Skip to Main Content
 

Global Search Box

 
 
 
 

Files

File List


THESIS Final Format5.pdf (1.48 MB)

ETD Abstract Container

Abstract Header

Disability and disadvantage in Ohio: A cross-county comparison of livelihood barriers among wheelchair users

Garcia, Nicholas B
http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1367359363

Abstract Details

2013, Master of Science, Ohio State University, Rural Sociology.
In this study I examine whether the spatial distribution of specific disabled populations has implication for their relative degree of disadvantage. Social disadvantages in work, physical mobility, and local government support can vary based upon disability type and regional situation of the population. These disadvantages offer indicators of livelihood barriers faced by the disabled that can be compared within a particular disabled population across different regions. Combining population considerations with county-level indicators of employment opportunity, mobility, and institutional support, I analyze livelihood barriers and disability by focusing on wheelchair users and county service providers in rural and urban environments. Theoretically, I draw from two distinct perspectives. Sociology’s structural perspective treats disability in a manner similar to other statuses such as race, ethnicity, gender and class. That is, sociologists tend to see disability as conferring disadvantage along valued resources and as inherently diminishing opportunities for employment, daily mobility, and support from the state. This perspective is developed largely at the macro-level and as structural perspective, having a tendency to emphasize structure over agency. Sociologists studying structural disadvantages have given increasing attention to geographic space in research on spatial inequality and this can be extended to explain rural-urban difference in the relationship between disability and livelihood barriers. By contrast, geographers have developed a sub-field known as “disability geography” which stresses agency of disabled populations. From this view, disability is not inherently related to other disadvantages pertaining to valued resources or to diminished opportunities for employment, daily mobility, and support from the state. That is, the disabled are not a homogenous population; they make use of a range of strategies to overcome barriers, including pressing for claims from the state for support. However, disability geography has tended to be framed mostly at the micro-level of daily interactions and thus geographers studying disability have neglected rural-urban differences in the relationship between disability and livelihood barriers. I collect primary data from wheelchair users and county level service providers, using these in combination with secondary data from the 2000 U.S. Census, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and County Business Patterns to compare obstacles to livelihoods across locations. I find that both physical mobility and employment opportunities are less constrained in urban environments, as transportation infrastructure, assistive services, diversity in job types, and less physically demanding work environments are more prevalent in those areas. In contrast, the relatively lower population density and terrain of rural environments leave some transportation provisions infeasible. There are also fewer job opportunities, with work duties often involving less accessible physical components for wheelchair users. Demonstrating differences in employment and physical mobility between locations, I provide new applications for both social science perspectives. I recognize that place-based determinants, previously examined only at the individual scale, can play a large role in explaining disadvantages described in sociology and disability geography. Moreover, my synthesis of approaches also identifies that a particular disability does not result in uniform disadvantage. Instead, aspects of county composition can play a role in describing degrees of disadvantage experienced by the disabled.
Linda Lobao (Advisor)
Cathy Rakowski (Committee Member)
130 p.
Sociology
rural sociology; disability geography; inequality; spatial; mobility; accessibility; employment

Recommended Citations

Citations

  • Garcia, N. B. (2013). Disability and disadvantage in Ohio: A cross-county comparison of livelihood barriers among wheelchair users [Master's thesis, Ohio State University]. OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1367359363

    APA Style (7th edition)

  • Garcia, Nicholas. Disability and disadvantage in Ohio: A cross-county comparison of livelihood barriers among wheelchair users. 2013. Ohio State University, Master's thesis. OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center, http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1367359363.

    MLA Style (8th edition)

  • Garcia, Nicholas. "Disability and disadvantage in Ohio: A cross-county comparison of livelihood barriers among wheelchair users." Master's thesis, Ohio State University, 2013. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1367359363

    Chicago Manual of Style (17th edition)

osu1367359363
842
© 2013, some rights reserved.Creative Commons License Disability and disadvantage in Ohio: A cross-county comparison of livelihood barriers among wheelchair users by Nicholas B Garcia is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. Based on a work at etd.ohiolink.edu.
This open access ETD is published by The Ohio State University and OhioLINK.