OpenHeritage Glossary
#OHglossary Identifying and clarifying keywords in OpenHeritage
The term social and economic disadvantages could imply a different setting of meanings. It could refer to the effect of a particular action, such as the disadvantages of decentralization, or to an economic and social status of an individual. In the latter case, the social and economic disadvantages are characteristics that influence the ability of the individual to develop determined behaviors. The most important disadvantages are poverty, limit cognitive abilities, lack of social capital. In some cases, individual characteristics which does not necessarily imply a limitation might hamper individual development due their perception by the environment. Some groups of individuals might experience disadvantages because groups have a predefined perception of these individual characteristics (De Jong 2001) or because of their social and relational context (Boyle 2002). Discrimination is as an example, of a social context which transform neutral individual characteristics such as religion, gender and skin color, in a disadvantage.
Relevance: where and how is the term relevant in the OpenHeritage?
The Economic and social disadvantages is relevant for the development of the Open Heritage project as the individual social and economic conditions might hamper the development of the heritage re-use project. When communities want to be integrated in the process it is important to take in consideration the possible disadvantages of individuals to avoid that certain categories of actors are excluded from within the process. Especially when project targets critical part of the city, develop mechanism which could support the most fragile part of the population to participate to the development plan would enrich the process and increase the community and social outcomes of the project (Kirby 2005). In addition, neighborhood social and economic conditions might affect the way people perceive and participate in the project.
Key discussions
The discussion on disadvantage has started from a psychological perspective. The role of economic and social disadvantages on individual development of people has been studied. In particular, the studies have focuses on how the disadvantages compromise the ability of people and their well-being (VC McLoyd 1998). Economic and social characteristics could lead to social exclusion and limit the individual participation in key activities of the society in which he or she lives (Conklin 2015). If for phycologist the attention of disadvantages focusses on individuals, the main discussion in social sciences, and not only, concern how economic and social advantages could be best assessed (Lin 2016). Hence, people with socio economic disadvantages are the primary target for public interventions (Fors 2019). Social welfare policy and practices try to understand how to resolve social issues by limiting the perception of disadvantages or trying to remove some of them. Hence, of the main public entities goal is to impact these disadvantages to give all people the same possibilities and opportunities. The possibility of different actors to improve the social and economic conditions is emerging. As an example, social and community enterprises are becoming central actors in supporting individual, groups and territories to solve economic and social issues and supporting their empowerment (Teasdale 2010). However, the assessment of economic and social condition is difficult as individuals experience simultaneous disadvantages, which could be also from very different life domain. The combinations of disadvantaged could create a vicious circle which not only compromise the quality of life but also make difficult for the individual to manage the challenges of everyday life (Scutella 2009). Hence, the discussion is focusing in understanding how a multidimensional approach can support a more realistic approach to the solution of economic and social disadvantage. An integrated approach to disadvantage would contribute to a more realistic estimates of the overall inequalities and how these could be targeted.
Key references
- Teasdale, Simon. 2010. "How can social enterprise address disadvantage? Evidence from an inner city community." Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing 22.2: 89-107.
- McLoyd, Vonnie C. 1998. "Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development." American psychologist 53.2: 185.
- Fors, Stefan, Ylva B. Almquist, and Lars Brännström. 2019. "Coexisting Social, Economic, and Health-Related Disadvantages in More than 2.4 Million Swedes: Combining Variable-Centred and Person-Centred Approaches." Social Indicators Research 143.1: 115-132.
- Conklin, Annalijn I., et al. 2015. "Gender and the double burden of economic and social disadvantages on healthy eating: cross-sectional study of older adults in the EPIC-Norfolk cohort." BMC Public Health 15.1: 692.
- De Jong, Gordon F., and Anna B. Madamba. 2001."A double disadvantage? Minority group, immigrant status, and underemployment in the United States." Social Science Quarterly 82.1: 117-130.
- Kirby, James B., and Toshiko Kaneda. 2005. "Neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage and access to health care." Journal of health and social behavior 46.1: 15-31.
- Boyle, Micheal H., and Ellen L. Lipman. 2002. "Do places matter? Socioeconomic disadvantage and behavioral problems of children in Canada." Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 70.2: 378.
- Li, Hongbo, and Yali Liu. 2016. "Neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage and urban public green spaces availability: A localized modeling approach to inform land use policy." Land Use Policy 57: 470-478.
- Scutella, Rosanna, Roger Wilkins, and Michael Horn. 2009. Measuring poverty and social exclusion in Australia: A proposed multidimensional framework for identifying socio-economic disadvantage. No. wp2009n04. Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
Report inappropriate content
Is this content inappropriate?
Share: