Access to and use of local opportunity structures: Gender differences in two contrasting socioeconom

1
Access to and use of local opportunity
structures Gender differences in two
contrasting socioeconomic neighbourhoods

• Jo Payne, BSc (Hons)
• 2005
• Honours Thesis
• Department of Public Health
• Flinders University

2
Local opportunity structures?

• Socially constructed and patterned features of
  the physical and social environment which may
  promote or damage health either directly or
  indirectly through the possibilities they provide
  for people to live healthy lives (Macintyre
  Ellaway, 2000)
• Third places - outside of the home and work
  environments (Oldenburg, 1997).

3
Social capital

• Formal and informal social networks and social
  cohesion that exists between people, which are
  dependent on levels of trust, reciprocity and
  mutual obligation.
• Product or resources accrued by an individual or
  group as a result of durable social networks and
  can exist as material or symbolic exchanges which
  further support this (Bourdieu, 1986).
• Social Processes (networks, norms and trust) that
  occur between individuals which result in
  cooperation for mutual benefit (Putnam, 1995).

4
Research questions

• How does access to and the use of local
  opportunity structures (LOS) in two contrasting
  socioeconomic neighbourhoods differ by gender?
• How does gender (as a compositional element)
  influence this?
• Does living in a different socioeconomic
  neighbourhood (contextual element) further
  influence this?
• Does a relationship exist between gender, social
  capital and health?

5
Methods

• Qualitative - 30 face-to-face in-depth interviews
• 2 settings (socioeconomic contrasting
  neighbourhoods)
• 8 women 8 men (advantaged neighbourhood)
• 8 women and 6 men (disadvantaged neighbourhood).

6
Results

• Mens access and use of LOS is more likely to be
  done to obtain a resource (sporting club).
• Womens access and use of LOS done as a way of
  establishing and maintaining social networks.

• Men less inclined to access and use LOS, however,
  when they did this was to obtain a resource
  (local shops)
• Women accessed and used LOS more frequently and
  this was done in a social capacity.

7
Results

• More disposable income and less time restraints
  associated with having a wider range of access to
  and use of LOS for both women and men.

• Less disposable income was a barrier for men and
  women to accessing and using certain LOS.
• However, women in this neighbourhood used their
  immediate area to meet and socially interact with
  other women.

8
Results

• Women with work commitments and having a family
  found this to be a barrier to accessing and using
  LOS.
• Men found that their children were a catalyst to
  LOS (mostly through sporting activities).

• Women less restricted and more likely to venture
  outside their neighbourhood (social participation
  with family and friends).
• Men less likely to do this, however, some spoke
  of social networks when their children lived at
  home.

9
Results

• Women described their general health and
  well-being very positively.
• Men described their general health and well-being
  positively.

• Women described their general health and
  well-being as mostly positive.
• Men described their general health and well-being
  as mostly positive but some negative.

10
Conclusions

• Gender does influence the ways in which people
  access and use local opportunity structures in
  both advantaged and disadvantaged neighbourhoods.
• Socioeconomic disadvantage does influence the
  range of access and use of local opportunity
  structures.

11
Conclusion

• Womens access and use of local opportunity
  structures are based on functional relationships
  that are a process of social capital.
• Mens access and use of local opportunity
  structures are based on structural relationships
  that provide resources.
• Indirectly, these social relationships influence
  general health and well-being.

12
Limitations

• Age (range 26-78 years mean 61 years)
• Relationship status (greater proportion married)
• Employment status (greater proportion retired).
• Future studies to consider other compositional
  elements (diversity of people living in
  neighbourhoods).

13
So what!

• Consideration of gender and how this influences
  what people do, where they go and who they
  socially mix with in their neighbourhoods
• Accessible and affordable LOS
• Policies
• Health promotion projects
• Urban planning and regeneration programmes.

14
References

• Bourdieu, P. 1986, The Forms of Capital, in
  Handbook of Theory of Research for the Sociology
  of Education, (ed.) J. F. Richardson, Greenword
  Press, New York.
• Macintyre, S. Ellaway, A. 2000, Ecological
  Approaches Rediscovering the Role of the
  Physical and Social Environment, Social
  Epidemiology, (eds.) L. Berkman I. Kawachi,
  Oxford University Press, New York.
• Oldenburg, R. 1997, Our vanishing third places,
  Planning Commissioners Journal, vol. 25, pp.
  8-10.
• Putnam, R. D. 1995, Bowling Alone Americas
  Declining Social Capital, Journal of Democracy,
  vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 65-78.