An Analysis of the Relative Importance of Components in Measuring Community Wellbeing: Perspectives of Citizens, Public Officials, and Experts

Governments are showing a growing interest in community wellbeing and its measurement. While there have been numerous efforts to measure community wellbeing, current measurement systems are limited as they tend to adopt a narrow perspective of community wellbeing factors based on a top-down fashion....

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Social indicators research 2015-04, Vol.121 (2), p.345-369
Hauptverfasser: Kim, Yunji, Kee, Youngwha, Lee, Seung Jong
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Governments are showing a growing interest in community wellbeing and its measurement. While there have been numerous efforts to measure community wellbeing, current measurement systems are limited as they tend to adopt a narrow perspective of community wellbeing factors based on a top-down fashion. The purpose of this study is to empirically test the differences among citizens, public officials, and experts in relative importance of community wellbeing factors. Data were collected through a binary com-parison parison survey that asked respondents to compare the relative importance of community wellbeing factors on a 9 point scale. We used the Analytic Hierarchy Process for analysis and the results show that citizens, public officials, and experts give different priorities to community wellbeing factors. In decreasing order of importance, citizens and public officials both give the highest priority to physical health, household income, and employment while experts chose employment, household income, and physical health. Furthermore, relative importance rankings differed among citizens depending on age, gender, and years of community involvement. These findings indicate that current community wellbeing measurements that fail to acknowledge different weighting schemes may be biased. We suggest the need for a deliberative model of community wellbeing measurement.
ISSN:0303-8300
1573-0921
DOI:10.1007/s11205-014-0652-4