The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Where and whom you collect weightings from matters…” Capturing wellbeing priorities within a vulnerable context: a case study of Volta Delta, Ghana

Where and whom you collect weightings from matters…” Capturing wellbeing priorities within a vulnerable context: a case study of Volta Delta, Ghana
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.
Basic needs, Livelihood, Vulnerability, Weighting, Wellbeing
0303-8300
863-908
Cannings, Laurence
d41b8fad-ab5e-4fd2-b96b-8d96834e2e8a
Hutton, Craig W.
9102617b-caf7-4538-9414-c29e72f5fe2e
Nilsen, Kristine
306e0bd5-8139-47db-be97-47fe15f0c03b
Sorichetta, Alessandro
08655273-86b9-468d-a085-ea6dc6427a5a
Cannings, Laurence
d41b8fad-ab5e-4fd2-b96b-8d96834e2e8a
Hutton, Craig W.
9102617b-caf7-4538-9414-c29e72f5fe2e
Nilsen, Kristine
306e0bd5-8139-47db-be97-47fe15f0c03b
Sorichetta, Alessandro
08655273-86b9-468d-a085-ea6dc6427a5a

Cannings, Laurence, Hutton, Craig W., Nilsen, Kristine and Sorichetta, Alessandro (2025) Where and whom you collect weightings from matters…” Capturing wellbeing priorities within a vulnerable context: a case study of Volta Delta, Ghana. Social Indicators Research, 177 (2), 863-908, [104716]. (doi:10.1007/s11205-025-03524-x).

Record type: Article

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.

Text
s11205-025-03524-x - Version of Record
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (2MB)

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 15 January 2025
Published date: 11 March 2025
Keywords: Basic needs, Livelihood, Vulnerability, Weighting, Wellbeing

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 499839
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/499839
ISSN: 0303-8300
PURE UUID: c56db56f-0891-405a-bade-d47b59f2ab17
ORCID for Laurence Cannings: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-1149-5833
ORCID for Craig W. Hutton: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-5896-756X
ORCID for Kristine Nilsen: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0003-2009-4019

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 07 Apr 2025 16:40
Last modified: 22 Aug 2025 02:32

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Laurence Cannings ORCID iD
Author: Craig W. Hutton ORCID iD
Author: Kristine Nilsen ORCID iD
Author: Alessandro Sorichetta

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×