Journal of Aging Research for example, “old”, “frail”, “burdensome”); (3) sociopo- litical exclusion (barriers to civic/political participation); (4) institutional exclusion (reduced access to services); (5) economic exclusion (lack of ﬁnancial resources); (6) exclusion of signiﬁcant social ties (absence/loss of social network); (7) territorial exclusion (reduced geographic living area, unsafe neighbourhood). Billette and Lavoie’s deﬁnition puts forth two essential characteristics of social exclusion. First, it is a dynamic, ﬂuid process rather than a static state. Second, since it is a multidimensional concept, it allows for a rich understanding of how social exclusion can be experienced across many facets of a person or population’s life. For instance, in relation to gentriﬁcation, increases in rents and the changing commercial landscape may put ﬁnancial strain on older people, especially those with modest incomes (economic exclusion). Older adults could also lose their political inﬂuence in relation to social planning (sociopolitical exclusion). The arrival of younger, more educated populations can reinforce certain stereotypes of older people, such as “slow”; “nosy”; “busy-bodies” of the neighbourhood (symbolic exclusion). Leaving a familiar neighbourhood or having friends and neighbours move away can also lead to social network exclusion. The dimension of territorial exclusion is of particular interest because neighbourhood change involving gentriﬁcation could lead to feelings of insecurity as familiar institutions disappear and the public spaces of everyday life take on a new look and “feel.” Territorial exclusion also shares dimensions with the useful geographic concepts of direct displacement (physically forced out of one’s neighbourhood) and indirect displacement, as described above. 2.2. Attachment to Place. The concept of attachment is central to understanding how urban change can aﬀect older adults. An individual’s level of attachment to their environment will have a direct impact on how changes are experienced and perceived. This is especially the case for older people because, as mentioned above, the immediate environment becomes more important with age [8, 9]. Older people develop a sense of self-attachment, personal identity, and social diﬀerentiation through the relationship they construct and maintain with daily, “ordinary” spaces [35]. Therefore, understanding older people’s attachment to place becomes a crucial element to understanding how they experience neighbourhood change. It is important to make the distinction between place and space. Space refers to the physical location, whereas place can be thought of as a process and includes an integration of physical, social, emotional and symbolic aspects, interacting in diﬀerent degrees [6, 36]. Several authors have since written on attachment to place [37–41] dating back to the path- breaking work of Rowles [42, 43] who developed a theory of insideness to conceptualize attachment to place, using three components: (1) autobiographical; (2) physical; (3) social. For Rowles, physical insideness is associated with living somewhere for long periods of time—the resident establishes a sense of environmental control or mastery by creating an idiosyncratic rhythm and routine. Social insideness evolves 3 not only from everyday social exchanges and relationships but also from a sense of being well known and knowing oth- ers. Third, autobiographical insideness has been suggested to be the most relevant to describe older people’s attachment to place because it is embedded in memories. As we age, these memories are recalled selectively in the creation of one’s identity. Older people with strong ties to place are also reported to feel more in control, more secure and to have a positive sense of self. Attachment to place has also been studied by Rubinstein and Parmelee [40] and more recently by Sugihara and Evans [44] who make the link between older people’s attachment to their dwelling, maintaining a positive self-image and maintaining their independence. Overall, in the past 30 years the study of attachment to place has captured the attention of scholars from geographical, gerontological, and environmental psychology perspectives [6, 37, 39, 45, 46], yet to date little has been written on what occurs when older people, who are aging in place, experience a neighbourhood that is itself undergoing change [14]. 3. Methods 3.1. Study Design and Sample. We situated our research in an explorative, qualitative case study design [47], cases being the changing neighbourhood, the unit of analysis being the older person’s personal experience of neighbourhood change. Case study methodology is suitable for studying complex and multifaceted social phenomena embedded in speciﬁc contexts [48]. Our overarching research question is concerned with how older adults experience diﬀerent types of neighbourhood change, especially those involving gentriﬁcation. Exploring this complex issue necessitates recourse to multiple sources of evidence (e.g., document analysis, interviews with older people, and key informants), which is typical of case study methodology in the social sciences. For the Montre´al component of the research, we selected two inner-city neighbourhoods (see descriptions below) where local community stakeholders were concerned about current or impending gentriﬁcation and how it could aﬀect older people. Following a complete ethics review process by two university ethics boards (covering informed consent, conﬁdentiality, respect, risks, and beneﬁts, etc.), we conducted 30 semistructured face-to-face interviews with autonomous and mobile older adults aged from 68 to 95 years. All of our participants had lived in one of the two Montre´al neighbourhoods for at least 10 years or did live pre- viously there but had moved away in the past ﬁve years. We included private renters, homeowners, and people living in residences for autonomous older adults. We also conducted 10 in-depth interviews with key informants (i.e., six in La Petite-Patrie and four in Lower NDG, who came from varied backgrounds (e.g., municipal councillor, priest, community workers, etc.). Table 1 summarizes some key characteristics of the older adults who participated in this study. 3.2. Data Collection. Participants were referred from a variety of community organizations (e.g., a tenant advocacy organization, the local community health care centre in both