time.

Ethics Bowls are competitive yet collaborative events in which students discuss real-life ethical issues. In each round of competition, teams take turns analyzing cases about complex ethical dilemmas and responding to questions and comments from the other team and from a panel of judges. An Ethics Bowl differs from a Speech and Debate competition in that students are not assigned opposing views; rather, they defend the position they actually hold or think is reasonable, provide each other with constructive criticism, and win by demonstrating that they have thought rigorously and systematically about the cases and engaged respectfully and supportively with all participants. Data from program surveys shows that the NHSEB program teaches and promotes ethical awareness, critical thinking, civil discourse, civic engagement, and an appreciation for multiple points of view. NHSEB's objective is to do more than teach students how to think through ethical issues: It is to teach students how to think through ethical issues together, as fellow citizens in a complex moral and political community.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Ethics Bowl format is rooted in ongoing dialogue and deliberation: a series of two-way exchanges between equals. It is designed to get students thinking , talking , and ultimately working together on some of the toughest moral issues of our time. Ethics Bowls are competitive yet collaborative events in which students discuss real-life ethical issues.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
High school students from around the country converge on the University of North Carolina for a weekend of moral dilemmas. We follow twenty-four of the nation's top ethics teams competing in the 2017 National High School Ethics Bowl, and take a whirlwind tour of moral philosophy in the process. Guest voices include Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Geoff Sayre-McCord, Jeff Sebo, and students from high schools across the country.

(Transcript: Episode 2-The Ethics Bowl)

Music for this episode courtesy of Ari De Niro, Lee Rosevere, and Blue Dot Sessions.

Visit the National High School Ethics Bowl.

This episode brought to you by The Marc Sanders Foundation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
S2, Episode 2: The Ethics Bowl (Nov. 28, 2017)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
High school students from around the country converge on the University of North Carolina for a weekend of moral dilemmas. We follow twenty-four of the nation's top ethics teams competing in the 2017 National High School Ethics Bowl, and take a whirlwind tour of moral philosophy in the process.

# data[].attributes.headline
Transcript of Ethics Bowl HI-PHI Nation Podcast: Season 2, Episode 2

# data[].attributes.subject
Transcript of Ethics Bowl HI-PHI Nation Podcast: Season 2, Episode 2

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Transcript of Ethics Bowl Season 2, Episode 2

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
[mashshare]

Jason Richardson, Director, Research & Evaluation, NCRC
Bruce Mitchell, Ph.D., Senior Research Analyst, NCRC
Juan Franco, Senior GIS Specialist, NCRC

March 19, 2019

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Gentrification is a powerful force for economic change in our cities, but it is often accompanied by extreme and unnecessary cultural displacement. While gentrification increases the value of properties in areas that suffered from prolonged disinvestment, it also results in rising rents, home and property values. As these rising costs reduce the supply of affordable housing, existing residents, who are often black or Hispanic, are displaced. This prevents them from benefiting from the economic growth and greater availability of services that come with increased investment. Gentrification presents a challenge to communities that are trying to achieve economic revitalization without the disruption that comes with displacement.
This study found that from 2000 through 2013 the following occurred:

Gentrification and displacement of long-time residents was most intense in the nation's biggest cities, and rare in most other places.

Gentrification was concentrated in larger cities with vibrant economies, but also appeared in smaller cities where it often impacted areas with the most amenities near central business districts.

Displacement of black and Hispanic residents accompanied gentrification in many places and impacted at least 135,000 people in our study period. In Washington, D.C., 20,000 black residents were displaced, and in Portland, Oregon, 13 percent of the black community was displaced over the decade.

Seven cities accounted for nearly half of the gentrification nationally: New York City, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, Baltimore, San Diego and Chicago.

Washington, D.C., was the most gentrified city by percentage of eligible neighborhoods that experienced gentrification; New York City was the most gentrified by sheer volume. Neighborhoods were considered to be eligible to gentrify if in 2000 they were in the lower 40 percent of home values and family incomes in that metropolitan area.

The study lends weight to what critics say is a concentration not only of wealth, but of wealth-building investment, in just a handful of the nation's biggest metropolises, while other regions of the country languish.

The strict tests for gentrification and displacement in this study and the limitations of the data available likely undercounted instances of gentrification and displacement.

Most low- to moderate-income neighborhoods did not gentrify or revitalize during the period of our study. They remained impoverished, untouched by investments and building booms that occurred in major cities, and vulnerable to future gentrification and displacement.

[optin-monster-shortcode id="pp9hbd0oskt3h64b5asb"]

A major transformation is occurring in the most prosperous American cities. Many of the 600+ member organizations of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC) have raised concerns about gentrification, displacement and transformations in their communities. We wanted to better understand where gentrification and displacement was occurring, and how to measure and monitor it. Does gentrification also mean displacement?

Using U.S. Census Bureau and economic data, NCRC found that many major American cities showed signs of gentrification and some racialized displacement between 2000 and 2013. Gentrification was centered on vibrant downtown business districts, and in about a quarter of the cases it was accompanied by racialized displacement. Displacement disproportionately impacted black and Hispanic residents who were pushed away before they could benefit from increased property values and opportunities in revitalized neighborhoods. This intensified the affordability crisis in the core of our largest cities.

Gentrification was most intense in the nation's biggest coastal cities, yet in medium to small cities of the nation's interior it was rare: Most of the nation's cities and towns did not experience gentrification as measured in this study.

Neighborhoods experience gentrification when an influx of investment and changes to the built environment leads to rising home values, family incomes and educational levels of residents. Cultural displacement occurs when minority areas see a rapid decline in their numbers as affluent, white gentrifiers replace the incumbent residents.

In this study, neighborhoods were considered to be eligible to gentrify if in 2000 they were in the lower 40 percent of home values and family incomes in that metropolitan area.

Measuring gentrification and displacement is fraught with controversy, since people who are impacted by the economic and social transition of their neighborhoods feel the disruption of community ties directly. This study measured gentrification and displacement using empirical methods and data, which has its own flaws and limitations. First, while the use of U.S. census data improves the validity of the study's findings, it also restricts the population analysis to a time period extending from 2000 to 2010, while the social and economic data were gathered under the U.S. Census American Community Survey (ACS) program, covering the period starting in 2000 and until 2009-2013, a five-year consolidation of the social and economic data. This limits our findings to the not-too-distant past. However, neighborhoods with a more recent dynamic of gentrification and displacement could not be covered. Second, the use of census tracts, which average about 4,000 residents, as a proxy for neighborhoods could disguise neighborhood changes taking place at smaller community sizes. As a consequence of these restrictions on the time frame and scale of the study, it should not be implied that other neighborhoods have not experienced the same effects before, during or since the study period. Instead, the study is designed to identify instances of gentrification and displacement that can be measured with a high level of confidence, and avoid falsely noting gentrification where none occurred, but it cannot capture the full-lived reality of residents in gentrifying neighborhoods.

Disinvestment in low- and moderate-income communities results from a long history of discrimination in lending, housing and the exclusionary, racialized practice known as redlining. A recent study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago directly linked community disinvestment with historical redlining practices evident in the Home Owners Loan Corporation (HOLC) residential security ("redlining") maps, completed for all major cities of the U.S. 80 years ago. A 2018 study by NCRC found that three out of four neighborhoods marked "hazardous" by HOLC surveyors in the 1930s are still struggling economically, with lower incomes and higher proportions of minority residents. The economic outcomes for black and Hispanic families residing in disinvested areas are often stunted by lower incomes, fewer businesses and fewer opportunities to build wealth. This history set the stage for gentrification and displacement.

Local advocates and officials should pursue policies that encourage investment while promoting the ability of existing residents to stay and benefit from revitalization. In our 2016 paper, The Community Reinvestment Act: How CRA can promote integration and prevent displacement in gentrifying neighborhoods, we identified several ways in which local stakeholders can promote revitalization to benefit the broader community, such as partnerships between banks and community-based organizations to encourage equitable development; limited-equity co-ops and community land trusts; providing existing tenants with the right of first refusal in apartment conversions coupled with low-income and first-time buyer financing programs; inclusionary zoning regulations; and split tax rates for the incumbent residents of gentrifying neighborhoods. Additionally, HUD's Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) process provides an opportunity for community groups to engage with municipal leadership in the planning process. AFFH provides a mechanism for identifying areas that are vulnerable to, or may be in the early stages of, gentrification. Community groups can then work to develop strategies to avoid displacement of incumbent residents by attracting investment and providing affordable housing.

Large and small local banks can also play a role by supporting the development of housing and finance options that accommodate the retention of low- and moderate-income families in the community, rather than excluding them. Bank regulators should recognize pro-integrative bank finance as responsive to the needs of the community, crediting banks for these efforts in their CRA exams. Strategies like those advanced through HUD's AFFH rule, promoting investment in inclusive and diverse neighborhoods, should be eligible for CRA consideration. It is essential that programs promoting the economic prosperity of incumbent residents of gentrifying neighborhoods be discussed on the public evaluations released subsequent to a CRA exam to document their effectiveness and encourage other banks to apply comparable investment strategies in their markets.

INTRODUCTION

Any discussion of gentrification is likely to elicit a range of responses. A conversation with an NCRC member living in an impoverished and high-crime neighborhood in Baltimore, Maryland, culminates with a plea: "When can we get some of that (gentrification) in my community?" Another NCRC member from Portland, Oregon, experiences gentrification as an erosion of community ties, as rents escalate and families are displaced. In Arlington, Virginia, a large rental community of 3,000 mostly Hispanic immigrants drawn by a robust Washington, D.C., economy is uprooted when the property is sold, bulldozed and replaced by a mix of luxury and affordable apartments, which are neither truly affordable nor plentiful for the former tenants. In the rapidly gentrifying Shaw neighborhood of Washington, D.C., the Lincoln Temple United Church of Christ, a congregation that had existed since the 1860s and was a landmark of the Civil Rights struggle, is forced to dissolve in 2018 as its membership drops to just 20 congregants. Gentrification is controversial because it affects people at the neighborhood level, it can disrupt the familiar and established ties of a place, creating a disorienting new locale. For people displaced as the neighborhood becomes unaffordable, this is more than just nostalgia or discomfort with the unfamiliar. Often, they must accept longer commutes and a disruption of the support structures provided by their old neighbors and family. In these cases, gentrification is understood as the terminal stage of exclusion of minority (usually black) residents from affordable housing inside the city. Public policy measures starting with "slum clearance" in the 1930s and 1940s then became "urban renewal" (Collins & Shester 2012; Hyra 2012) and construction of the highway system, which split communities in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s (Mohl 2004: Karas 2015), which then became "redevelopment" in the 1980s and 1990s. Now, the remnant of these communities face an affordability crisis as affluent, usually white gentrifiers with access to credit move in and transform the economic and social dynamics of a community.

While community perceptions of gentrification range from hope for better living conditions to anxiety and even hostility, research on gentrification is divided on whether displacement is an inevitable outcome. Some researchers assert that gentrification attendant with displacement is a complex issue and while mobility rates of low-income residents are equivalent in gentrifying and non-gentrifying areas, low-income families are unable to afford to move in and replace exited families as housing costs escalate (Ding, Hwang, and Divringi, 2015). Other researchers found that displacement was rare (Ellen and O'Regan, 2011; Freeman 2005), while others comment on its prevalence (Newman and Wyly, 2006). This divergence of opinion could be because both the scale and type of gentrification vary from place to place. The urban form, or patterns of land-use in U.S. cities, differ considerably in size and structure, and the process of gentrification can involve neighborhoods in a rapid process of change or unfold over decades in larger districts. Additionally, while the residential and commercial aspects of a community are interwoven, gentrification of residential and commercial areas involve slightly different dynamics (Meltzer 2016). Displacement also may take different forms: either racial/ethnic or by class and culture. Finally, Marcuse (1986) argues that in many cases displacement due to systematic urban disinvestment, which resulted in the abandonment of many downtown neighborhoods, often precedes gentrification. For all of these reasons, it is helpful to be clear about the type of gentrification considered, how it is being studied and over what period.

The focus of this report is residential gentrification and racial and ethnic displacement throughout urban areas of the U.S. It is a comprehensive national level analysis of gentrification and displacement in 935 metropolitan areas. The goal was to determine how widespread gentrification was in U.S. urban areas, and then identify neighborhoods where gentrification and displacement occurred simultaneously. The first step of this analysis is to find neighborhoods with indications of gentrification. Utilizing a methodology developed by Columbia University Professor Lance Freeman, the study examines increases in education levels, home values and income as the defining criteria of whether gentrification has occurred in a neighborhood (2005). We determine which neighborhoods (census tracts) show indications of gentrification over the period from 2000-2013. In tracts with indications of gentrification, a second analysis is conducted to examine whether racial/ethnic displacement occurred during the same time period. The research questions addressed by this study are: 1) How prevalent is gentrification and subsequent displacement? 2) Are there regional differences in gentrification and displacement? 3) What census variables are associated with gentrification across the nation?

LITERATURE REVIEW

The term "gentrification" was first coined in the 1960s by British sociologist Ruth Glass (1964) to describe the displacement of the working-class residents of London neighborhoods by middle-class newcomers. From its inception, gentrification has been understood as a form of neighborhood change, resulting in the displacement of incumbent residents of one social class and culture by another more affluent class, linked with an increase in property values. In the case of the United States, the segregated residential structure of American cities creates circumstances in which gentrification often occurs along racial lines. In these cases of gentrification and racial displacement, affluent white incomers often displace the incumbent minority residents.

Gentrification is a complex form of neighborhood change. At the street level, it is visible in the upgrading of the built structure of neighborhoods, as houses are refurbished and businesses established (Krase, 2012; Kreager, Lyons and Hays 2011; Papachristos et al. 2011). While the most basic understanding of gentrification involves the movement of people and investment to affect neighborhood change, it also involves broader political and economic forces. Policy decisions by governments impact both transportation and the availability of services and amenities in a community. The interplay between government and the public in decisions regarding zoning and the allocation of public resources, coupled with decisions by private developers on the investment of capital, deeply influence neighborhood desirability (Zuk et al. 2015). The forces driving neighborhood changes, like gentrification, also involve an interplay between the movement of people, public policy decisions and the availability of capital. Consequently, gentrification is a subject that requires analysis of social, political and economic circumstances.

The economic drivers of neighborhood change involve supply-side dynamics of public investments and land value within the context of the wider metropolitan economy. While working on his PhD at Johns Hopkins University, the late Neil Smith observed the gentrification of Baltimore's Inner Harbor (1979). This stirred him to establish the drivers that lead to gentrification in terms of land rents - the depreciation and physical deterioration of older built structures, and the increase in the potential income returns from the land on which they were built. When the potential income return from land rents exceeds the perception of risk by investors, neighborhoods become likely candidates for redevelopment. While economics explain the flows of capital to gentrifying commercial and residential areas, there are broader cultural factors that have shifted perspectives on the desirability of an urban lifestyle and increased the demand for downtown locations.

Neighborhood lifestyle preferences have always had a powerful role in establishing the desirability of different urban locations. The post-war era saw a shift in both federal policy and consumer culture that had enormous impact on urban residential patterns (Cohen 2004). Economic conditions of the Depression era and production priorities during World War II hindered construction of new housing for over a decade. This contributed to an antiquated stock of urban housing, the supply of which was too small to meet demands of a growing and increasingly affluent population in the post-war era. The availability of mortgage financing through the Housing Act of 1949 sparked a construction boom. Much of the housing was built in suburbs, where developers utilizing economies of scale could find large undeveloped tracts for massive new developments. This accelerated a reconfiguration of the American urban system, as white middle-class residents suburbanized, shifting population and capital away from downtown areas (Jackson 1987). Often, this left the downtown areas of cities with high proportions of minority and low-income residents, resulting in a reduced revenue base and greater demands for city services. This shift in economic prosperity and population away from the downtown areas of cities has become widely accepted as a theory of post-war urban decline; however, urban development varied greatly across the country and should not be taken as the sole explanation of post-war urban development (Beauregard 1993). In the present era, the aging housing stock of inner-ring suburbs has become less desirable as the demands of commuting and allure of downtown amenities have shifted demand for housing closer to the central business district (CBD) of urban areas.

The question "who gentrifies?" is contingent on demographics and class. Many authors cite the role of young millennials in gentrification (Hwang & Lin 2016; Baum-Snow & Hartley 2016; Couture & Handbury 2016; Ding, Hwang & Divringi 2015). Millennials are less likely to harbor racial and ethnic animosity than previous generations (Freeman & Cai, 2015; Owens, 2012; Glaeser & Vigdor, 2012). Many downtown areas of cities have also experienced reductions in violent crime over the last two decades, which could make certain low-income neighborhoods enticing to newcomers (Ellen, Horn & Reed 2016). Increasing work hours and reduction in leisure time has also created a demand to reduce commute time and work closer to home (Edlund, Machade, & Sviatchi 2016). Public policy decisions also have impact. Several researchers cite the role of the HOPE VI program in the demolition of distressed public housing (Goetz 2013; Vale & Gray 2013). Shifts in city level spending on mixed-income developments, parks and bike share enhance downtown desirability (Buehler and Stowe, 2016; Hyra 2012; Tissot, 2011). Finally, many city leaders have acted on the advice of influential urban planners, like Edward Glaeser and Richard Florida, who popularized the idea that the amenities of the downtown areas of cities draw Gen-Xer's and Millennials who are part of an affluent "creative class" that revitalizes neighborhoods (Clark, 2011; Florida, 2014; Glaeser & Shapiro, 2003). A combination of undervalued property and changing cultural perceptions about the desirability of urban living increases the demand for residences in downtown areas of many U.S. cities.

While gentrification implicitly involves economic transition as a more affluent class replaces the incumbent residents, many researchers also note that there are cultural and racial dimensions to this form of neighborhood change. Millennial perceptions about race have shifted from those of prior generations, so that minority neighborhoods are now seen as "cool and edgy" (Hyra 2016), but that does not necessarily mean they remain inviting or affordable for the incumbent residents. Several researchers found that neighborhoods transitioning to affluence create new social tensions that influence interactions, which can often result in micro-level segregation (Chaskin & Joseph, 2015; Tach, 2014; Hyra 2015). The new residents might shift the community's focus of concern and the dynamics of political power, including black and white middle-class gentrifiers wielding political influence in local initiatives that sometimes oppose the expansion of affordable housing in their new neighborhoods (Boyd 2005; Hyra 2008; Pattillo 2007).

Despite many studies on the issue a crucial question remains, does gentrification also mean displacement? The economics of gentrification explicitly state that neighborhood property values increase, decreasing the supply of affordable housing available to lower-income residents who are then displaced, as the cost of living in the neighborhood increases. However, several studies indicate that the mobility rates of low-income people are equivalent in gentrifying and more stable low-income neighborhoods (Ding, Hwang & Divringi, 2015; Ellen & O'Regan, 2011; Freeman, 2005; Freeman & Braconi, 2004; McKinnish, Walsh & White, 2010). Some cite this as evidence that widespread displacement is not occurring. However, Hyra (2016) argues that this is an incorrect interpretation that merely shows that low-income rates of mobility are uniformly high across all types of neighborhoods. It's not that displacement is not occurring in gentrifying neighborhoods, but that in general low-income people move more often. Additionally, the movement of other low-income residents back into gentrifying neighborhoods is constrained by a lack of affordable housing (Ding, Hwang & Divringi, 2015). Over time, the neighborhood experiences a net loss of low-income residents as housing costs rise, and the neighborhood becomes less and less affordable. This transition in the economic status of neighborhoods often occurs along racial lines, as incumbent low-income black and Hispanic residents move and are replaced by higher-income white gentrifiers. Freeman (2005) found a surge in white movement into black neighborhoods since 2000.

The influx of affluent white gentrifiers to formerly low-income minority neighborhoods can be viewed as a form of racial exclusion from urban areas with vibrant economies. There has been increased exclusion of incumbent black homeowners from gentrifying neighborhoods, driven by racial disparities in access to home lending. Black and Hispanic applicants for mortgages in gentrified neighborhoods were 2.32 times and 1.96 times more likely to be denied credit than non-Hispanic white applicants between 1993 and 2000 (Wyly & Hammel 2004). Neighborhood level disparities in access to mortgage credit access have a long history and have been documented in several cities by NCRC (Richardson et al. 2015 & 2016). Rothstein (2017) documents the history of redlining going back to the early part of the 20th century. A combination of local policies related to zoning, restrictive covenants, prohibition of lending in "hazardous" neighborhoods and informal segregationist practices like residential steering and social pressure prevented residents of low-income and minority neighborhoods from gaining access to credit. This pattern of disinvestment prepared the ground for gentrification and displacement in many neighborhoods (Marcuse 1986). Gentrification, which decreases the supply of affordable housing, coupled with policies of public housing demolition (Goetz 2013), have resulted in the displacement of racial minorities and low-income residents in some cities.

METHODS

This study sought to quantify variations in displacement in U.S. urban areas by assessing changes at the census tract (neighborhood) level using nationwide U.S. census data normalized by the longitudinal tract database (LTDB). Normalization of the census data is necessary because tract boundaries can change over time, leading to inaccuracies. We analyzed LTDB data for socioeconomic changes during the period 2000 to 2013 for all 50 U.S. states. Population changes were assessed using decennial census data for 2000 and 2010, which was normalized by the LTDB.

Researchers have used several different methods to identify neighborhoods that seem to be experiencing gentrification and to then assess rates of residential change. The study adopted a methodology developed by Freeman (2005) and utilized by the Philadelphia Federal Reserve (Ding, Hwang & Divringi, 2015) and Governing.com (2015) to locate gentrified areas. The method involves assessing the educational level and economic status of residents, and the value of properties in the neighborhood at the beginning of the census period, then assessing changes in the next U.S. census. This includes several checks:

Eligibility determined by tracts in the Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA), which are below the 40th percentile in both median household income and median house value. In addition, the population must be 500 residents or greater at the beginning of the period.

Possible gentrification is determined by including all eligible tracts and then identifying tracts that were in the top 60th percentile for increases in both median home value and the percentage of college graduates.

Determining tract level median household income increases from 2000-2013 when adjusted for inflation is the final check.

Census tracts meeting all of the above listed criteria were then identified as undergoing, or having undergone, gentrification.

The criteria for gentrification are all indications that the socioeconomic status of the residents of the tract shifted. We then reviewed each tract for changes in the population of the racial subgroups. These changes were assessed using two criteria;

1. Did the racial group's percentage of the population decline by more than two standard deviations from the mean of all census tracts?

2. Did the absolute number of residents from that racial group decline by at least five percent?

If the census tract gentrified and met both of these criteria, we identified it as having experienced cultural displacement (Figure 1). Cultural displacement results when the tastes, norms and desires of newcomers supplant and replace those of the incumbent residents (Zukin 2010). Since this kind of cultural transformation of neighborhoods is difficult to measure directly, the decline in minority subpopulation was used as a proxy. Population shifts were examined utilizing decennial census 2000 and 2010 population data.

RESULTS

National changes - Gentrification

Nationally, 90.7 percent, or 67,153 census tracts have a micropolitan or metropolitan designation, and are assigned to an urban area. Of these urban tracts, 16.7 percent or 11,196 tracts met the criteria for being eligible for gentrification in 2000, the beginning of the examination period (Figure 2). A total of 1,049 census tracts met all three of the checks for gentrification: increases in median home value, educational attainment and increases in income by 2013. This amounts to nine percent of the eligible urban census tracts across the U.S. While this seems to indicate that gentrification is rare, the selection criteria was stringent and limited to a relatively short period of time. Gentrification appears to be clustered in sections of larger and economically vibrant cities that are close to central business districts. Residents are drawn to the neighborhoods by proximity to employers, and the clustering of amenities and services associated with an urban lifestyle. Finally, displacement was indicated in 232, or 22 percent, of the gentrified tracts.

While gentrification impacted a minority of census tracts in U.S. cities, it was quite concentrated in the largest urban areas. At the national level, almost a quarter (24 percent) of all urban areas, or CBSAs, saw at least one tract gentrify between 2000 and 2013 (Table 1). CBSAs are urban areas with a population of at least 10,000 and include small micropolitan areas, analogous to towns, and larger metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), or cities. In 13 percent of towns and cities, only one tract gentrified. More moderate levels of gentrification, between two and 10 tracts, occurred in eight percent of towns and cities. Intensive gentrification, cases in which more than 10 tracts underwent gentrification between 2000 and 2013, occurred in three percent of towns and cities nationally.

We assessed the population sizes of cities in which gentrification was occurring. Gentrification was concentrated in the largest urban areas. CBSAs with a population of one million or greater contained 79 percent of gentrifying tracts. Cities with populations between 500,000 and 1 million comprised another seven percent. Cities with populations between 100,000 and 500,000 contained 10 percent of gentrifying tracts. The smallest cities and towns, under a population of 50,000, contained only four percent of the tracts that gentrified nationally (Figure 3). The map shows that while coastal cities had the largest amount of tracts undergoing gentrification, large cities in the interior like Atlanta, Dallas, Denver, Minneapolis and Pittsburgh also underwent extensive gentrification.

Cities with the highest rates of gentrification included New York City, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, Baltimore, San Diego and Chicago (Figure 4). These seven cities accounted for nearly half of the total gentrification nationally, or 501 tracts out of 1,049. It is surprising that Baltimore and Philadelphia metro areas are in the top 10 list, with the fourth and fifth largest number of gentrified tracts in the study, since these cities are not considered among the nation's most economically dynamic cities. Different patterns of gentrification seem to be evident for the three largest cities (New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago), compared with the next three largest (Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, Baltimore).

The three largest metro areas (New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago) are in the top seven for the number of neighborhoods which gentrified in Figure 4. The top tier cities in population size have many more neighborhoods, and may be more economically dynamic than second tier and third tier cities. Examining cities by the proportion of neighborhoods eligible in 2000 and which did gentrify over the next 10 years provides a more meaningful indication of the rates of gentrification in some areas (Table 5). Washington, D.C., was the city with the highest percentage of gentrifying neighborhoods, with San Diego, New York City, Atlanta, Baltimore and Portland also having both high numbers of tracts and high rates of gentrification.

Examining the maps of different cities reveals patterns of concentrated gentrification in some, but more diffuse patterns in others. Analysis of the Baltimore map (figure 5f) indicates the concentration of gentrification around the Inner Harbor that then stretches from downtown north to Johns Hopkins University. Baltimore, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C., all show concentrated gentrification around their central business districts, while the pattern of gentrification is more scattered in the largest three cities: Chicago, Los Angeles and New York City (Figures 5a-f).

National changes - Displacement

Cultural displacement was examined by calculating the reduction of black and Hispanic residents in census tracts. Nationally, 187 of the gentrified tracts showed some level of black displacement, and 45 tracts showed Hispanic displacement (Table 3). This impacted over 135,000 people nationally. While white residents increased in most tracts, there were instances in which the Asian and Hispanic residential population increased in tracts experiencing gentrification and black residential population declined.

Next, we calculated the average losses in metro areas that experienced gentrification and black or Hispanic residential population loss. In the case of black residential displacement, the average loss per tract was 593 black residents (Table 4). New Orleans experienced the most average loss, 1,075 black residents per tract, largely attributable to massive dislocation of neighborhoods caused by the Hurricane Katrina disaster in 2005. Black residential losses in Washington, D.C., New York City and Philadelphia were especially acute due to the high number of tracts involved and their large displacement numbers. More than 20,000 black residents of Washington, D.C., nearly 15,000 in New York City and 12,000 in Philadelphia moved out of gentrifying neighborhoods.

Tracts with indications of Hispanic displacement were much fewer than those with indications of black displacement, though the average number of displaced residents per tract was similar. In the 45 tracts with indications of Hispanic displacement, the average residential decrease was 542. Denver and Austin had the highest average decreases of Hispanic residents in gentrifying tracts with 1,054 and 1,039 respectively (Table 5).

In order to examine regional differences in black and Hispanic displacement from gentrifying tracts, we calculated the percentage of gentrifying tracts and tracts with indications of displacement. Cities with the highest levels of black displacement between 2000 and 2010 were concentrated in the South, with nine out of 16 cities with high levels of black displacement located there (Figure 6). Richmond, Charlottesville, Washington, D.C., and New Orleans had the highest percentages of black displacement at the tract level (Figure 6). While Richmond and Charlottesville had moderate levels of gentrification, at least half of the gentrifying tracts in those cities also experienced displacement.

Hispanic displacement occurred in fewer cities than black displacement, and affected 45 census tracts nationally. The city with the largest number of tracts impacted was New York City, where nine tracts had losses indicative of Hispanic displacement. Aside from New York City, Hispanic displacement was most intense in the West, with Denver, Austin, Houston and Dallas having the highest percentages followed by Los Angeles (Figure 7). However, the number of affected tracts were small: five in Denver; four in Austin, Dallas and Houston; and eight in Los Angeles. This difference in the rate of Hispanic and black displacement might be attributed to the high rate of suburbanization for the Hispanic population of those cities, since nationally, 45 percent of Hispanic residents live in areas outside the downtown core. Suburbanization rates of black residents are lower at 39 percent (Massey & Tannen, 2018). The levels of segregation from non-Hispanic whites also diverge widely for the two demographic groups. The most common indicator of segregation is the dissimilarity index, which measures the evenness of the distribution of residents between two groups. At the national level, this index is much higher for white non-Hispanic and black residential areas at .60, than it is for white non-Hispanic and Hispanic residential areas at .40. The Hispanic population also increased quite rapidly over the study period, increasing from 12.5 percent of the population in 2000 to 16.3 percent in 2010. The black percentage of the population increased less, from 12.9 percent in 2000 to 13.6 percent in 2010. The lower levels of demographic displacement of Hispanic residents could be attributable to a combination of population growth, lower segregation relative to non-Hispanic whites and/or decreased frequency of gentrification in Hispanic-majority neighborhoods, which are more likely to be located in suburbs than black-majority tracts.

Critics of gentrification sometimes argue that long-term disinvestment and depopulation of neighborhoods established the economic and social conditions for later cultural displacement (Marcuse 1986). In order to test this, we examined cities with a high number of tracts with black displacement for long-term demographic shifts between 1990 and 2010 (Table 6). The 20-year study period was chosen to capture the impact of demographic changes unfolding over a longer time frame than gentrification, especially in instances where displacement actually preceded gentrification. In most cases, a pattern of decreasing percentages of black, and increasing percentages of white, residents occurred in gentrifying tracts. This tract-level pattern of black decreases and white increases in residents was especially prevalent in Washington, D.C., San Francisco-Oakland, Atlanta, New Orleans and Richmond. Many tracts also showed that there was long-term population loss, indicating abandonment of the area or reduced residential density before or during a demographic transition. This trend was apparent in Baltimore, but especially severe in New Orleans, where the Hurricane Katrina catastrophe forced widespread neighborhood abandonment. Philadelphia and Washington, D.C., had much lower levels of population loss in gentrifying tracts. The cities of Dallas, Richmond, New York City, and especially Atlanta and San Francisco, had high rates of population growth.

There were also notable declines in the Hispanic population and increases in white population in many cities between 1990 and 2010. The exceptions to this were in Los Angeles and San Diego (Table 7), where both white and Hispanic populations declined in gentrifying neighborhoods. Linkages between tract-level population loss and demographic change were evident in Denver, Dallas, San Diego and Chicago. Areas of Hispanic displacement in Denver, Houston, Austin and Dallas are shown in figures 8 a-d. All of these cities also contained tracts experiencing black displacement.

DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION

Past studies of gentrification and displacement have measured neighborhood change by assessing the rates of mobility of incumbent low-income residents in gentrifying areas. Generally, the results showed high but comparable rates of mobility for low-income residents in gentrifying and non-gentrifying tracts, but with low rates of low- income replacement in gentrifying tracts. Consequently, that method of analysis did not directly measure racial/ethnic displacement. This study used a different approach, examining shifts in the racial/ethnic composition of tracts in 2000 and 2010 in order to determine where gentrification and demographic changes were indicative of displacement. National rates of gentrification are low in towns and smaller cities, with 76 percent of urban areas not experiencing any gentrification under our criteria. This may be a conservative estimate due to the requirement of an absolute increase in household income. Another 13 percent experienced gentrification in only one neighborhood, while 8 percent of U.S. cities experienced moderate gentrification. However, the largest population centers experienced intensive gentrification with 3 percent of cities showing indications of gentrification in 10 or more tracts, and 79 percent of gentrifying tracts being within cities with one million or more residents. Though gentrification may be relatively rare at the national level, it can be intensive in the largest cities with dynamic economies. Coastal cities experienced the highest rates of gentrification, with seven out of the top 10 cities in total tracts gentrified being located on the East or West coast.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 created 8,000 Opportunity Zones throughout the country to lure investment to struggling neighborhoods. Although those Opportunity Zones were not defined when this study began, preliminary analysis indicates that 70 percent of gentrified neighborhoods are within or adjacent to an Opportunity Zone. However, most Opportunity Zones do not appear to have been gentrified during the study period.

Some questions to investigate in the future: Will Opportunity Zone investments concentrate mainly in booming areas, and skip many others, as we found for gentrification. Will investments flow primarily into Opportunity Zones that are already gentrified, or adjacent to gentrified neighborhoods?

This study indicates that minority displacement is indeed occurring in many cities, where it is often concentrated in areas near the central business district. Displacement of minority groups was high in gentrifying tracts, with 22 percent having indications of high levels of either black or Hispanic residential loss. While larger cities experienced higher levels of gentrification, displacement also seemed to correspond with regional location. Southern cities experienced greater intensity of black displacement, while western cities experienced greater intensity of Hispanic displacement. Additionally, Washington, D.C., and Philadelphia were notable for their high levels of black displacement, while Denver and Austin had high levels of Hispanic displacement. These results indicate that gentrification is often accompanied by high levels of cultural displacement. Since the displacement portion of this study was limited to the decades before 2010, it is difficult to assess the proportion of minority neighborhoods which have indications of displacement that will lead to racial and ethnic integration, or resegregate and become white majority areas over time. It is essential to examine the economic and demographic changes which result from gentrification for their impact on equity at the neighborhood level.

REFERENCES

Baum-Snow, N. and Hartley, D., 2016, May. Causes and Consequences of Central Neighborhood Change, 1970-2010. In Research Symposium on Gentrification and Neighborhood Change (pp. 57-85).

Beauregard, R.A., 2001. Federal policy and postwar urban decline: A case of government complicity?. Housing Policy Debate, 12(1), pp.129-151.

Boyd, M., 2005. The downside of racial uplift: meaning of gentrification in an African American neighborhood. City & Society, 17(2), pp.265-288.

Buehler, R. and Stowe, J., 2016. Bicycling in the Washington DC Region. Capital Dilemma: Growth and Inequality in Washington, DC, pp.180-206.

Chaskin, R.J. and Joseph, M.L., 2015. Contested space: Design principles and regulatory regimes in mixed-income communities in Chicago. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 660(1), pp.136-154.

Cohen, L., 2004. A consumers' republic: The politics of mass consumption in postwar America. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), pp.236-239.

Collins, W.J. and Shester, K.L., 2013. Slum clearance and urban renewal in the United States. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 5(1), pp.239-73.

Couture, V. and Handbury, J., 2017. Urban revival in America, 2000 to 2010 (No. w24084). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Ding, L., Hwang, J. and Divringi, W., 2015. Gentrification and residential mobility in Philadelphia. Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia Discussion papers. October. file. C:/Users/winifred/Downloads/discussion-paper_ gentrification-and-residential-mobility. pdf (accessed 20 November 2015).

Edlund, L., Machado, C. and Sviatschi, M., 2017. Gentrification and Rising Returns to Skill. https://www.gc.cuny.edu/CUNY_GC/media/CUNY-Graduate-Center/PDF/Programs/Economics/Other%20docs/GAll2017x11x13_1.pdf

Ellen, I.G. and O'Regan, K.M., 2011. How low income neighborhoods change: Entry, exit, and enhancement. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 41(2), pp.89-97.

Ellen, I.G., Mertens Horn, K. and Reed, D., 2016. Has falling crime invited gentrification? NYU Furman Center. http://furmancenter.org/files/NYUFurmanCenter_WhitePaper_FallingCrimeGentrification_18OCT2016.pdf

Florida, R., 2014. The creative class and economic development. Economic development quarterly, 28(3), pp.196-205.

Freeman, L., 2005. Displacement or succession? Residential mobility in gentrifying neighborhoods. Urban Affairs Review, 40(4), pp.463-491.

Freeman, L., 2009. Neighbourhood diversity, metropolitan segregation and gentrification: What are the links in the US?. Urban Studies, 46(10), pp.2079-2101.

Freeman, L. and Braconi, F., 2004. Gentrification and displacement New York City in the 1990s. Journal of the American Planning Association, 70(1), pp.39-52.

Freeman, L. and Cai, T., 2015. White entry into Black neighborhoods: advent of a new era?. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 660(1), pp.302-318.

Glaeser, E.L. and Shapiro, J.M., 2003. Urban growth in the 1990s: Is city living back?. Journal of regional science, 43(1), pp.139-165.

Glaeser, E. and Vigdor, J., 2012. The end of the segregated century. Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, January, pp.23-26.

Glass, R., 1964. Aspects of change. The Gentrification Debates: A Reader, pp.19-30.

Goetz, E.G., 2013. New Deal ruins: Race, economic justice, and public housing policy. Cornell University Press.

Hwang, J. and Lin, J., 2016. What have we learned about the causes of recent gentrification?. Cityscape, 18(3), pp.9-26.

Hyra, D.S., 2008. The new urban renewal: The economic transformation of Harlem and Bronzeville. University of Chicago Press.

Hyra, D.S., 2012. Conceptualizing the new urban renewal: Comparing the past to the present. Urban Affairs Review, 48(4), pp.498-527.

Hyra, D., 2015. The back-to-the-city movement: Neighbourhood redevelopment and processes of political and cultural displacement. Urban Studies, 52(10), pp.1753-1773.

Hyra, D., 2016. Commentary: Causes and consequences of gentrification and the future of equitable development policy. Cityscape, 18(3), pp.169-178.

Jackson, K.T., 1987. Crabgrass frontier: The suburbanization of the United States. Oxford University Press.

Karas, D., 2015. Highway to inequity: The disparate impact of the interstate highway system on poor and minority communities in American cities. New Visions for Public Affairs, 7, pp.9-21.

Kreager, D.A., Lyons, C.J. and Hays, Z.R., 2011. Urban revitalization and Seattle crime, 1982-2000. Social Problems, 58(4), pp.615-639.

Massey, D.S. and Tannen, J., 2018. Suburbanization and segregation in the United States: 1970-2010. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 41(9), pp.1594-1611.

Marcuse, P., 1986. The beginnings of public housing in New York. Journal of Urban History, 12(4), pp.353-390.

Lee, B.A. and Wood, P.B., 1991. Is neighborhood racial succession place-specific?. Demography, 28(1), pp.21-40.

Marcuse, P., (1986) Abandonment, Gentrification and Displacement: the Linkages in New York City, in Smith, N. and Williams, P. (eds) Gentrification of the City, London: Unwin Hyman.

McKinnish, T., Walsh, R. and White, T.K., 2010. Who gentrifies low-income neighborhoods?. Journal of urban economics, 67(2), pp.180-193.

Meltzer, R., 2016. Gentrification and small business: Threat or opportunity?. Cityscape, 18(3), pp.57-86.

Mohl, R.A., 2004. Stop the road: Freeway revolts in American cities. Journal of Urban History, 30(5), pp.674-706.

Newman, K. and Wyly, E.K., 2006. Gentrification and displacement revisited. Research Bulletin.

Owens, A., 2012. Neighborhoods on the rise: A typology of neighborhoods experiencing socioeconomic ascent. City & Community, 11(4), pp.345-369.

Papachristos, A.V., Smith, C.M., Scherer, M.L. and Fugiero, M.A., 2011. More coffee, less crime? The relationship between gentrification and neighborhood crime rates in Chicago, 1991 to 2005. City & Community, 10(3), pp.215-240.

Pattillo, M., 2017. Black on the block. In Racial Structure and Radical Politics in the African Diaspora (pp. 21-52). Routledge.

Richardson, J, Mitchell, B., West, N., 2015. Home mortgage and small business lending in Baltimore and surrounding areas, NCRC https://ncrc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/ncrc_baltimore_lending_analysis_web.pdf

____________________________, 2016. Home mortgage lending in St. Louis, Milwaukee, Minneapolis and surrounding areas, NCRC https://ncrc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Home-Mortgage-Lending2.pdf

Rothstein, R., 2017. The color of law: A forgotten history of how our government segregated America. Liveright Publishing.

Smith, N., 1979. Toward a theory of gentrification a back to the city movement by capital, not people. Journal of the American Planning Association, 45(4), pp.538-548.

Tach, L.M., 2014. Diversity, inequality, and microsegregation: Dynamics of inclusion and exclusion in a racially and economically diverse community. Cityscape, 16(3), pp.13-46.

Tissot, S., 2011. Of dogs and men: The making of spatial boundaries in a gentrifying neighborhood. City & Community, 10(3), pp.265-284.

Vale, L. and Gray, A., 2013. The displacement decathlon. Places Journal. https://placesjournal.org/article/the-displacement-decathlon/

Wyly, E.K. and Hammel, D.J., 2004. Gentrification, segregation, and discrimination in the American urban system. Environment and Planning A, 36(7), pp.1215-1241.

Zuk, M., Bierbaum, A.H., Chapple, K., Gorska, K., Loukaitou-Sideris, A., Ong, P. and Thomas, T., 2015, August. Gentrification, displacement and the role of public investment: a literature review. In Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Vol. 79).

Zukin, S., 2010. Naked City: The Death and Life of Authentic Urban Places, New York. Oxford University Press

Cultural displacement results when the tastes, norms, and desires of newcomers supplant and replace those of the incumbent residents, and can also entail the loss of historically and culturally significant institutions for a community.

In this report we have used the words community, city, and metro area interchangeably. We have also used the census tract as a proxy for neighborhood in many cases and these words should be considered synonymous for our purposes.

See NCRC report on HOLC and redlining https://ncrc.org/holc/

https://www.chicagofed.org/publications/working-papers/2017/wp2017-12

Arna Valley Apartments https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/10/northern-virginia-diversity-race/18079525/

https://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/news/city-desk/article/21023685/after-150-years-lincoln-temple-united-church-of-christ-has-held-its-last-service

https://s4.ad.brown.edu/projects/diversity/Researcher/Bridging.htm

Data on the following racial and ethnic subgroups was used; non-Hispanic White, Black, Hispanic and Asian. Only the decennial Census offers a low enough sampling error to be of use, limiting our study to data from the 2000 and 2010 Censuses.

The change in population at the census tract level is normally distributed.

Hyra, D., 2015. The back-to-the-city movement: Neighbourhood redevelopment and processes of political and cultural displacement. Urban Studies, 52(10), pp.1753-1773.
Photo by Jami via Wikicommons.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Shifting Neighborhoods: Gentrification and Cultural Displacement in American Cities " NCRC

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
NCRC found that many major American cities showed signs of gentrification and some racialized displacement between 2000 and 2013.

# data[].attributes.body
-Approximately $5.37, 29 days between April 25 and July 14, 50,000 residents

-The city needs to protect from the ruining of certain aspects, and this protection hs costs. By implementing a fee they can organize money to keep all of the tourist sites clean and better for viewing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Venice becomes first city in the world to charge day trippers a tourist fee to enter

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Visitors will have to pay five euros, a fee designed to offset some of the costs of accommodating tourists.

# data[].attributes.body
This article explains how pilgrims can have the same negative effects as over tourism on a country, but also calls for different ethical discussions. Even though pilgrims who travel to sacred places for their faith almost always have good intentions, this travel also harms the locals and the area. Overcrowding leads to destruction of holy places, locals being driven out of their homes because or raised cost of living prices, and places being disrespected because of lack of education. The article also goes over how some of the areas with lot of pilgrims work to mitigate the over crowding through things like selling timed tickets, creating tourist fees, tourists can only book through certain websites, and setting up rules and fines for those who disrespect/don't follow religious practices of the site they're visiting. Hindu holy city of Varanasi, India has over 5 million pilgrims annually, here over tourism and the dangers caused by it lead to deaths. "One lifelong resident shares, "I used to visit the riverfront every morning before dawn to offer my prayers. Now there are so many tourists crowding the ghats that I rarely go there anymore. I feel I have lost something sacred.""

# data[].attributes.headline
Case 1: Negative Effects of Economic Dependency on tourism 

# data[].attributes.subject
Case 1: Negative Effects of Economic Dependency on tourism 

# data[].attributes.body
This article is about how Covid will negatively impact tourism dependent countries but still gives insight into how tourism effects countries outside of extreme situations like a global pandemic. For many countries, tourism is necessary to close the poverty gap and better their economics, but can also cause economic turmoil in extreme cases such as this. Before covid, tourism accounted for "10% of the global GDP" and 320 million jobs. Countries that were heavily impacted by loss of tourism weren't projected to recover economically until 2023

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Download PDF

Tourism-dependent economies are among those harmed the most by the pandemic

Before COVID-19, travel and tourism had become one of the most important sectors in the world economy, accounting for 10 percent of global GDP and more than 320 million jobs worldwide.

In 1950, at the dawn of the jet age, just 25 million people took foreign trips. By 2019, that number had reached 1.5 billion, and the travel and tourism sector had grown to almost too-big-to-fail proportions for many economies.

The global pandemic, the first of its scale in a new era of interconnectedness, has put 100 million jobs at risk, many in micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises that employ a high share of women, who represent 54 percent of the tourism workforce, according to the United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO).

Tourism-dependent countries will likely feel the negative impacts of the crisis for much longer than other economies. Contact-intensive services key to the tourism and travel sectors are disproportionately affected by the pandemic and will continue to struggle until people feel safe to travel en masse again.

"There is no way we can grow our way out of this hole we are in," Irwin LaRocque, secretary-general of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), said at a virtual event in September.

From the white sand beaches of the Caribbean, Seychelles, Mauritius, and the Pacific to the back streets of Bangkok, to Africa's sweeping national parks, countries are grappling with how to lure back visitors while avoiding new outbreaks of infection. The solutions range from wooing the ultrarich who can quarantine on their yachts to inviting people to stay for periods of up to a year and work virtually while enjoying a tropical view.

Tourism receipts worldwide are not expected to recover to 2019 levels until 2023. In the first half of this year, tourist arrivals fell globally by more than 65 percent, with a near halt since April-compared with 8 percent during the global financial crisis and 17 percent amid the SARS epidemic of 2003, according to ongoing IMF research on tourism in a post-pandemic world.

The October World Economic Outlook projected the global economy would contract by 4.4 percent in 2020. The shock in tourism-dependent economies will be far worse. Real GDP among African countries dependent on tourism will shrink by 12 percent. Among tourism-dependent Caribbean nations, the decline will also reach 12 percent. Pacific island nations such as Fiji could see real GDP shrink by a staggering 21 percent in 2020.

Nor is the economic hit limited to the most tourism-dependent countries. In the United States, Hawaii saw one in every six jobs vanish by August. In Florida, where tourism accounts for up to 15 percent of the state's revenue, officials said it will take up to three years for the industry to recover.

Among G20 countries, the hospitality and travel sectors make up 10 percent of employment and 9.5 percent of GDP on average, with the GDP share reaching 14 percent or more in Italy, Mexico, and Spain. A six-month disruption to activity could directly reduce GDP between 2.5 percent and 3.5 percent across all G20 countries, according to a recent IMF paper.

Managing the revenue gap

In Barbados and Seychelles, as in many other tourism-dependent nations, the pandemic brought the industry to a virtual standstill. After successfully halting local transmission of the virus, the authorities reopened their island countries for international tourists in July. Still, arrivals in August were down almost 90 percent relative to previous years, drying up a vital stream of government revenue.

Barbados had gone into the crisis with good economic fundamentals, as a result of an IMF-supported economic reform program that helped stabilize debt, build reserves, and consolidate its fiscal position just before the crisis struck. The IMF augmented its Extended Fund Facility program by about $90 million, or about 2 percent of GDP, to help finance the emerging fiscal deficit as a result of plummeting revenues from tourism-related activity and increasing COVID-related expenditures.

"The longer this lasts, the more difficult it gets to maintain," says Kevin Greenidge, senior technical advisor to Barbados Prime Minister Mia Mottley. "What we don't want to do is operate policy-wise in a manner that will jeopardize the gains in terms of the fundamentals that we have made."

On the other side of the world, Seychelles, a country that entered the crisis from a similar position of strength, will still be challenged to return to medium-term fiscal sustainability without significant support. Just before the crisis struck, the government had rebuilt international reserves and consolidated its fiscal positions. Even so, the ongoing pandemic struck the Indian Ocean island nation very hard as tourism revenues fell while COVID-related expenditures increased.

"It is too early to determine whether the crisis represents a permanent shock and how it will shape the tourism industry going forward," says Boriana Yontcheva, the IMF's mission chief to Seychelles. "Given the large uncertainties surrounding the recovery of the sector, innovative structural policies will be necessary to adapt to the new normal."

All over the world, tourism-dependent economies are working to finance a broad range of policy measures to soften the impact of plummeting tourism revenues on households and businesses. Cash transfers, grants, tax relief, payroll support, and loan guarantees have been deployed. Banks have also halted loan repayments in some cases. Some countries have focused support on informal workers, who tend to be concentrated in the tourism sector and are highly vulnerable.

An analysis of the tourism industry by McKinsey & Company says that multiyear recovery of tourism demand to 2019 levels will require experimenting with new financing mechanisms.

The consulting firm analyzed stimulus packages across 24 economies totaling $100 billion in direct aid to the tourism industry and $300 billion in aid across other sectors with significant involvement in tourism. Most direct stimulus was in the form of grants, debt relief, and aid to small and medium-sized enterprises and airlines. The firm recommends new ways to support the industry, including revenue-sharing mechanisms among hotels that compete for the same market segment, such as a stretch of beachfront, and government-backed equity funds for tourism-related businesses.

Development challenge

The crisis has crystallized the importance of tourism as a development pathway for many countries to decrease poverty and improve their economies. In sub-Saharan Africa, the development of tourism has been a key driver in closing the gap between poor and rich countries, with tourism-dependent countries averaging real per capita GDP growth of 2.4 percent between 1990 and 2019-significantly faster than non-tourism-dependent countries in the region, according to IMF staff.

Smaller, tourism-dependent nations are in many ways locked into their economic destinies. Among small island nations, there are few, if any, alternative sectors to which they can shift labor and capital.

Seychelles, for example, has benefited from increases in tuna exports during the COVID-19 period, which have somewhat offset tourism losses, but these additional earnings remain a fraction of tourism receipts. The government is also carrying out a plan to pay wages to displaced tourism-sector workers while offering opportunities for retraining.

Meanwhile, the government in Barbados is trying to maintain social spending and reprioritize capital spending to create jobs, at least temporarily, in nontourism sectors such as agriculture and infrastructure development.

The Caribbean Hotel and Tourism Association has projected that as many as 60 percent of the 30,000 new hotel rooms that were in the planning or construction phase throughout the Caribbean region will not be completed as a result of the crisis.

Still, the crisis is being viewed as an opportunity to improve the industry in the medium and long term through greater digitalization and environmental sustainability. The UNWTO has encouraged support for worker training in order to build digital skills for harnessing the value of big data, data analytics, and artificial intelligence. Recovery should be leveraged to improve the industry's efficient use of energy and water, waste management, and sustainable sourcing of food.

"In a sector that employs 1 in 10 people globally, harnessing innovation and digitalization, embracing local values, and creating decent jobs for all-especially for youth, women, and the most vulnerable groups in our societies-could be at the forefront of tourism's recovery," says UNWTO Secretary-General Zurab Pololikashvili.

Adjusting to a new normal

As the immediate impact of lockdowns and containment measures eased during the second half of 2020, countries started looking for a balance.

Thailand, Seychelles, and other countries approved programs that would admit tourists from "lower-risk" countries with special quarantine requirements. Fiji has created "blue lanes" that will allow seafaring visitors to arrive on yachts and quarantine at sea before they unleash "the immense economic impact they carry aboard," Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama declared on Twitter. St. Lucia requires a negative COVID-19 test no more than seven days before arrival. Australia created a "travel bubble" that will eliminate quarantine requirements for travelers from New Zealand. CARICOM countries have also created a "regional travel bubble" that eliminates testing and quarantine for people traveling from countries within the bubble.

In a new era of remote work, countries and territories such as Barbados, Estonia, Georgia, Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, and the Cayman Islands offer new long-term permits, lasting up to 12 months in some places, to entice foreign visitors to bring their virtual offices with them while spending in local economies.

Japan, which had seen its international arrivals triple from 2013 to 2018, started lifting border closures for travelers from certain countries at the end of October. To accommodate a post-pandemic tourism rebound, an IMF Working Paper recommends that the government continue a trend of relaxing visa requirements, draw visitors away from urban centers to less populated regions of the country, and complement a tourism comeback with improvements to labor resources and tourism infrastructure.

The World Tourism and Travel Council in a report on the future of the industry said the pandemic has shifted travelers' focus to domestic trips or nature and outdoor destinations. Travel will largely be "kickstarted by the less risk averse travelers and early adopters, from adventure travelers and backpackers to surfers and mountain climbers," the report says.

Leisure travel will lead the comeback in the tourism and travel sector. Business travel, a crucial source of revenue for hotels and airlines, could see a permanent shift or may come back only in phases based on proximity, reason for travel, and sector.

In the end, the return of tourism will likely hinge on what will be a deeply personal decision for many people as they weigh the risk of falling ill against the necessity of travel. The private sector backed by some tourism-dependent nations is developing global protocols for various travel industries, including a call for more rapid testing at airports to boost confidence in traveling.

"The fact is people do not feel comfortable traveling. We have not put in the necessary protocols to give them that comfort," St. Lucia Prime Minister Allen Chastanet said at a September virtual event. "After 9/11, the TSA [Transportation Security Administration] and other security agencies around the world did a fantastic job of developing protocols that regained the public's confidence to travel, and sadly with this pandemic we haven't done that."

ADAM BEHSUDI is on the staff of Finance & Development.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Impact of the Pandemic on Tourism - IMF F&D

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Tourism-dependent economies are among those harmed the most by the pandemic, writes F&D's Adam Behsudi.

# data[].attributes.body
This article advocates for tourists to be more respectful on Hawaiian land. The main reason here is a viral video of a tourist from Louisiana disturbing the local monk seal, which is a Class C Felony.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Hawaii issues stern warning after viral video prompts wildlife harassment investigation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Harassing a monk seal is “punishable by up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine,” officials said.

# data[].attributes.body
-Tourism significantly boosts the economy, and betters the lives of all citizens in PA

-Without the tourism income to maintain the same revenue; citizens would have to pay an extra $880 in taxes

-1 in 16 jobs in the state is supported by tourism

-The governor believes that by putting more money into the tourism industry that that the states economy will only grow.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
PA Department of Community & Economic Development

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
New Report Reveals that Tourism Generates Over $76 Billion for Pennsylvania’s Economy and Supports 485,000 Jobs - PA Department of Community & Economic Development

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Governor Shapiro is supporting the nearly 500,000 Pennsylvanians who are a part of the travel and tourism industry by calling for a $15 million increase in funding for tourism in […]

# data[].attributes.headline
How and When Emotional Cheating Crosses a Line

# data[].attributes.subject
How and When Emotional Cheating Crosses a Line

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How and When Emotional Cheating Crosses a Line

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Emotional cheating can get murky. What is it? And when does it really cross a line? A psychologist explains what constitutes emotional cheating and how you can make sure you don’t get caught up in it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Responsible Pet Ownership - Global Alliance of Pet Food Associations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
GAPFA members recognize that collaboration and shared knowledge can benefit pet food makers, pet lovers and, of course, the dogs and cats we feed. GAPFA’s members share information on product safety and nutrition, all with the goal of providing consumer choice that allows pet lovers to select the most appropriate food for their cat’s or dog’s nutritional needs and of helping cats and dogs live long and healthy lives.

# data[].attributes.headline
What dogs eat (and don’t eat) in the wild

# data[].attributes.subject
What dogs eat (and don’t eat) in the wild

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Every species should eat a biologically appropriate diet, in other words what they would eat in the wild or as close to what they would eat in the wild as is feasible. In the case of dogs there is quite a lot of variety in their natural diet.

What dogs eat in the wild

Dogs are carnivores and the primary component of their diet is prey. This could be small animals - mice, voles, rabbits, birds, insects and so forth - or it could be larger prey caught with the help of a pack. Either way, they eat everything - the internal organs, the meat, the bones... the lot.

Unlike cats, dogs aren't obligate carnivores. They can and do eat vegetable matter. Wild dogs will search for rotten fruit and will eat the semi-digested contents of their prey's stomach. Some will dig up vegetables and eat grasses and herbs. Dogs are also scavengers. They eat the leftovers from every animal that is killed or dies. As Ian Billinghurst, a leading proponent of natural feeding, has pointed out, dogs receive 'valuable nutrients from materials that we humans find totally repugnant. Things like vomit, faeces and decaying flesh.'

With regard to the faeces, incidentally, these contain the dead and living bodies of millions upon billions of bacteria. They are an excellent source of protein, essential fatty acids, fat-soluble vitamins, minerals, antioxidants, enzymes and fibre. Not wanting to dwell on an unpleasant subject, but if you have a dog that is on a processed food diet he or she may be eating faeces in order to try to stay healthy (although if a dog is eating canine or feline faeces it will probably be because they contain the undigested flavourings used to make dry dog food palatable).

What dogs don't eat in the wild

Almost as important as what dogs eat in the wild is what they don't eat.

For starters (as it were), they don't necessarily eat every day. Depending on where they live, the season, the size of the pack, the available prey and other factors, they may eat as infrequently as every second or third day or even longer without suffering any ill effect. A healthy dog can go a week without food.

Second, and perhaps more important, they don't eat 'complete' meals. Dogs meet their nutritional requirements over time. They will eat what they need or seek it out if their body is telling them they need it. This is referred to as the 'balance over time' concept. It is crucial to the way dogs should be fed because there is evidence that dogs fed all the ingredients they need in proportion at every meal suffer increased health problems.

Finally, dogs don't eat grain. They can't digest it properly and, even if they could, they can't convert it into sugar and store it for later use.
For more information and advice please contact Honey's - we'll be happy to help even if you never, ever plan to become a customer.
Web: www.honeysrealdogfood.com

Email: info@honeysrealdogfood.com

Telephone: 01672 620 260

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What dogs eat (and don't eat) in the wild - Real, Raw, Natural Dog Food | Honey's

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Every species should eat a biologically appropriate diet, in other words what they would eat in the wild or as close to what they would eat in the wild as is feasible. In the case of dogs there is quite a lot of variety in their natural diet.

# data[].attributes.headline
Is it safe to feed my dog a plant-based diet?

# data[].attributes.subject
Is it safe to feed my dog a plant-based diet?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is it safe to feed my dog a plant-based diet?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In this updated blog, BVA Past President Justine Shotton explains why the jury is still out on vegan dog diets.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Should you be feeding your dog a vegan diet?

In April 2022, scientists at the University of Winchester in the United Kingdom announced that dogs fed on a vegan diet appeared to be healthier than those on a conventional meat-based diet. However, a new study from the University of Liverpool suggests that these claims were unfounded.

Interest in vegan dog food has skyrocketed in recent years, with the global market being valued at $12.27 billion in 2021, according to analysis by Data Bridge Market Research. Proponents of plant-based pet food argue that it is more sustainable and ethical than traditional meat-based diets, which currently account for roughly 20 percent of livestock consumption in the United States.

But are these meat-free diets safe?

In the Winchester study, published in the journal PLoS ONE, 2,639 dog owners completed an online survey to investigate the relationship between their dogs' diets and their overall health. Dogs were fed either conventional meat, raw meat or vegan diets for at least one year and assessed on seven general indicators of health, including number of visits to the vet and diagnosis with common health disorders. Owners were also asked to give their subjective opinions on their dogs' health.

At the time, it was concluded that dogs fed on raw meat and vegan diets fared significantly better than those on a conventional meat-based diet. However, the new analysis by the University of Liverpool throws these conclusions under scrutiny.

"On first reading this paper in 2022, it was evident that the study exclusively relied upon owner survey data and had an observational design, meaning that the associations between diet type and dog health could only suggest a possible correlation and not causality," Alex German, professor of Small Animal Medicine at the University of Liverpool and co-author on the new study, said in a statement.

"In other words, it was not accurate to conclude that 'nutritionally-sound vegan diets are the healthiest and least hazardous choices for owners to feed their pet dogs.' Further, the statistical analyses used did not explore the effect of possible confounding from other variables, such as the age and breed of the dogs and owner variables including age, gender, education and diet."

The Liverpool researchers said that these variables may have skewed the owners' perception of the dogs' health in the original study. Therefore, in a new study published again in , German and co-author Richard Barrett-Jolley conducted further statistical analysis to remove these confounding variables.

Owner opinions on their pets' health were most strongly associated with the age of their dog, with owner age, education and pet breed also playing a role. Once these confounding variables were added to their new statistical model, the association between subjective pet health ratings and vegan food became insignificant.

In other words, once these confounding variables were accounted for, vegan dogs did not seem to be statistically more healthy than meat-eating ones, as their owners perceived them.

"We know how seriously owners take their pet's health," Barrett-Jolley, professor of Neuropharmacology at the University of Liverpool, said in a statement. "By revisiting and further interrogating these data, we have been able to draw more nuanced insights.

"Crucially, we cannot draw a firm conclusion as to what diet type is actually best for dogs; this was never possible given the nature of the original dataset and study design. However, we can conclude that variables other than dog diet are more strongly associated with owner opinions about the health of their dog."
Do you have a tip on a science story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have a question about pets? Let us know via science@newsweek.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Scientists debunk claim dogs "healthiest" on vegan diet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The study throws previous research into vegan pet health under scrutiny.

# data[].attributes.body
This article outlines all the health problems of French bull dogs. Many (if not all) of these are caused by humans breeding them for desirable traits for generations. The domestication of animals and trying to make dogs fit into a humans aesthetic or moral values proves to have negative impacts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In 2022, Frenchies made their way to the top of the American Kennel Club's (AKC's) list of the most popular dog breeds in America. With their charming personalities and adorable, smoosh-faced looks, Frenchies are irresistible . However, like all breeds, Frenchies are prone to an array of health problems and their care can be costly. Our Flora Family Vet team shares what you should know before bringing a Frenchie into your life.

Meet the French bulldog

French bulldogs differ from their English bulldog counterparts. The Frenchie sports distinctive bat-like ears, a compact build, expressive eyes, and a larger-than-life personality. Although often opinionated, the Frenchie is also affectionate and playful, which makes them wonderful companions. French bulldog owners appreciate their pups' hilarious antics and sweet, cuddly side.

French bulldog health challenges

While French bulldogs are cherished for their personalities, they are unfortunately prone to many health issues that require special care. Many of Frenchies' health concerns are expensive to treat and may require ongoing management. Whenever possible, our veterinary team recommends obtaining pet insurance to cover your Frenchie's unexpected healthcare costs. This breed's common health concerns include:

Brachycephalic airway syndrome (BOAS) - BOAS is a collection of airway abnormalities common in flat-faced (i.e., brachycephalic) dogs that reduce breathing efficiency. BOAS can be severe and often requires specialized surgery to correct. Our Flora Family Vet team can perform this corrective surgery to help your Frenchie breathe better if they are affected. We enlarge the nares and trim back the soft palate. Patients typically breathe better immediately after surgery.

Joint and spinal problems - The Frenchie's compact body and short legs predispose them to joint problems, including hip dysplasia, patellar luxation, and intervertebral disc disease (IVDD). Treatments may be medical or surgical.

Allergies - French bulldogs are prone to food and environmental allergies that can manifest as skin inflammation, chronic skin infections, and chronic ear infections. Allergy diagnosis and treatment often require extensive trial and error.

Heat sensitivity - The Frenchie's short nose and possible BOAS make dissipating heat difficult for them, increasing their heatstroke risk.

Gastrointestinal (GI) disorders - French bulldogs are prone to an array of GI disorders, including inflammatory bowel disease, pyloric stenosis, acid reflux, and hiatal hernia, which can cause chronic vomiting, diarrhea, and weight loss. GI disorders can be costly to diagnose and typically require lifelong treatments with diet changes and medications.

Eye disorders - Cataracts, eyelid disorders, eyelash disorders, and corneal ulcers are common in French bulldogs. Most of these eye disorders require surgical correction.

French bulldog care tips

Combatting Frenchies' health concerns can require extra attention and care. The most important thing you can do for your French bulldog is to schedule routine visits, which allows our veterinary team to monitor them closely for emerging health issues and proactively work to manage existing ones. When you notice changes at home, schedule a visit to address the problem right away. Additional tips for keeping your Frenchie healthy include:

Exercise - Daily walks and play keep Frenchies mentally and physically stimulated. Avoid exercising in extreme weather and choose indoor activities instead.

High-quality nutrition - Good nutrition is vital for Frenchies, especially those with allergies or GI tract disorders. Ask our team to recommend a diet that is appropriate for your pup's needs.

Temperature control - Avoid exposure to excessive heat and provide plenty of shade and fresh water during hot weather.

Grooming - Clean out your Frenchie's face and body wrinkles daily using medicated or baby wipes. Regular bathing and ear cleaning with medicated solutions-as recommended by our team-can help keep allergic skin inflammation at bay.

Dental care - Frenchies have crowded teeth and misaligned jaws that can make them susceptible to dental disease. Routine toothbrushing and dental chews are recommended.

French bulldogs can be wonderful, cherished family members, but most will develop at least one costly health issue during their lifetime. Choosing a Frenchie from a reputable breeder and providing proactive and preventive care help reduce the odds of your pup developing a serious disease. To schedule your French bulldog's next preventive care visit or nutritional consultation, our Flora Family Vet team.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
French Bulldogs: The Truth About America's Favorite Dog - Flora Family Vet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 2022, Frenchies made their way to the top of the American Kennel Club's (AKC's) list of the most popular dog breeds in America. With their charming personalities and adorable, smoosh-faced looks, Frenchies are irresistible. However, like all breeds, Frenchies are prone to an array of health problems

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tourist vs traveller: What’s the difference? - The “Good Tourism” Blog

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Your correspondent put these tourist vs traveller questions to “GT’s” diverse network of travel & tourism stakeholders — “GT” Insight authors, “GT”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
That sinking feeling: why long-suffering Venice is quite right to make tourists pay | Simon Jenkins

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The overcrowded city is leading the way with a tax on day trippers, says Guardian columnist Simon Jenkins

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What a casual insult tells us about the limits and potential of individual choices and collective relationships to make big changes.

# data[].attributes.body
boycotts are effective in attracting public attention but ineffective in preventing the actions of what is being boycotted

the attention raised from the boycotting leads to protests that can resolve the original issue

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Actress Alyssa Milano was one of thousands who called for a one-day boycott on Thursday of FedEx, Apple TV and Amazon for not severing their ties with the National Rifle Assn. In a tweet, she included a photo of herself in front of the White House, with the words "Never Again" written on her hands in red ink.

The call for action came after Delta and United airlines, parent companies for Avis and Budget, Enterprise, National and Alamo car rentals, financial institutions and more have dropped deals with the gun rights lobbying organization since the Feb. 14 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., where 17 people were killed.

In an effort to undermine the NRA's clout and to pressure lawmakers to pass gun control legislation, organizations and individuals have been calling for a variety of boycotts. Among them is David Hogg, a 17-year-old senior at the school, who in a Feb. 24 tweet said that people should boycott Florida for spring break until gun reform happens. If lawmakers won't listen to students, Hogg wrote, "maybe [they'll] listen to the billion dollar tourism industry in FL."

Boycotts are nothing new. Here's a quick look at how they've played out in the U.S. and abroad.

Are boycotts successful?

The answer depends partly in how you define success.

"Very few boycotts have led to changes," said Maurice Schweitzer, a professor of operations and information management at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. "Most boycotts lack a sustained effort" and people lose interest or stop paying attention, he said.

"In practice, most boycotts achieve the more modest goal of attracting media attention," Schweitzer wrote in an email. "There are, however, hundreds of calls for boycotts each year, and most accomplish very little."

Some targets of boycotts in recent years include BP for its role in the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill, and Chick-fil-A, after Chief Operating Officer Dan T. Cathy's comments against same-sex marriage in 2012.

Is it possible to measure a boycott's impact?

No, not always, simply because multiple factors can influence events. Consider the case of former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick, who took a knee during the national anthem to protest racism and police brutality, launching similar protests across the National Football League. In the aftermath of his protest, Kaepernick was not signed by any team.

Kaepernick supporters urged fans to stop watching NFL games, and a Change.org petition calling for a boycott gained more than 200,000 supporters.

"Knowing that NFL owners only respond to ratings, which in turn brings money from advertisers and network partners, I felt the only way to get the owners' attention was to create a petition asking for a full boycott until Colin Kaepernick got signed," Vic Oyedeji, founder of Unstripped Voice, a platform that promotes racial, social and economic equity, wrote in an email.

The boycott will end if Kaepernick is signed by an NFL team, Oyedeji wrote.

Viewership for the NFL's 2017 season dropped by 9.7% compared to the previous season, according to Sports Illustrated. However, the NFL's ratings had also dropped by 8% for the 2016 season - a year before the NFL boycott started. There is no conclusive evidence that the boycott contributed to the ratings decline when other factors - a plunge in the quality of games, growing concern of the game's violence - are at play.

"Boycotts are rarely the precipitating factor for change. Rather, they bring attention to an issue and signal the magnitude and intensity with which a group feels a particular way," Schweitzer said. "In most cases, a small minority of people call for a boycott that the wider community fails to support by taking substantive action."

Have boycotts helped change public opinion?

Yes, and perhaps one of the best examples comes from the civil rights era, when a boycott rose out of tensions over public buses in Montgomery, Ala.

One day in 1955, 15-year-old Claudette Colvin was dragged off a bus by police officers for sitting in the whites-only section. Nine months later, Rosa Parks refused to leave her seat on a Montgomery bus.

Blacks began boycotting the public buses, and soon the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., the Rev. Ralph Abernathy and other civil rights leaders joined their cause. Despite King and Abernathy's houses being firebombed, they did not stop. "My intimidations are a small price to pay if victory can be won," King said.

A federal court eventually ruled that bus segregation was unconstitutional and violated the equal protection provisions of the 14th Amendment. The boycott, along with Parks' arrest, cast a harsh spotlight on the inequities African Americans suffered in the Jim Crow South.

Are there other examples of boycotts influencing public opinion?

In 1965, Cesar Chavez and the National Farm Workers Assn. urged the public to boycott grapes to compel growers to provide better pay and working conditions. The boycott targeted nonunion grape businesses.

The National Farm Workers Assn. joined the Agricultural Workers Organizing Committee to form United Farm Workers and increase attention on their boycott. Millions showed solidarity by not purchasing grapes until the UFW signed its first union contracts.

Another major boycott, which won support from across the globe as well as the U.S., targeted South Africa and its system of racial segregation known as apartheid. Individuals as well as companies and governments boycotted the country. Tourists refused to travel there, companies would not do business there, artists would not perform there. South Africa was excluded from the Olympics for decades.

In 1986, Congress voted to override a veto by President Reagan to enact the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act. The act banned South African imports, airlines and foreign aid from the U.S. International companies began leaving South Africa in droves, causing significant losses in revenue and jobs there.

Leader P.W. Botha resigned in 1989, and his successor, F.W. de Klerk, lifted a ban on the African National Congress and freed Nelson Mandela and all political prisoners in 1990.

In 1993, the U.S. sanctions against South Africa were lifted after De Klerk announced a completely representative democratic process for their presidential election. The following year, Mandela was elected as South Africa's first black leader and apartheid was dismantled.

The Montgomery bus and South Africa boycotts "are the exceptions, rather than the rule, of boycotts that ended with the desired policy change," Schweitzer said.

Do boycotts inflict economic harm?

Sometimes, yes. The liberal polling firm Center for American Progress wrote a 2010 report called "Stop the Conference" that estimated that Arizona lost $45 million in convention business because of a boycott called after passage of SB 1070, a tough law targeting illegal immigration.

Most recently, boycotts targeted North Carolina after the passage of the Public Facilities Privacy & Security Act, commonly known as House Bill 2, which blocked localities from passing protections for the LGBTQ community and instructed transgender people to use the bathroom of the sex they were assigned at birth.

In response to the passage of HB2, several organizations and agencies boycotted North Carolina. The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors wrote a letter to then-North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory to say county employees were barred from visiting the state for county business.

"We echo the overwhelming criticism expressed by local governments in your state and throughout the nation that have passed resolutions calling for the repeal of HB2," the letter read. The board joined 28 other counties, seven states and the District of Columbia, and 29 cities in barring employees from traveling to North Carolina.

Professional and collegiate sports leagues like the National Collegiate Athletic Assn., Atlantic Coast Conference and the Central Intercollegiate Athletic Assn. all pulled significant events from the state. The NBA announced on July 21, 2016, that the league would move its 2017 All-Star Weekend from Charlotte to New Orleans. The loss of revenue to North Carolina was estimated at $100 million.

Entertainment company Lionsgate canceled filming of its Hulu series "Crushed" in Charlotte. 21st Century Fox, A&E Networks and Turner Broadcasting said they would not consider North Carolina for future production if HB2 were not repealed.

In all, the state lost more than $3.76 billion, according to an Associated Press analysis.

Once HB2 was repealed and replaced, those corporations and organizations agreed to do business with North Carolina again.
michael.livingston@latimes.com Twitter: @mikelive06

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Here's when boycotts have worked - and when they haven't

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Following calls for boycotts of companies and states that support the NRA, we look at the history of boycotts. How many have been successful, and why?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Non Alcoholic Distilled Spirits: A Guide - The Bartender Company

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Drinking alcohol is a time-honored tradition going back thousands of years. For celebrations, family gatherings, or a night on the town, a refreshing cocktail goes hand-in-hand with a good time. What if you don’t want to drink alcoholic spirits, or are concerned about developing an addiction to alcohol? What if you are “sober curious” and […]