The Capability Approach in Urban Quality of Life and Urban Policies: Towards a Conceptual Framework

Abstract

Improving urban quality of life is often stated as the main goal of urban policies, planning and management. However, there is no wide consensus on the theoretical and methodological framework that should be used to operatively define the concept of urban quality of life, so as to be useful for developing operational tools to measure it and for the evaluation of urban projects, plans and policies.

We consider the capability approach an effective candidate for providing the kind of theoretical and methodological grounding necessary for the design of such tools. According to this theoretical perspective, individual wellbeing is not defined in terms of endowment of commodities, but rather in relation to a person’s capability ‘to function’. This means we must look at what a person actually is and does (functionings) and what they are effectively able to be and do (capabilities), given both their personal characteristics and their surrounding environment. We can therefore say that in the capability approach, the achievement of wellbeing is a process of interaction between the individual and their surrounding environment.

Putting these ideas consistently to work in the design of tools for measuring urban quality of life means to evaluate urban quality of life on the basis of the actual possibilities each person has to ‘use’ the city in order to achieve functionings and capabilities, rather than just observing urban features.

Appendices

Appendix: Questionnaire for Measuring Urban Quality of Life of Children

As explained in the text, we measure each B-capability for each person. Therefore, the tool we have chosen for this purpose is the questionnaire.

In order to define its structure for measuring children’s urban quality of life, we have referred to the new view on childhood we have talked about above and have tried to take it into account to its full extent; in the meantime, in accordance with the capability approach, we have considered children also as becoming individuals, namely, as individuals developing capabilities. 30

Moreover, our experience in carrying out different projects aimed at involving children in community planning decisions, as well as remarks and advice given by the primary school teachers we have worked with, has been crucial for improving the structure of the questionnaire.

Here we give a sample selection of questions from a questionnaire, not the whole questionnaire. To be specific, the questions are taken from the questionnaire to be administered to parents of children whose quality of life we wish to measure and are related to the B-capabilities we called ‘Play’ and ‘Home’.

As can be seen, for each relevant urban feature, we try to establish in the questionnaire its availability, quality and accessibility: the three fundamental properties for evaluating the effectiveness of that specific urban feature in supporting the respective capability.

One of the main problems we have dealt with is the choice of places, services and opportunities of the town on which to focus, that is, all the places, services and opportunities which make it possible for people (for each person) to achieve the capability taking time into account. Obviously, it was necessary to strike a balance between thoroughness and actual length of the questionnaire.

With regard to the B-capability Play, we identified five types of places for play, each of which is, in our opinion, of primary importance and not entirely substitutable by others: (1) urban open spaces (e.g. urban parks, playgrounds), (2) natural open space in or around the town (e.g. beaches, woods), (3) open urban spaces near home (e.g. streets near home, school courtyards), (4) indoor collective play places (e.g. playrooms) and (5) indoor private play places (e.g. friends’ rooms). We maintain that within each of these types of place, different places can be considered mutually substitutable. For example, we assume that it is essential for every child to play both in natural open spaces and in urban open spaces: we therefore wish to know the availability, quality and accessibility of both of them. On the other hand, we assume that playing on a beach or in the woods are substitutable (both are natural open spaces).

For each place, service and opportunity we have selected, we try to identify possible real or perceived restrictions entirely or partially limiting the exercise of the corresponding B-capability. As we have said, this is how we attempt to measure the individual capabilities.

1.1 Excerpt from the Questionnaire

(Note: some formatting and wording of questions have been slightly changed and made more compact to fit the format of the chapter.)

General information about the child

Age	_____
Gender	F	M
Country of birth	____________________
Address
Does the child have any disability?	No
	Physical
	Sensorial (sight, hearing, etc.)
	Learning
	Chronic disease (diabetes, sickle cell anaemia, etc.). Please indicate which ___________
	Other. Please indicate which ___________
Who lives in your home (apart from the child who has given you this questionnaire)?
Mother	Yes	No
Father	Yes	No
Sisters	Yes	No	Please indicate how many _____
Brothers	Yes	No	Please indicate how many _____
Grandparents	Yes	No	Please indicate how many _____
Others	Yes	No	Please indicate who___________________

1.2 Capability: Play

• 1.1. In the first column of the table below we have indicated a few places where children usually play. However, it may happen that children are not able to play in these places because of various obstacles and restrictions; we have indicated the most common ones in the other columns of the table.

  Please indicate how much each obstacle limits your child’s opportunity to play in the places indicated.

  Scale: N  =  ‘Does not limit’, L  =  ‘Somewhat limits’, S  =  ‘Strongly limits’

  	Presence of unknown people (sense of insecurity)			Presence of traffic			Great distance			High cost			Lack of hygiene			Possible child disability
  Urban parks, gardens	N	L	S	N	L	S	N	L	S	N	L	S	N	L	S	N	L	S
  Natural areas (e.g. beaches)	N	L	S				N	L	S	N	L	S	N	L	S	N	L	S
  Streets, squares, courts	N	L	S	N	L	S							N	L	S	N	L	S
  Play rooms	N	L	S	N	L	S	N	L	S	N	L	S	N	L	S	N	L	S
  Friend’s house				N	L	S	N	L	S							N	L	S

• 1.2. Omitted

• 1.3. Please indicate how often your child uses the transport methods indicated in the columns to reach the places in which he/she plays.

  	Walking			By bicycle			By public transportation			By car or motorbike
  Urban parks, gardens	Never	Sometimes	Often	N	S	O	N	S	O	N	S	O
  Natural areas (e.g. beaches)	Never	Sometimes	Often	N	S	O	N	S	O	N	S	O
  Streets, squares, courts	Never	Sometimes	Often	N	S	O	N	S	O	N	S	O
  Playrooms	Never	Sometimes	Often	N	S	O	N	S	O	N	S	O
  Friend’s house	Never	Sometimes	Often	N	S	O	N	S	O	N	S	O

• 1.4. Please indicate if your child can reach the places indicated alone by walking at least sometimes. If you answer ‘no’, please indicate how important each of the three reasons on the right side of the table is.

  	Walking alone			Presence of unknown people (sense of insecurity)			Presence of traffic			Great distance
  Urban parks, gardens	Yes	No	If ‘no’, why?	Not important	Important	Very important	NI	I	VI	NI	I	VI
  Natural areas (e.g. beaches)	Yes	No	If ‘no’, why?	Not important	Important	Very important	NI	I	VI	NI	I	VI
  Streets, squares, courts	Yes	No	If ‘no’, why?	Not important	Important	Very important	NI	I	VI	NI	I	VI
  Playrooms	Yes	No	If ‘no’, why?	Not important	Important	Very important	NI	I	VI	NI	I	VI
  Friend’s house	Yes	No	If ‘no’, why?	Not important	Important	Very important	NI	I	VI	NI	I	VI

• 1.5. Please write down one or more names and addresses of the places in the town of Alghero where your child usually plays.

  	1	2	3
  Urban parks, gardens	Name/address	Name/address	Name/address
  Natural areas (e.g. beaches)	Name/address	Name/address	Name/address
  Streets, squares, courts	Name/address	Name/address	Name/address
  Playrooms	Name/address	Name/address	Name/address
  Friend’s house	Address	Address	Address

• 1.6. How often does your child play in each of the places indicated in the first column of the table during the school vacations and when the weather conditions are good? Check the boxes.

  Urban parks, gardens	Almost every day	2–3 times per week	Once per week	1–2 times per month	Almost never
  Natural areas (e.g. beaches)	Almost every day	2–3 times per week	Once per week	1–2 times per month	Almost never
  Streets, squares, courts	Almost every day	2–3 times per week	Once per week	1–2 times per month	Almost never
  Playrooms	Almost every day	2–3 times per week	Once per week	1–2 times per month	Almost never
  Friend’s house	Almost every day	2–3 times per week	Once per week	1–2 times per month	Almost never

Your opinion on the public places of the town of Alghero in which your child plays is very useful for us. If you wish, use the space below for your free criticism, comments or proposals.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1.3 Capability: Home

• 2.1. How big is your home? Square metres _____

• 2.2. Does your child have his/her own room? Yes No

• 2.3. How many bathrooms are there in your home? ________

• 2.4. In the first column of the table below, we have indicated some activities that children do at home. However, it may happen that the size or condition of your home does not allow your children to do these activities freely and to their full satisfaction.

  Please indicate how much each obstacle limits your child’s possibility to do the activities indicated.

  Scale: N  =  ‘Does not limit’, L  =  ‘Somewhat limits’, S  =  ‘Strongly limits’

  	Insufficient room			Too much external noise			Insufficient heating			Unhealthy conditions (too damp, insufficient light, etc.)
  Resting, sleeping	N	L	S	N	L	S	N	L	S	N	L	S
  Studying	N	L	S	N	L	S	N	L	S	N	L	S
  Playing alone	N	L	S	N	L	S	N	L	S	N	L	S
  Playing with friends	N	L	S	N	L	S	N	L	S	N	L	S

• 2.5. If you live in a flat, please indicate on which floor. _____

• 2.6. Omitted

• 2.7. Do you think it is important for your family to move to another house?

• 2.8. If you have answered ‘yes’, please indicate the main reason. ___________________________________

• 2.9. If you have answered ‘yes’, what prevents you from doing so? _____________________________

If you wish, use the space below to freely express your opinion on your home.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Notes

• 1. http://www.ilsole24ore.com/speciali/qv_2008/qv_2008_province/qv_2008_province_settori_classifica_finale.shtml

• 2. http://www.legambiente.eu/documenti/2008/0102_ecosistema_bambino_2008/

• 3. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/urban2/index_en.htm

• 4. http://www10.gencat.net/ptop/AppJava/cat/arees/ciutat/barris/index.jsp

• 5. http://www.neighbourhoodrenewal.vic.gov.au/

• 6. The six thematic areas are standard of living; business and job; services, environment and health; law and order; population; and free time.

• 7. Specific need for conversion; high levels of long-term unemployment, poverty and exclusion, criminality and delinquency; high numbers of immigrants, ethnic and minority groups or refugees; precarious demographic trends; low levels of economic activity; low level of education, significant skill deficiencies; high drop-out rates from schools; a particularly rundown environment; and so on. See http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/urban2/index_en.htm

• 8. See Sen (1992, 1993, 1999), amongst others.

• 9. See, for example, Alkire (2002), Clark (2006), Magni (2006), Sugden (1993) and Srinivasan (1994).

• 10. See, for example, Brandolini and D’Alessio (1998), Di Tommaso (2006) and Phipps (2002).

• 11. Acharya and Deneulin (2009).

• 12. Magni (2006).

• 13. See Anand (2009), Nussbaum (2002) and Saith (2001). ‘[…] one can ask about functionings and following up with questions about the reason why people do or do not engage in particular activities. These indirect capabilities indicators have not been so important in our work to date though I believe they could be exploited more fully’ (Anand 2009). ‘To secure a capability in a person it is not sufficient to produce good internal states of readiness to act. It is necessary to prepare the material and institutional environment so that people are actually able to function’ (Nussbaum 1999). ‘A possible way of taking such freedom of choice into account may be to incorporate questions in surveys that ask individuals whether a shortfall in or lack of a particular functioning is perceived by them as a privation or enquire if they had any alternatives’ (Saith 2001).

• 14. No doubt, this proposition does not hold in the line of principle, for strictly individual characteristics may pose restrictions, so that a full exercise of B-capabilities does not automatically realise the G-capabilities (as an example, think of difficulties of self-acceptance due to a physical mutilation). This is to say that the conceptualisation presented does not have deterministic velleities and is of course unable to treat factors of such a kind. We nevertheless hold its soundness reasonably arguable for the specific purpose of evaluating urban policies in terms of quality of life, in the spirit of the capability approach.

• 15. A sample of questions is shown in the Appendix.

• 16. The decision to adopt such a privileged treatment of mobility and accessibility is a decision bound to a more substantial order of arguments. Indeed, in the context of our discussion of the urban quality of life, it could be argued that accessibility plays a special role in people’s quality of life and that the impossibility to use and take advantage of the opportunities offered by a city (places, services, information) is frequently related to difficulties of access (Nuvolati 2002, 2003, 2007).

• 17. Obviously, there are a number of possible ways to build scales of measurement and to operate aggregation amongst such numerical values. A simple but not necessarily the most appropriate way might be to measure the three properties on an integer numerical scale (e.g. from 1 to 3) and to calculate endowment as the product of the three properties. Clearly, from the substantial point of view, the aggregation procedures should be relatable to a more theoretical explanatory model of how each B-capability works and how the single properties of places, services and opportunities are causally related to their effectiveness in supporting capabilities. A more detailed discussion on this is obviously far beyond the scope of this chapter. However, it might be of interest to highlight one characteristic of the above-mentioned example of the aggregation procedure (the product), namely, the diminishing marginal returns of the three properties (this would not be the case for, say, a linear combination of the three properties, which might come to mind as another possible simple aggregation procedure). Such a diminishing marginal return property, in our opinion, is a desirable feature within the context of our discussion and was therefore adopted in our preliminary experiments.

• 18. See, for example, Amin and Thrift (2002), Cecchini (2008), Moro (1998), Paba (2007) and Sandercock (1999).

• 19. Cecchini (2008).

• 20. Sen (2001).

• 21. See, for example, Amin and Thrift (2002) and Nuvolati (2002).

• 22. Paba (2003) and Sandercock (1999)

• 23. See, for example, Giusti (2002), Pecoriello (2000) and Ward (1979).

• 24. Maciocco (2008)

• 25. See, for example, James et al. (1998) and Paba (2005).

• 26. See, for example, Lamedica (2003), Paba (2005, 2006), Tonucci (2002) and Ward (1979).

• 27. Giusti (2002), Paba (2005, 2006), Tonucci (2002) and Ward (1979).

• 28. Bobbio (2003).

• 29. Lorenzo (2000), Tonucci (2002), and Ward (1979).

• 30. Indeed, Sen himself claims that ‘[…] when you are considering a child, you have to consider not only the child’s freedom now, but also the child’s freedom in the future’ (Sen 2001).