Page 22 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 22 of 188 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
12
arrangements (i.e., inequality, poverty, education, etc.). Two interrelated, but distinct
concepts are essential in his approach - ‘functionings’ and ‘capability’. He observes:
Functionings represent parts of the state of a person-in particular the various
things that he or she manages to do or be in leading a life. The capability of a
person reflects the alternative combinations of functionings the person can
achieve, and from which he or she can choose one collection. The approach is
based on a view of living as a combination of various ‘doings and beings’,
with quality of life to be assessed in terms of the capability to achieve
valuable functionings (p.31, emphasis in original).
A person’s functionings ranges from elementary ones required for survival such as
adequate nourishment and good health to more complex ones such as achieving self-respect
and engaging in social life and so on. By understanding the capability of a
person as a set of functionings, or a ‘functionings vector’ that is open to choice
depending on what he or she values, one’s capability hence reflects his or her real or
‘positive’ freedom, to invoke Isaiah Berlin (1969).5 Thus, in this sense, “as
functionings are constitutive of well-being, capability represents a person’s freedom
to achieve well-being”(Sen, 1992, p. 49).
Sen argues that a person’s capability or freedom should be the ‘value-objects’
in making any moral judgments on states of affairs, and thus policies should focus on
removing barriers one has in leading the kind of life that he or she values. His
formulation of capability approach, especially what he considers to have normative
values in evaluative space, entails challenges to alternative philosophical approaches
based on for instance, utility, income, or one’s command over resources. Sen’s
5 By and large, negative freedom denotes that a person is not prevented from doing. On the other
hand, positive freedom indicates that a person actually can do what he or she intends to do. Thus
freedom in positive sense considers both personal and external forces that together determine one’s
freedom.
Object Description
| Title | Walkability as 'freedom': the ecology of school journey in inner city Los Angeles neighborhoods |
| Author | Uhm, Jung A |
| Author email | uhm@usc.edu; j_uhm@hotmail.com |
| Degree | Doctor of Philosophy |
| Document type | Dissertation |
| Degree program | planning |
| School | School of Policy, Planning, and Development |
| Date defended/completed | 2008-06-05 |
| Date submitted | 2008 |
| Restricted until | Unrestricted |
| Date published | 2008-10-17 |
| Advisor (committee chair) | Banerjee, Tridib |
| Advisor (committee member) |
Irazabal, Clara Stoner, Madeleine |
| Abstract | Over the past two decades, rising concerns over childhood obesity and its health effects have brought the issue of "walkability" to the forefront in creating a child friendly environment. Particularly, the idea of promoting children walking to and from school has gained widespread support among policy makers, public health officials, civic organizations, and planners as a way to increase physical activity among children to prevent obesity. Recent policies and programs however are based on an assumption about the direct influence of the built environment on school travel mode, of which parents' values and perceptions are considered prominent in determining environmental attributes related to children walking to school.; This research proposes a conceptual framework in understanding the relationship between the environment and children's travel by adding a crucial link generally missing in current walkability research - children. By proposing the notion of walkability as freedom, this study attempts to draw attentions to children's choices and real opportunities and factors that either facilitate or prohibit children in or from actualizing what they value (walking to school as one of many). With this goal, this research explored the elements of a walkable environment through the eyes of ethnic minority children attending five elementary schools in inner city Los Angeles.; Through the triangulation of capability approach, child-centered participatory methods, and ecological perspectives, the findings demonstrate children's capacity not only to observe and understand the environment, but also to evaluate and reflect on making their neighborhood environment safer and walkable on their own terms.; This research suggests a shift in policy focus from the provision and improvement of environmental resources to the enhancement of individual freedom by increasing children's participatory capability. The results of this study advance the discussion on the relationship between active school travel and the environment by bringing children into the foreground within the spheres of ecological transaction. |
| Keyword | capability; children; inner-city neighborhood; perception; school travel; walkability |
| Geographic subject | educational facilities: Foshay Learning Center; educational facilities: Norwood Street Elementary School; educational facilities: St. Agnes Parish School; educational facilities: Vermont Avenue Elementary School; educational facilities: Lenicia B. Weemes Elementary School |
| Geographic subject (city or populated place) | Los Angeles |
| Geographic subject (state) | California |
| Coverage date | circa 2008 |
| Language | English |
| Part of collection | University of Southern California dissertations and theses |
| Publisher (of the original version) | University of Southern California |
| Place of publication (of the original version) | Los Angeles, California |
| Publisher (of the digital version) | University of Southern California. Libraries |
| Provenance | Electronically uploaded by the author |
| Type | texts |
| Legacy record ID | usctheses-m1671 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Rights | Uhm, Jung A |
| Repository name | Libraries, University of Southern California |
| Repository address | Los Angeles, California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Filename | etd-Uhm-2224 |
| Archival file | uscthesesreloadpub_Volume29/etd-Uhm-2224.pdf |
Description
| Title | Page 22 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 12 arrangements (i.e., inequality, poverty, education, etc.). Two interrelated, but distinct concepts are essential in his approach - ‘functionings’ and ‘capability’. He observes: Functionings represent parts of the state of a person-in particular the various things that he or she manages to do or be in leading a life. The capability of a person reflects the alternative combinations of functionings the person can achieve, and from which he or she can choose one collection. The approach is based on a view of living as a combination of various ‘doings and beings’, with quality of life to be assessed in terms of the capability to achieve valuable functionings (p.31, emphasis in original). A person’s functionings ranges from elementary ones required for survival such as adequate nourishment and good health to more complex ones such as achieving self-respect and engaging in social life and so on. By understanding the capability of a person as a set of functionings, or a ‘functionings vector’ that is open to choice depending on what he or she values, one’s capability hence reflects his or her real or ‘positive’ freedom, to invoke Isaiah Berlin (1969).5 Thus, in this sense, “as functionings are constitutive of well-being, capability represents a person’s freedom to achieve well-being”(Sen, 1992, p. 49). Sen argues that a person’s capability or freedom should be the ‘value-objects’ in making any moral judgments on states of affairs, and thus policies should focus on removing barriers one has in leading the kind of life that he or she values. His formulation of capability approach, especially what he considers to have normative values in evaluative space, entails challenges to alternative philosophical approaches based on for instance, utility, income, or one’s command over resources. Sen’s 5 By and large, negative freedom denotes that a person is not prevented from doing. On the other hand, positive freedom indicates that a person actually can do what he or she intends to do. Thus freedom in positive sense considers both personal and external forces that together determine one’s freedom. |
