“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。

IF 2.8 2区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Social Indicators Research Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2025-03-11 DOI:10.1007/s11205-025-03524-x
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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

福祉是可持续发展中的一项关键政策成果,但它可以通过各种方式进行衡量和概念化。方法上的决定,比如不同成分如何加权,会影响幸福感分类。许多研究使用相等的权重,假设每个组成部分同等重要;然而,这是否反映了社区的生活经历?本研究概述了一个多维基本需求剥夺指标,该指标是根据加纳沃尔塔三角洲的三角洲、脆弱性和气候变化:移民和适应(DECCMA)调查数据集构建的。参与焦点小组、与社区和地区规划主任的访谈和加权练习探讨了不同分组的福利优先事项。比较分析考察了性别、决策级别和生计之间提供的权重;包括农业、渔业和城郊群体。并结合客观调查数据和各种主观权重,探讨总体剥夺率的敏感性及其空间分布。生计之间存在显著的权重差异,农业和渔业社区对“就业”、“获得银行服务”和“合作社成员资格”的权重较高,而城郊社区对“获得医疗服务”的权重较高。还注意到决策级别之间的差异。社区成员更看重“就业”,而dpo则更看重“合作成员”。相比之下,不同性别的体重都是一致的。此外,与DPO或相同的嵌套权重相比,应用社区生计权重在大多数社区产生的剥夺率较低。总体而言,子组的权重和幸福感测量对权重选择的敏感性之间的显着差异说明了不仅收集本地权重的重要性,而且还说明了从何处以及从谁那里收集权重的重要性。补充信息:在线版本包含补充资料,下载地址为10.1007/s11205-025-03524-x。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
"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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
6.50%
发文量
174
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信