Community risk and well-being: Towards a spatially integrated social science within a socio-economic framework

Włodzimierz Okrasa

Opublikowane: 2013-12-31

Tom 8 (2013)

Community risk and well-being: Towards a spatially integrated social science within a socio-economic framework

Włodzimierz Okrasa

Abstrakt

Despite that the two concepts, community risk and community well-being, seem to constitute the two sides of the same coin - community (especially, local community) as a place to live - they rarely coincide with each other in empirical analyses. The main thesis of this paper is that analyzing them jointly seems to be fruitful, especially in a policy-oriented evaluation research conducted in the context of community development. Community well-being is, by its very nature, an example of the truly interdisciplinary notion. When defined in terms of happiness and subjective well-being it becomes the focus of predominantly psychometric approach. Sociologists prevail in attempts to interpret it in terms of quality of life and of social indicators. And economists and statisticians are trying to measure nation-wide material and non-material aspects of well-being with intention to incorporate them into an appropriately re-formulated, or extended, system of national account. As a part of these conceptualizations (moving “beyond GDP”) some approaches are being developed to include the value produced under non-market activities, including the non-profit organizations or third sector (either through utilizing Satellite Accounts methodology or through the labor market research). However, no much attention is given in such frameworks to well-being conceived as an attribute of a local community. The objective of this paper is two-fold. First it is to demonstrate the complexity involved in the relationships in which the concept of well-being remains with local risk and local capital, at the analytical level. Second, how this complex pattern of interaction can contribute conceptually and methodologically to the advancement of the process of integrating social science research in the area of the pro-well-being community development. To create and use the new types of university-community relations in this context seems to be the most promising approach for social scientists, and is recommended here as a way worthwhile to follow.

Pobierz pliki

PDF (English)

Zasady cytowania

Okrasa, W. (2013). Community risk and well-being: Towards a spatially integrated social science within a socio-economic framework. Uniwersyteckie Czasopismo Socjologiczne, 8, 4–15. Pobrano z https://czasopisma.uksw.edu.pl/ucs/article/view/17143

Cited by / Share

Licencja

Utwór dostępny jest na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa – Bez utworów zależnych 4.0 Międzynarodowe.

Bibliografia

Aldstadt J. (2010) Spatial Clustering, [In:] M. M. Fischer and A. Getis (eds), Handbook of Applied Spatial Analysis. Software Tools, Methods and Application, Springer.
Google Scholar

Anand P., Hunter G., Carter I., Dowding K., Guala F. and van Hees M. (2009), The development of capability indicators. “Journal of Human Development and Capabilities”, 10(1), 125–152.
Google Scholar

Cnaan R.A., Milofsky C., Hunter A. (2008), Creating a Frame for Understanding Local Organizations, [In:] Cnaan R.A., Milofsky C. (red.), Handbook of Community Movements and Local Organizations, Sudbury: Springer
Google Scholar

Diener E., Seligman M. E. P. (2009), Beyond Money: Toward an Economy of Well-Being, [In:] E. Diener (red.), The Science of Well-Being. The Collected Works of Ed Diener. Springer, Dordrecht.
Google Scholar

Emery M., Flora C. (2006), Spiraling-Up: Mapping Community Transformation with Community Capitas Framework, “Community Development”, 37, 1, Spring, p. 19-34.
Google Scholar

Funnell, P., Rogers J. (2011), Purposeful Program Theory. Effective Use of theories of Change and Logic Models, San Francisco: J. Wiley and Sons
Google Scholar

Heckman J.J. (2010), Building Bridges between Structural and Program Evaluation Approaches to Evaluating Policy, NBER Working Paper Series – Working Paper 16110 //www.nber.org/papers/w16110.
Google Scholar

Holzmann R., Jorgerson S. (2000), Social Protection as Social Risk Management: Conceptual Underpinning for the Social Protection Sector Strategy Paper. “Journal of International Development”, 11, p. 1005–1027.
Google Scholar

Jongbloed B., Enders J., Salerno C. (2008), Higher education and its communities: Interconnections, interdependencies and a research agenda. “Higher Education”, 56, p. 303–324.
Google Scholar

Morgan S.L., Winship Ch. (2007), Counterfactuals and Causal Inference. Methods and Principles for Social Research. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar

Okrasa W. (2008), Sektor trzeci jako przedmiot badań statystyki publicznej. Wybrane problemy, “Biblioteka Wiadomości Statystycznych”, Tom 57, p. 124-138.
Google Scholar

Okrasa W. (2011), Administracja Publiczna i Trzeci Sektor: Modele interakcji między-sektorowej w kontekście rozwoju lokalnego (w świetle danych). „Administracja i Społeczeństwo”, Z. 5, s. 257-317.
Google Scholar

Okrasa W., Lapins J., Vremis M. (2006), Measuring Community Deprivation for Geographic Targeting of Public Resources – case of Moldova. Statistics in Transition. “Journal of Polish Statistical Association”, Vol. 7, Nr. 5, s. 1045-1065.
Google Scholar

Okrasa W., Witek B. (2011), The Intersectoral Relationships and the Distribution of Public Support: How the local deprivation affects resource allocation at the community level? Paper presented at the International Conference in Tambow (Russian Fed.), November 2011.
Google Scholar

Omoto A.M., (ed.) (2005), Process of Community Change and Social Action. Mahwach: Lawrence Erlbaum Asst, Publ.
Google Scholar

Proske D. (2008), Catalogue of Risks. Natural, Technical, Social, and Health Risks, Berlin: Heidelberg.
Google Scholar

Reason P., Bradbury H. (red.) (2009), The SAGE Handbook of Action Research. Participatory Inquiry and Practice. Los Angeles SAGE.
Google Scholar

Rogerson P., Yamada I. (2009), Statistical Detection and Surveillance of Geographic Clusters. London, New York: Chapman and Hall/CRC.
Google Scholar

Stiglitz J. E., Sen A., Fitoussi J-P (2009). Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress. (www.stiglitz-sen-fitoussi.fr).
Google Scholar

Trewin D, Hall J. (2010), Developing Societal Progress Indicators: A Practical Guide. OECD Statistics Working Paper no. 35, - STD/DOC(2010)6, Paris.
Google Scholar