Focusing Resource Allocation-Wellbeing as a Tool for Prioritizing Interventions for Communities at Risk

Anthony Hogan, Robert Tanton, Stewart Lockie, Sarah May

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    2 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Objective: This study examined whether a wellbeing approach to resilience and adaptation would provide practical insights for prioritizing support to communities experiencing environmental and socio-economic stressors. Methods: A cross-sectional survey, based on a purposive sample of 2,196 stakeholders (landholders, hobby farmers, town resident and change agents) from three irrigation-dependent communities in Australia’s Murray-Darling Basin. Respondents’ adaptive capacity and wellbeing (individual and collective adaptive capacity, subjective wellbeing, social support, community connectivity, community leadership, in the context of known life stressors) were examined using chi-square, comparison of mean scores, hierarchical regression and factor-cluster analysis. Results: Statistically significant correlations (p < 0.05) were observed between individual (0.331) and collective (0.318) adaptive capacity and wellbeing. Taking into account respondents’ self-assessed health and socio-economic circumstances, perceptions of individual (15%) and collective adaptive capacity (10%) as well as community connectivity (13%) were associated with wellbeing (R2 = 0.36; F (9, 2099) = 132.9; p < 0.001). Cluster analysis found that 11% of respondents were particularly vulnerable, reporting below average scores on all indicators, with 56% of these reporting below threshold scores on subjective wellbeing. Conclusions: Addressing the capacity of individuals to work with others and to adapt to change, serve as important strategies in maintaining wellbeing in communities under stress. The human impacts of exogenous stressors appear to manifest themselves in poorer health outcomes; addressing primary stressors may in turn aid wellbeing. Longitudinal studies are indicated to verify these findings. Wellbeing may serve as a useful and parsimonious proxy measure for resilience and adaptive capacity
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)3435-3452
    Number of pages18
    JournalInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
    Volume10
    Issue number8
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2013

    Fingerprint

    Resource Allocation
    Cluster Analysis
    Economics
    Hobbies
    Health
    Proxy
    Social Support
    Statistical Factor Analysis
    Longitudinal Studies
    Cross-Sectional Studies
    Surveys and Questionnaires

    Cite this

    @article{b8ba8c5857ea4a53806534d2a17d1e2f,
    title = "Focusing Resource Allocation-Wellbeing as a Tool for Prioritizing Interventions for Communities at Risk",
    abstract = "Objective: This study examined whether a wellbeing approach to resilience and adaptation would provide practical insights for prioritizing support to communities experiencing environmental and socio-economic stressors. Methods: A cross-sectional survey, based on a purposive sample of 2,196 stakeholders (landholders, hobby farmers, town resident and change agents) from three irrigation-dependent communities in Australia’s Murray-Darling Basin. Respondents’ adaptive capacity and wellbeing (individual and collective adaptive capacity, subjective wellbeing, social support, community connectivity, community leadership, in the context of known life stressors) were examined using chi-square, comparison of mean scores, hierarchical regression and factor-cluster analysis. Results: Statistically significant correlations (p < 0.05) were observed between individual (0.331) and collective (0.318) adaptive capacity and wellbeing. Taking into account respondents’ self-assessed health and socio-economic circumstances, perceptions of individual (15{\%}) and collective adaptive capacity (10{\%}) as well as community connectivity (13{\%}) were associated with wellbeing (R2 = 0.36; F (9, 2099) = 132.9; p < 0.001). Cluster analysis found that 11{\%} of respondents were particularly vulnerable, reporting below average scores on all indicators, with 56{\%} of these reporting below threshold scores on subjective wellbeing. Conclusions: Addressing the capacity of individuals to work with others and to adapt to change, serve as important strategies in maintaining wellbeing in communities under stress. The human impacts of exogenous stressors appear to manifest themselves in poorer health outcomes; addressing primary stressors may in turn aid wellbeing. Longitudinal studies are indicated to verify these findings. Wellbeing may serve as a useful and parsimonious proxy measure for resilience and adaptive capacity",
    author = "Anthony Hogan and Robert Tanton and Stewart Lockie and Sarah May",
    year = "2013",
    doi = "10.3390/IJERPH10083435",
    language = "English",
    volume = "10",
    pages = "3435--3452",
    journal = "International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health",
    issn = "1660-4601",
    publisher = "Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)",
    number = "8",

    }

    Focusing Resource Allocation-Wellbeing as a Tool for Prioritizing Interventions for Communities at Risk. / Hogan, Anthony; Tanton, Robert; Lockie, Stewart; May, Sarah.

    In: International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 10, No. 8, 2013, p. 3435-3452.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Focusing Resource Allocation-Wellbeing as a Tool for Prioritizing Interventions for Communities at Risk

    AU - Hogan, Anthony

    AU - Tanton, Robert

    AU - Lockie, Stewart

    AU - May, Sarah

    PY - 2013

    Y1 - 2013

    N2 - Objective: This study examined whether a wellbeing approach to resilience and adaptation would provide practical insights for prioritizing support to communities experiencing environmental and socio-economic stressors. Methods: A cross-sectional survey, based on a purposive sample of 2,196 stakeholders (landholders, hobby farmers, town resident and change agents) from three irrigation-dependent communities in Australia’s Murray-Darling Basin. Respondents’ adaptive capacity and wellbeing (individual and collective adaptive capacity, subjective wellbeing, social support, community connectivity, community leadership, in the context of known life stressors) were examined using chi-square, comparison of mean scores, hierarchical regression and factor-cluster analysis. Results: Statistically significant correlations (p < 0.05) were observed between individual (0.331) and collective (0.318) adaptive capacity and wellbeing. Taking into account respondents’ self-assessed health and socio-economic circumstances, perceptions of individual (15%) and collective adaptive capacity (10%) as well as community connectivity (13%) were associated with wellbeing (R2 = 0.36; F (9, 2099) = 132.9; p < 0.001). Cluster analysis found that 11% of respondents were particularly vulnerable, reporting below average scores on all indicators, with 56% of these reporting below threshold scores on subjective wellbeing. Conclusions: Addressing the capacity of individuals to work with others and to adapt to change, serve as important strategies in maintaining wellbeing in communities under stress. The human impacts of exogenous stressors appear to manifest themselves in poorer health outcomes; addressing primary stressors may in turn aid wellbeing. Longitudinal studies are indicated to verify these findings. Wellbeing may serve as a useful and parsimonious proxy measure for resilience and adaptive capacity

    AB - Objective: This study examined whether a wellbeing approach to resilience and adaptation would provide practical insights for prioritizing support to communities experiencing environmental and socio-economic stressors. Methods: A cross-sectional survey, based on a purposive sample of 2,196 stakeholders (landholders, hobby farmers, town resident and change agents) from three irrigation-dependent communities in Australia’s Murray-Darling Basin. Respondents’ adaptive capacity and wellbeing (individual and collective adaptive capacity, subjective wellbeing, social support, community connectivity, community leadership, in the context of known life stressors) were examined using chi-square, comparison of mean scores, hierarchical regression and factor-cluster analysis. Results: Statistically significant correlations (p < 0.05) were observed between individual (0.331) and collective (0.318) adaptive capacity and wellbeing. Taking into account respondents’ self-assessed health and socio-economic circumstances, perceptions of individual (15%) and collective adaptive capacity (10%) as well as community connectivity (13%) were associated with wellbeing (R2 = 0.36; F (9, 2099) = 132.9; p < 0.001). Cluster analysis found that 11% of respondents were particularly vulnerable, reporting below average scores on all indicators, with 56% of these reporting below threshold scores on subjective wellbeing. Conclusions: Addressing the capacity of individuals to work with others and to adapt to change, serve as important strategies in maintaining wellbeing in communities under stress. The human impacts of exogenous stressors appear to manifest themselves in poorer health outcomes; addressing primary stressors may in turn aid wellbeing. Longitudinal studies are indicated to verify these findings. Wellbeing may serve as a useful and parsimonious proxy measure for resilience and adaptive capacity

    U2 - 10.3390/IJERPH10083435

    DO - 10.3390/IJERPH10083435

    M3 - Article

    VL - 10

    SP - 3435

    EP - 3452

    JO - International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

    JF - International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

    SN - 1660-4601

    IS - 8

    ER -