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
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
11 March 2025
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), , [104716].
(doi:10.1007/s11205-025-03524-x).
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
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
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 07 Apr 2025 16:40
Last modified: 22 Aug 2025 02:32
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
Laurence Cannings
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