Laurence Cannings, Craig W Hutton, Kristine Nilsen, Alessandro Sorichetta
{"title":"“你在哪里和谁从问题中收集权重……”在脆弱的环境中捕捉福利优先事项:加纳沃尔塔三角洲的案例研究。","authors":"Laurence Cannings, Craig W Hutton, Kristine Nilsen, Alessandro Sorichetta","doi":"10.1007/s11205-025-03524-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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 <i>where and whom</i> you collect weightings from matters.</p><p><strong>Supplementary information: </strong>The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11205-025-03524-x.</p>","PeriodicalId":21943,"journal":{"name":"Social Indicators Research","volume":"177 2","pages":"863-908"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11993479/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"\\\"Where and Whom You Collect Weightings from Matters…\\\" Capturing Wellbeing Priorities Within a Vulnerable Context: A Case Study of Volta Delta, Ghana.\",\"authors\":\"Laurence Cannings, Craig W Hutton, Kristine Nilsen, Alessandro Sorichetta\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11205-025-03524-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>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 <i>where and whom</i> you collect weightings from matters.</p><p><strong>Supplementary information: </strong>The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11205-025-03524-x.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21943,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social Indicators Research\",\"volume\":\"177 2\",\"pages\":\"863-908\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11993479/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social Indicators Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-025-03524-x\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/3/11 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Indicators Research","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-025-03524-x","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
"Where and Whom You Collect Weightings from Matters…" Capturing Wellbeing Priorities Within a Vulnerable Context: A Case Study of Volta Delta, Ghana.
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 where and whom you collect weightings from matters.
Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11205-025-03524-x.
期刊介绍:
Since its foundation in 1974, Social Indicators Research has become the leading journal on problems related to the measurement of all aspects of the quality of life. The journal continues to publish results of research on all aspects of the quality of life and includes studies that reflect developments in the field. It devotes special attention to studies on such topics as sustainability of quality of life, sustainable development, and the relationship between quality of life and sustainability. The topics represented in the journal cover and involve a variety of segmentations, such as social groups, spatial and temporal coordinates, population composition, and life domains. The journal presents empirical, philosophical and methodological studies that cover the entire spectrum of society and are devoted to giving evidences through indicators. It considers indicators in their different typologies, and gives special attention to indicators that are able to meet the need of understanding social realities and phenomena that are increasingly more complex, interrelated, interacted and dynamical. In addition, it presents studies aimed at defining new approaches in constructing indicators.