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

Laurence Cannings (), Craig Hutton (), Kristine Nilsen () and Alessandro Sorichetta ()
Additional contact information
Laurence Cannings: University of Southampton
Craig Hutton: University of Southampton
Kristine Nilsen: University of Southampton
Alessandro Sorichetta: Università Degli Studi Di Milano

Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, 2025, vol. 177, issue 2, No 16, 863-908

Abstract: 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 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.

Keywords: Basic needs; Wellbeing; Weighting; Livelihood; Vulnerability (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2025
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11205-025-03524-x Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:soinre:v:177:y:2025:i:2:d:10.1007_s11205-025-03524-x

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/11135

DOI: 10.1007/s11205-025-03524-x

Access Statistics for this article

Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement is currently edited by Filomena Maggino

More articles in Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().