Wellbeing is a crucial policy outcome within sustainable development, yet it can be measured and conceptualised in various ways. Methodological decisions, such as how different components are weighted, can influence wellbeing classification. Many studies utilize equal weighting, assuming each component is equally important; however, does this reflect communities’ lived experiences? This study outlines a multidimensional basic needs deprivation measure constructed from the Deltas, Vulnerability and Climate Change: Migration and Adaptation (DECCMA) survey dataset in Volta Delta, Ghana. Participatory focus groups, interviews and weighting exercises with communities and District Planning Officers (DPOs) explore different subgroups’ wellbeing priorities. Comparative analysis examines the weights provided across genders, decision-making levels and livelihoods; including farming, fishing and peri-urban groups. Objective survey data is also combined with various subjective weights to explore the sensitivity of the overall deprivation rate and its spatial distribution. Significant weight differences are found between livelihoods, with farming and fishing communities weighting “employment”, “bank access”, and “cooperative membership” higher, whereas peri-urban communities apply a greater weight to “healthcare access”. Differences between decision-making levels are also noted. Community members weight “employment” higher, while DPOs assign a larger score to “cooperative membership”. In contrast, consistent weights emerge across genders. Furthermore, applying community livelihood weights produces lower deprivation rates across most communities compared to DPO or equal nested weights. Overall, significant differences between subgroups’ weights and the sensitivity of wellbeing measurement to weighting selection illustrate the importance of not only collecting local weights, but also where and whom you collect weightings from matters.

“Where and Whom You Collect Weightings from Matters…” Capturing Wellbeing Priorities Within a Vulnerable Context: A Case Study of Volta Delta, Ghana / L. Cannings, C. W Hutton, K. Nilsen, A. Sorichetta. - In: SOCIAL INDICATORS RESEARCH. - ISSN 0303-8300. - 177:2(2025 Mar), pp. 863-908. [10.1007/s11205-025-03524-x]

“Where and Whom You Collect Weightings from Matters…” Capturing Wellbeing Priorities Within a Vulnerable Context: A Case Study of Volta Delta, Ghana

A. Sorichetta
Ultimo
Conceptualization
2025

Abstract

Wellbeing is a crucial policy outcome within sustainable development, yet it can be measured and conceptualised in various ways. Methodological decisions, such as how different components are weighted, can influence wellbeing classification. Many studies utilize equal weighting, assuming each component is equally important; however, does this reflect communities’ lived experiences? This study outlines a multidimensional basic needs deprivation measure constructed from the Deltas, Vulnerability and Climate Change: Migration and Adaptation (DECCMA) survey dataset in Volta Delta, Ghana. Participatory focus groups, interviews and weighting exercises with communities and District Planning Officers (DPOs) explore different subgroups’ wellbeing priorities. Comparative analysis examines the weights provided across genders, decision-making levels and livelihoods; including farming, fishing and peri-urban groups. Objective survey data is also combined with various subjective weights to explore the sensitivity of the overall deprivation rate and its spatial distribution. Significant weight differences are found between livelihoods, with farming and fishing communities weighting “employment”, “bank access”, and “cooperative membership” higher, whereas peri-urban communities apply a greater weight to “healthcare access”. Differences between decision-making levels are also noted. Community members weight “employment” higher, while DPOs assign a larger score to “cooperative membership”. In contrast, consistent weights emerge across genders. Furthermore, applying community livelihood weights produces lower deprivation rates across most communities compared to DPO or equal nested weights. Overall, significant differences between subgroups’ weights and the sensitivity of wellbeing measurement to weighting selection illustrate the importance of not only collecting local weights, but also where and whom you collect weightings from matters.
Basic needs; Wellbeing; Weighting; Livelihood; Vulnerability
Settore STAT-03/B - Statistica sociale
Settore GEOS-03/B - Geologia applicata
Settore CEAR-04/A - Geomatica
Settore GEOG-01/A - Geografia
mar-2025
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11205-025-03524-x
Article (author)
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
unpaywall-bitstream--1035103341.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Publisher's version/PDF
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 2.16 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
2.16 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2434/1209824
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 1
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 2
  • OpenAlex 2
social impact