Is there a link between poverty and food security?

This paper addresses the gap in economic theory underlying the multidimensional concept of food security and observed data by deriving a composite food security index using the latent class model. The link between poverty and food security is then examined using the new food security index and the robustness of the link is compared with two unidimensional measures often used in the literature. Using Vietnam as a case study, it was found that a weak link exists for the rural but not for the urban composite food security index. The unidimensional measures on the other hand show a strong link in both the rural and urban regions. The results on the link are also different and mixed when two poverty types given by persistent and transient poverty are considered. These findings have important policy implications for a targeted approach to addressing food security.

A Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Committee Inquiry into gene patents

Inquiry into Gene Patents Submissions Received by the Committee during the 42nd Parliament

Comparison of sustainable community rating tools in Australia

The community is the basic unit of urban development, and appropriate assessment tools are needed for communities to evaluate and facilitate decision making concerning sustainable community development and reduce the detrimental effects of urban community actions on the environment. Existing research into sustainable community rating tools focuses primarily on those that are internationally recognized to describe their advantages and future challenges. However, the differences between rating tools due to different regional conditions, situations and characteristics have yet to be addressed. In doing this, this paper examines three sustainable community rating tools in Australia, namely Green Star-Communities PILOT, EnviroDevelopment and VicUrban Sustainability Charter (Master Planned Community Assessment Tool). In order to identify their similarities, differences and advantages these are compared in terms of sustainability coverage, prerequisites, adaptation to locality, scoring and weighting, participation, presentation of results, and application process. These results provide the stakeholders of sustainable community development projects with a better understanding of the available rating tools in Australia and assist with evaluation and decision making.

Community Resilience: Fostering Recovery, Sustainability, and Growth

In this chapter, the authors define community resilience and identify the components that predict it will occur. Three dimensions are highlighted: recovery, sustainability, and growth. Their discussion focuses on communities like those of Sudanese refugees who have experienced forced migration, emphasizing the importance that community plays to future adaptation. They show through their report on their research that community collaboration, shared identity, and empowerment increase bonding and bridging capital that promote the well-being of people under stress. They argue that an emphasis on community resilience places value on the social connections, policies, programs, and community context necessary for resilience in different cultures and contexts.

Community development and community resilience: An integrative approach

Throughout history, communities and civilizations have sought to enhance the quality of community life and the well-being of its people. However, more recently there has been greater interest in attending to the details of community development by capitalizing on the improved ability to capture community well-being and successes scientifically. That interest invites greater attention to the development of indicators that can quantify those qualities of life that lead to strong and healthy communities. The selection of meaningful indicators is dependent upon several factors including a process that stimulates meaningful involvement of community stakeholders, but the single most important is the identification of an underlying model to guide the work. Indicators do not have meaning in themselves. For these measures to provide a coherent assessment of the community, an integrative approach to understanding what constitutes a healthy and strong community in a dynamic environment is required. A resilience perspective serves that purpose and provides a framework that is broad, neutral, and conceptually strong enough to structure development of significant sets of indicators. Exemplary community indicator processes across the nation, particularly recent efforts in the Phoenix, Arizona region, provide evidence supporting the value of indicator development for community building.

Community Service Charities

Using the first Annual Information Statements (AIS) filed with the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC), this factsheet describes community service charities that are based in QLD. They have been selected from charities that have a main activity of either aged care activities; civic and advocacy activities; economic, social and community development; emergency and relief; employment and training; housing activities; income support and maintenance; law and legal activities; mental health and crisis intervention; or social services.