Cannings Laurence, W Hutton Craig, Nilsen Kristine, Sorichetta Alessandro
School of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO17 1BJ UK.
Department of Social Statistics and Demography and WorldPop, School of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Southampton, Southampton, SO17 1BJ UK.
Soc Indic Res. 2025;177(2):863-908. doi: 10.1007/s11205-025-03524-x. Epub 2025 Mar 11.
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 utilise 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 you collect weightings from matters.
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11205-025-03524-x.
幸福是可持续发展中的一项关键政策成果，但它可以通过多种方式进行衡量和概念化。方法学上的决策，比如不同组成部分如何加权，会影响幸福分类。许多研究采用均等加权，假定每个组成部分同等重要；然而，这能反映社区的生活经历吗？本研究概述了一种多维基本需求匮乏衡量方法，该方法基于加纳沃尔特三角洲的“三角洲、脆弱性与气候变化：移民与适应”（DECCMA）调查数据集构建。通过与社区和地区规划官员（DPO）开展参与式焦点小组、访谈和加权练习，探索不同亚群体的幸福优先事项。比较分析考察了不同性别、决策层面和生计群体（包括农业、渔业和城郊群体）给出的权重。客观调查数据还与各种主观权重相结合，以探究总体匮乏率及其空间分布的敏感性。研究发现不同生计群体之间存在显著的权重差异，农业和渔业社区对“就业”“银行账户获取”和“合作社成员资格”的加权更高，而城郊社区对“医疗服务获取”的加权更大。决策层面之间也存在差异。社区成员对“就业”的加权更高，而DPO对“合作社成员资格”的评分更高。相比之下，不同性别给出的权重较为一致。此外，与DPO权重或均等嵌套权重相比，应用社区生计权重得出的大多数社区的匮乏率更低。总体而言，亚群体权重之间的显著差异以及幸福衡量对权重选择的敏感性表明，不仅收集地方权重很重要，而且你从事项中收集权重也很重要。
在线版本包含可在10.1007/s11205-025-03524-x获取的补充材料。
