DOCSLIB.ORG

University of Cincinnati

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
University of Cincinnati U UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI Date: I, , hereby submit this original work as part of the requirements for the degree of: in It is entitled: Student Signature: This work and its defense approved by: Committee Chair: Approval of the electronic document: I have reviewed the Thesis/Dissertation in its final electronic format and certify that it is an accurate copy of the document reviewed and approved by the committee. Committee Chair signature: Exploring the Impact of Food at a Community Development Event: An Analysis of Food Choices and the Principles of Community Development A Thesis In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Community Planning School of Planning College of Design, Architecture, Art and Planning University of Cincinnati By Andrew Turner B.A. (Hons), University of Strathclyde, 2003 August 17, 2009 COMMITTEE: Committee Chair: Chris Auffrey, PhD Faculty Member: David Edelman, PhD ii Abstract The purpose of this thesis is to investigate whether there is conflict between the food served at a community development event and the principles of community development. Through a qualitative matrix analysis, this study calls attention to four cumulative food choices: vegan, vegetarian, organic and non-organic, and five principles of community development: participation, education, inclusion, empowerment and sustainability, to determine how food and community development intersect. The study finds that the interconnected principles of participation and inclusion need to be evaluated against the principles of empowerment and sustainability before an event organizer can decide on what food to provide. There is clearly a trade-off between the environmental and social impacts of food choices and their inclusionary potential. The theoretical and exploratory nature of the research also helps define problems and hypotheses that should be considered in future empirical studies. Keywords: food choice; principles of community development; community development event. iii iv Table of Contents List of Tables and Figures ...................................................................................... viii Chapter 1: Introduction .............................................................................................. 1 Overview .................................................................................................................................................. 2 Assumptions .......................................................................................................................................... 2 Organization .......................................................................................................................................... 3 Contribution .......................................................................................................................................... 4 Chapter 2: Conceptual Framework ............................................................................ 5 Components of Community Development ............................................................................................ 6 Community ........................................................................................................................................... 6 Development ......................................................................................................................................... 6 Assets .................................................................................................................................................... 7 Quality of Life ....................................................................................................................................... 7 Principles of Community Development ................................................................................................ 8 Participation .......................................................................................................................................... 9 Education ............................................................................................................................................ 10 Inclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 10 Empowerment ..................................................................................................................................... 10 Sustainability ....................................................................................................................................... 11 Models of Community Development ................................................................................................... 11 Self-Help ............................................................................................................................................. 12 Conflict ............................................................................................................................................... 12 Technical Assistance ........................................................................................................................... 13 v Summary ................................................................................................................................................ 14 Chapter 3: Food Choices .......................................................................................... 15 Ethical System of Food Choice ............................................................................................................ 15 Veganism versus Vegetarianism ......................................................................................................... 16 Animal Rights ..................................................................................................................................... 18 Sociopolitical ...................................................................................................................................... 20 Environmental ..................................................................................................................................... 22 Health .................................................................................................................................................. 25 Religion ............................................................................................................................................... 27 Personal System of Food Choices ........................................................................................................ 28 Food Upbringing ................................................................................................................................. 28 Roles and Role Transitions ................................................................................................................. 29 Health and Physical Well-Being ......................................................................................................... 30 Ethnic Traditions and Identities .......................................................................................................... 30 Resources ............................................................................................................................................ 31 Location .............................................................................................................................................. 31 Summary ................................................................................................................................................ 32 Chapter 4: Methodology .......................................................................................... 33 Developing a Matrix as an Analytical Tool ........................................................................................ 33 Definitions........................................................................................................................................... 33 Construction ........................................................................................................................................ 34 Limitations .......................................................................................................................................... 35 Trustworthiness ................................................................................................................................... 35 Food Choice Matrix .............................................................................................................................. 36 Formal Selection ................................................................................................................................. 36 Decision Rules .................................................................................................................................... 37 Validity of the Study ........................................................................................................................... 39 vi Chapter 5: Analysis and Discussion ........................................................................ 40 The Analysis .......................................................................................................................................... 40 Vegan .................................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Happy Meals: Animals, Nature, and the Myth of Consent A
    HAPPY MEALS: ANIMALS, NATURE, AND THE MYTH OF CONSENT A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF MODERN THOUGHT AND LITERATURE AND THE COMMITTEE ON GRADUATE STUDIES OF STANFORD UNIVERSITY IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Vasile Stanescu May 2014 © 2014 by Vasile Stanescu. All Rights Reserved. Re-distributed by Stanford University under license with the author. This dissertation is online at: http://purl.stanford.edu/ph312vx3092 ii I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Shelley Fishkin, Primary Adviser I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Ursula Heise, Co-Adviser I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Matthew Kohrman Approved for the Stanford University Committee on Graduate Studies. Patricia J. Gumport, Vice Provost for Graduate Education This signature page was generated electronically upon submission of this dissertation in electronic format. An original signed hard copy of the signature page is on file in University Archives. iii iv Abstract In describing man as an “animal rationale,” Aristotle argued for a “myth of consent,” i.e. that slaves, barbarians, women, and animals have all “agreed” to be owned and controlled by Greek male citizens for their own “protection.” Therefore, there are two main themes in Aristotelian thought in the original definition of man, which became inscribed in later thinkers.
    [Show full text]
  • Association for the Study of Literature and Environment Ninth Biennial
    Association for the Study of Literature and Environment Ninth Biennial Conference Welcome to Bloomington! On behalf of Indiana University, I am pleased to welcome you to the Association for the Study of Literature and the Environment 2011 Conference. This important event brings together artists, teachers, writers, and scholars from around the world who share a deep interest in the environment, its meanings, representations, and interpretations in language and culture. It is a special pleasure for Indiana University to host this conference on our Bloomington campus because of our longstanding commitment to issues concerning the environment. That commitment dates back at least to our legendary 11th President Herman B Wells, who fiercely protected the beautiful green spaces on campus. This tradition contin- ues in the university’s careful stewardship of our campus’s natural resources and our firm commitment to the outstanding scholarship that will help us understand and appreciate our changing environment. Michael McRobbie President, Indiana University Thanks Many thanks to our hosts at Indiana University, especially: Michael A. McRobbie, President of Indiana University Karen Hanson, Provost of Indiana University Bloomington and Executive Vice President, Indiana University David Zaret, Interim Dean, College of Arts and Sciences, Indiana University Bloomington Jean Robinson, Associate Dean, College of Arts and Sciences Steve Watt, Associate Dean of Arts and Sciences Jonathan Elmer, Chair, Department of English Scott Sanders, Distinguished
    [Show full text]
  • Organized Animal Protection and the Language of Rights in America, 1865-1900
    *DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE WITHOUT PERMISSION* “The Inalienable Rights of the Beasts”1: Organized Animal Protection and the Language of Rights in America, 1865-1900 Susan J. Pearson Assistant Professor, Department of History Northwestern University Telephone: 847-471-3744 1881 Sheridan Road Email: [email protected] Evanston, IL 60208 ABSTRACT Contemporary animal rights activists and legal scholars routinely charge that state animal protection statutes were enacted, not to serve the interests of animals, but rather to serve the interests of human beings in preventing immoral behavior. In this telling, laws preventing cruelty to animals are neither based on, nor do they establish, anything like rights for animals. Their raison d’etre, rather, is social control of human actions, and their function is to efficiently regulate the use of property in animals. The (critical) contemporary interpretation of the intent and function of animal cruelty laws is based on the accretion of actions – on court cases and current enforcement norms. This approach confuses the application and function of anticruelty laws with their intent and obscures the connections between the historical animal welfare movement and contemporary animal rights activism. By returning to the context in which most state anticruelty statutes were enacted – in the nineteenth century – and by considering the discourse of those activists who promoted the original legislation, my research reveals a more complicated story. Far from being concerned only with controlling the behavior of deviants, the nineteenth-century animal welfare activists who agitated for such laws situated them within a “lay discourse” of rights, borrowed from the successful abolitionist movement, that connected animal sentience, proved through portrayals of their suffering, to animal rights.
    [Show full text]
  • HLPE Report # 12
    HLPE REPORT 12 Nutrition and food systems A report by The High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition September 2017 HLPE High Level Panel of Experts HLPE Reports series #1 Price volatility and food security (2011) #2 Land tenure and international investments in agriculture (2011) #3 Food security and climate change (2012) #4 Social protection for food security (2012) #5 Biofuels and food security (2013) #6 Investing in smallholder agriculture for food security (2013) #7 Sustainable fisheries and aquaculture for food security and nutrition (2014) #8 Food losses and waste in the context of sustainable food systems (2014) #9 Water for food security and nutrition (2015) #10 Sustainable agricultural development for food security and nutrition: what roles for livestock? (2016) #11 Sustainable forestry for food security and nutrition (2017) #12 Nutrition and food systems (2017) All HLPE reports are available at www.fao.org/cfs/cfs-hlpe 2 HLPE Steering Committee members (September 2017) Patrick Caron (Chair) Carol Kalafatic (Vice-Chair) Amadou Allahoury Louise Fresco Eileen Kennedy Muhammad Azeem Khan Bernardo Kliksberg Fangquan Mei Sophia Murphy Mohammad Saeid Noori Naeini Michel Pimbert Juan Ángel Rivera Dommarco Magdalena Sepúlveda Martin Yemefack Rami Zurayk HLPE Project Team members Jessica Fanzo (Team Leader) Mandana Arabi Barbara Burlingame Lawrence Haddad Simon Kimenju Gregory Miller Fengying Nie Elisabetta Recine Lluís Serra-Majem Dipa Sinha Coordinator of the HLPE Nathanaël Pingault This report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE) has been approved by the HLPE Steering Committee. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Committee on World Food Security, of its members, participants, or of the Secretariat.
    [Show full text]
  • Religion and Justice
    Religion and Justice Edited by Ronald A. Simkins and Zachary B. Smith The Recursive Violence of Anthropological Exceptionalism Toward the Ecological Transformation of Dignity Eric Daryl Meyer, Carroll College Abstract Prevalent theological concepts of human dignity purport to safeguard human lives equally, but in fact, because they ground human inviolability in assumptions of the violation and violability of animal lives, they expose and endanger those human beings whose differences – whether racialized, gendered, embodied, or in relation to colonial power – have been historically constructed through animality. As an alternative, this essay works out an account of dignity as the creaturely respiration of God’s Spirit, manifest in cultivated solidarities of creaturely life and expressed especially through shame and gentleness. Keywords: dignity, animals, Holy Spirit, theological anthropology, violence 203 Religion and Justice Introduction1 “The cultural marginalization of animals is, of course, a more complex process than their physical marginalization. The animals of the mind cannot be so easily dispersed” (Berger: 15). After controversy about the appropriate method and venue, a large crowd gathered at Coney Island on January 4th, 1903, for the execution of Topsy the elephant (Wood: 405-8; Shukin: 150f). Some decades earlier, she had been kidnapped from her birthplace in Southeast Asia, trafficked to the United States, and made to perform in a circus. Topsy’s resistance to performing and her responses to the violence of her trainers earned her a reputation as a difficult and dangerous elephant. When Frederick Thompson and Elmer Dundy, the new owners of Luna Park at Coney Island, thought that the expense of Topsy’s maintenance was no longer in balance with the revenue she generated, they arranged for her death, rescinding the offer to sell tickets to the event only under pressure from the ASPCA.
    [Show full text]
  • Budget Justification Bureau of Land Management FY2022
    The United States BUDGET Department of the Interior JUSTIFICATIONS and Performance Information Fiscal Year 2022 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT NOTICE: These budget justifications are prepared for the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittees. Approval for release of the justifications prior to their printing in the public record of the Subcommittee hearings may be obtained through the Office of Budget of the Department of the Interior. Printed on Recycled Paper Bureau of Land Management 2022 Budget Justifications TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ I-1 II. Crosscutting Programs .................................................................................................................. II-1 III. Budget at a Glance ....................................................................................................................... III-1 IV. Collections .................................................................................................................................... IV-1 V. Management of Lands and Resources ......................................................................................... V-1 Appropriations Language ................................................................................................................ V-1 Appropriations Language Citations ................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Unthinking Mastery
    Julietta Singh UNTHINKING MASTERY Dehumanism and Decolonial Entanglements Julietta Singh UNTHINKING MASTERY UNTHINKING MASTERY Dehumanism and Decolonial Entanglements Julietta Singh Duke University Press Durham and London 2018 © 2018 Duke University Press All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America on acid- free paper ∞ Cover designed by Courtney Leigh Baker Typeset in Minion Pro and Gill Sans Std by Graphic Composition, Inc., Bogart, Georgia Library of Congress Cataloging- in-Publication Data Names: Singh, Julietta, [date] author. Title: Unthinking mastery : dehumanism and decolonial entanglements / Julietta Singh. Description: Durham : Duke University Press, 2017. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: lccn 2017019894 (print) lccn 2017021286 (ebook) isbn 9780822372363 (ebook) isbn 9780822369226 (hardcover : alk. paper) isbn 9780822369394 (pbk. : alk. paper) Subjects: lcsh: Postcolonialism in literature. | Power (Social sciences) in literature. | Coetzee, J. M., 1940– —Criticism and interpretation. | Mahāśvetā Debī, 1926– 2016—Criticism and interpretation. | Sinha, Indra—Criticism and interpretation. | Kincaid, Jamaica—Criticism and interpretation. Classification: lcc pn56.p555 (ebook) | lcc pn56.p555 s55 2017 (print) | ddc 809/.93358—dc23 lc record available at https:// lccn .loc .gov /2017019894 Cover art: Sarah Anne Johnson, Party Boat, 2011. Scratched chromogenic print, photospotting and acrylic inks, gouache and marker, 28 × 42 in. Image courtesy of the artist. CONTENTS Acknowledgments vii Introduction
    [Show full text]
  • Records of the Department of Anthropology, 1901-[Ongoing]
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/tf5489n83n No online items Guide to the Records of the Department of Anthropology, 1901-[ongoing] Processed by The Bancroft Library staff University Archives. The Bancroft Library University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, California, 94720-6000 Phone: (510) 642-2933 Fax: (510) 642-7589 Email: [email protected] URL: http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/BANC/UARC © 2000 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Guide to the Records of the CU-23 1 Department of Anthropology, 1901-[ongoing] Guide to the Records of the Department of Anthropology, 1901-[ongoing] Collection number: CU-23 University Archives, The Bancroft Library University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, California Contact Information: University Archives The Bancroft Library University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, California, 94720-6000 Phone: (510) 642-2933 Fax: (510) 642-7589 Email: [email protected] URL: http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/BANC/UARC/ Processed by: The Bancroft Library staff © 2000 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Collection Summary Collection Title: Records of the Department of Anthropology, Date (inclusive): 1901-[ongoing] Collection Number: CU-23 Creator: Department of Anthropology Extent: 211 boxes Repository: The Bancroft Library. University Archives. Berkeley, California 94720-6000 Physical Location: For current information on the location of these materials, please consult the Library's online catalog. Languages Represented: English Access Collection is open for research, EXCEPT for the student files in Series 6. Only student files of individuals no longer living will be made available. Publication Rights Copyright has not been assigned to The Bancroft Library. All requests for permission to publish or quote from manuscripts must be submitted in writing to the Head of Public Services.
    [Show full text]
  • Ethics of Genome Editing
    #EthicsGroup_EU Ethics of Genome Editing European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies Research and Innovation European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies Ethics of Genome Editing European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation Unit 03 Contact Jim DRATWA Email [email protected] [email protected] European Commission B-1049 Brussels Manuscript completed in March 2021. The European Commission is not liable for any consequence stemming from the reuse of this publication. The contents of this opinion are the sole responsibility of the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (EGE). The views expressed in this document reflect the collective view of the EGE and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission. More information on the European Union is available on the internet (http://europa.eu). Print ISBN 978-92-76-30141-7 doi:10.2777/763 KI-01-21-062-EN-C PDF ISBN 978-92-76-30140-0 doi:10.2777/659034 KI-01-21-062-EN-N Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2021 © European Union, 2021 The reuse policy of European Commission documents is implemented based on Commission Decision 2011/833/EU of 12 December 2011 on the reuse of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). Except otherwise noted, the reuse of this document is authorised under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC-BY 4.0) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This means that reuse is allowed provided appropriate credit is given and any changes are indicated.
    [Show full text]
  • Moderate Versus Radical Ngos (Dagger) JEL Codes Romain Espinosa, Nicolas Treich
    Moderate Versus Radical NGOs (dagger) JEL codes Romain Espinosa, Nicolas Treich To cite this version: Romain Espinosa, Nicolas Treich. Moderate Versus Radical NGOs (dagger) JEL codes. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press (OUP), In press, 10.1111/ajae.12156. halshs-03097586 HAL Id: halshs-03097586 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-03097586 Submitted on 5 Jan 2021 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Moderate vs. Radical NGOs∗ Romain Espinosa1 and Nicolas Treich2 1CNRS, CREM - Université de Rennes 1, France 2INRAE, TSE, University Toulouse Capitole, France September 21, 2020 Abstract NGOs often vary in terms of how radical they are. In this paper, we explore the effec- tiveness of NGO discourses in bringing about social change. We focus on animal advocacy: welfarist NGOs primarily seek to improve the conditions in which animals are raised and re- duce meat consumption, while abolitionist NGOs categorically reject animal use and call for a vegan society. We design an experiment to study the respective impact of welfarist and abo- litionist discourses on participants’ beliefs regarding pro-meat justifications and their actions, namely their propensity to engage in the short-run in animal welfare (charity donation, peti- tion against intensive farming) and plant-based diets (subscription to a newsletter promoting plant-based diets, petition supporting vegetarian meals).
    [Show full text]
  • A Planetary Health Approach to the Labeling of Plant-Based Meat
    A Planetary Health Approach to the Labeling of Plant-Based Meat NICOLE E. NEGOWETTI* ABSTRACT In 2019, alternative proteins became mainstream. “Bleeding” plant-based burgers are now available at fast-food restaurants and grocery stores across the country, and the field of cellular agriculture—production of meat, dairy, and eggs from cells instead of livestock—is advancing rapidly. The replacement of conventional animal products with plant-based and cell-based alternatives signifies, for their producers and advocates, a turning point toward a more sustainable, just, and healthy food system. Yet, for the livestock industry, some consumer protection and environmental groups, and “natural” food advocates, these “Frankenfoods” or “fake foods” represent a flawed techno-fix. This paper explores these politicized narratives which have brought regulatory and legal issues of naming and labeling to the forefront of FDA’s and USDA’s agenda, have received congressional attention, and are also being addressed by state legislatures proposing and passing laws to define foods, such as “meat.” The health benefits and risks of both conventional and alternative meat products are focal issues in the conflicting narratives reported in the media and communicated through advertising campaigns. Focusing on FDA-regulated plant-based meat products that are currently or soon-to-be on the market, this paper evaluates the appropriate role of government in clarifying, and not further obfuscating, the issues. It does so by analyzing the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and FDA’s existing labeling guidance and regulations regarding “healthy” implied nutrient content claims. The paper argues for a broader approach to defining “healthy” that considers both human and planetary health and allows consumers to compare the healthfulness of alternative products with their conventional counterparts.
    [Show full text]
  • Food Security 2 3 Coordinating Lead Authors: Cheikh Mbow (Senegal), Cynthia Rosenzweig (The United States of 4 America) 5 Lead Authors: Luis G
    Final Government Distribution Chapter 5 IPCC SRCCL 1 Chapter 5: Food Security 2 3 Coordinating Lead Authors: Cheikh Mbow (Senegal), Cynthia Rosenzweig (The United States of 4 America) 5 Lead Authors: Luis G. Barioni (Brazil), Tim G. Benton (United Kingdom), Mario Herrero 6 (Australia/Costa Rica), Murukesan Krishnapillai (Micronesia/India), Emma Liwenga (Tanzania), 7 Prajal Pradhan (Germany/Nepal), Marta G. Rivera-Ferre (Spain), Tek Sapkota (Canada/Nepal), 8 Francesco N. Tubiello (The United States of America/Italy), Yinlong Xu (China) 9 Contributing Authors: Erik Mencos Contreras (The United States of America/Mexico), Joana 10 Portugal Pereira (United Kingdom), Julia Blanchard (Australia), Jessica Fanzo (The United States of 11 America), Stefan Frank (Austria), Steffen Kriewald (Germany), Gary Lanigan (Ireland), Daniel López 12 (Spain), Daniel Mason-D’Croz (The United States of America), Peter Neofotis (The United States of 13 America), Laxmi Pant (Canada), Renato Rodrigues (Brazil), Alex C. Ruane (The United States of 14 America), Katharina Waha (Australia) 15 Review Editors: Noureddine Benkeblia (Jamaica), Andrew Challinor (United Kingdom), Amanullah 16 Khan (Pakistan), John Porter (United Kingdom) 17 Chapter Scientists: Erik Mencos Contreras (The United States of America/Mexico), Abdoul Aziz 18 Diouf (Senegal) 19 Date of Draft: 07/08/2019 20 21 Subject to Copy-editing 5-1 Total pages: 200 Final Government Distribution Chapter 5 IPCC SRCCL 1 Table of Contents 2 Chapter 5: Food Security ..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]