Risky health environments: Women sex workers’ struggles to find safe, secure and non-exploitative housing in Canada's poorest postal code
Open accessAbstract
This study explored low-income and transitional housing environments of women sex workers and their role in shaping agency and power in negotiating safety and sexual risk reduction in Vancouver, Canada. A series of 12 focus group discussions were conducted with 73 women currently involved in street-based sex work. These women were purposively sampled for a range of experiences living in low-income housing environments, including homeless shelters, transitional housing, and co-ed and women-only single-room occupancy (SRO) hotels. Drawing on the risk environment framework and theoretical constructs of gender, agency and power, analyses demonstrate that women continue to be vulnerable to violence and sexual and economic exploitation and have reduced ability to negotiate risk reduction resulting from the physical, structural and social environments of current dominant male-centred housing models. Within the physical environment, women described inhabitable housing conditions in SROs with infestations of bedbugs and rats, leading women to even more transitional housing options such as shelters and couch-surfing. In many cases, this resulted in their economic exploitation and increased sexual risk. Within the structural environment, enforcement of curfews and guest policies forced women to accept risky clients to meet curfew, or work outdoors where their ability to negotiate safety and condom use were limited. Certain policies promoted women's agency and mitigated their ability to reduce risks when selling sex. These included flexible curfews and being able to bring clients home. The social environments of co-ed single-room occupancy hotels resulted in repeated violence by male residents and discrimination by male building staff. Women-only shelters and SROs facilitated 'enabling environments' where women developed support systems with other working women that resulted in safer work practices. The narratives expressed in this study reveal the critical need for public health interventions and safer supportive housing to account for the daily lived experiences of women sex workers.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The specific organization and management of SROs creates a gendered vulnerability to violence and sexual risk taking among women.
“Further, Lazarus et al. (2011) demonstrate that the specific organization and management of SROs creates a gendered vulnerability to violence and sexual risk taking among women.”
From Single room occupancy (SRO) hotels as mental health risk environments among impoverished women: The intersection of policy, drug use, trauma, and urban space (2014) · cites this paper as Lazarus et al. (2011)
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 42 · Cited by 102
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Bourdieu P Masculine domination 2001 Stanford University Press Stanford, California
- Authors
- Lazarus, L., Chettiar, J., Deering, K., Nabess, R., & Shannon, K.
- Affiliations
- St. Paul's Hospital (CA)
- University of British Columbia (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Shannon, K.
- Venue
- Social Science & Medicine
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2011-12
- Volume
- 73
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1600-1607
- ISSN
- 0277-9536 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC3355978
- OpenAlex
- W2044830007
- Cited by
- 102
- References
- 42
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 17.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Social Science & Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- cIRcle (University of British Columbia) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Open Collections
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA028648)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Sex work and related issues
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Homelessness and Social Issues
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › HIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk
- Keywords
- female sex workers, street sex work, single-room occupancy hotels, homeless shelters, transitional housing, sexual risk reduction, sexual violence, economic exploitation, curfew, condom use, gender and power, agency, Vancouver, public health interventions
- MeSH terms
- Adult, British Columbia, Female, Housing, Humans, Middle Aged, Poverty Areas, Power, Psychological, Risk-Taking, Safety, Violence, Women's Rights, HIV Infections, Focus Groups, Qualitative Research, Sex Workers
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review