Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Multicriteria Approach for Well-Being Assessment in Rural Areas

  • Published:
Social Indicators Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Maintaining an adequate quality of life in rural areas is fundamental to expedite processes of endogenous development of these areas. Policies applied in this sense require information tools that take into account the multi-dimensionality of the concept of quality of life and enable quantitative assessments of well-being. One of the greatest problems found in literature is that of succeeding in conjugating the theoretical approaches of well-being with coherent measurement methodologies. The goal of this paper is to propose a methodology that identifies conditions of an unsatisfactory quality of life on the territorial level, combining the theory of capabilities of A. Sen with tools of fuzzy analysis. This methodology thus proves to coherently combine the theoretical principles for defining the indicators with mathematical tools suited for aggregating and assessing them, thereby making it possible to work around and evaluate them, and allowing us to go beyond the traditional limits of the proposed models, such as the assumptions of substitutability and linearity in concisely evaluating the components of well-being. Moreover, the advantages of this model also include those of being flexible and transparent, which means it can be applied in diversified socioeconomic contexts and can be verified by stakeholders in the course of its principal phases of realisation. This methodology has been applied to the rural townships of Tuscany. The results have permitted us to point out the main causes of social exclusion and the strong relationships between levels of well-being, as they have been defined, and phenomena of population decline.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In literature, the terms ‘quality of life’ and ‘well-being’ have been used both as synonyms and to indicate different concepts. In consideration of the goals of this paper, we have resolved to use the two terms indistinctly as done by various authors and as observed in the review headed by Camfield and Skevington (2008).

  2. Examples of composite indicators for the measurement of well-being are: the Happy Planet Index (NEF 2006) that measures sustainable well-being, or the Economic Living Standard Index proposed by the New Zealand government (Jensen et al. 2002); or the Bhutan GNH Index (Ura et al. 2012); the Genuine Progress Indicator (Talberth et al. 2007); the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (Daly and Cobb 1989); the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index (Gallup Healthways 2009); the Canadian Index of Wellbeing (2016); the Social Progress Index (Porter et al. 2015); the Child Well-being Index (Land et al. 2001, 2012).

  3. The fuzzy theory is treated in depth by Klir and Folger (1988), Yager and Zadeh (1992), Cox (1994), and Zimmermann (2001).

  4. For the sake of explanatory simplicity, we omit the indexing, i concerns the single area.

References

  • Austin, A. (2016). On well-being and public policy: Are we capable of questioning the hegemony of happiness? Social Indicators Research, 127(1), 123–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, R. A. (1966). Social indicators. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bérenger, V., & Verdier-Chouchane, A. (2007). Multidimensional measures of well-being: Standard of living and quality of life across countries. World Development, 35, 1259–1276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernetti, I., Casini, L., & Menghini, S. (2002). Qualità della vita e condizioni per lo sviluppo rurale: Il caso della Toscana. In E. Basile & D. Romano (Eds.), Sviluppo rurale: Società, territorio, impresa (pp. 164–189). Milano: Franco Angeli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Betti, G., Cheli, B., & Cambini, R. (2004). A statistical model for the dynamics between two fuzzy states: Theory and application to poverty analysis. Metron, 62, 391–411.

    Google Scholar 

  • Betti, G., Soldi, R., & Talev, I. (2016). Fuzzy multidimensional indicators of quality of life: The empirical case of Macedonia. Social Indicators Research, 127, 39–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Betti, G., & Verma, V. (2008). Fuzzy measures of the incidence of relative poverty and deprivation: A multidimensional perspective. Statistical Methods and Applications, 17, 225–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boncinelli, F., & Casini, L. (2014). A comparison of the well-being of agricultural and non agricultural households using a multicriterial approach. Social Indicators Research, 119, 183–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boncinelli, F., Pagnotta, G., Riccioli, F., & Casini, L. (2015). The determinants of quality of life in rural areas from a geographic perspective: The case of Tuscany. Review of Urban & Regional Development Studies, 27(2), 104–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brauer, R., & Dymitrow, M. (2014). Quality of life in rural areas: A topic for the Rural Development policy? Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series, 25, 25–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camfield, L., & Skevington, S. M. (2008). On subjective well-being and quality of life. Journal of Health Psychology, 13, 764–775.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Canadian Index of Wellbeing. (2016). How are Canadians really doing? The 2016 CIW National Report. Waterloo, ON: Canadian Index of Wellbeing and University of Waterloo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casini, L., & Bernetti, I. (1996). Public project evaluation, environment and Sen’s theory. Notizie di Politeia, 12(43/44), 55–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casini, L., Bernetti, I., & Menghini, S. (1997). Teoria delle “libertà” e metodi multicriterio per l’analisi delle condizioni di sviluppo territoriale. Rivista di Economia Agraria, 52, 29–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casini, L., Ciaccia, D., Pizzoli, E., & Boncinelli, F. (2013). Il reddito delle famiglie agricole italiane: Stima e analisi. Economia & Diritto Agroalimentare, 18, 287–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castle, E. N. (1998). A conceptual framework for the study of rural places. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 80, 621–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaaban, J. M. (2009). Measuring youth development: A nonparametric cross-country ‘youth welfare index’. Social Indicators Research, 93, 351–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheli, B., & Lemmi, A. (1995). A totally fuzzy and relative approach to the multidimensional analysis of poverty. Economic Notes, 24, 115–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, E. (1994). The fuzzy system handbook. Chestnut Hill: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daly, H., & Cobb, J. (1989). For the common good. Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Desai, M. (1991). Human development: Concepts and measurement. European Economic Review, 35, 350–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desai, M. (1995). Poverty, famine and economic development, the selected essays of Meghnad Deasi volume II. Economist of the twentieth century. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diener, E., Sandvik, E., Seidlitz, L., & Diener, M. (1993). The relationship between income and subjective well-being: Relative or absolute? Social Indicators Research, 28, 195–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Distaso, A. (2007). Well-being and/or quality of life in EU countries through a multidimensional index of sustainability. Ecological Economics, 64, 163–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2006). Strategic guidelines 2006/144/EC: Council Decision of 20 February 2006 on Community strategic guidelines for rural development (Programming period 2007 to 2013), 2006/144/EC. Brussels: European Commission Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2008). Fact Sheet EU Rural Development Policy 2007–2013. Brussels: European Commission Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2012a). Rural Development in the EU: Statistical and Economic Information Report. Brussels: European Commission Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2012b). Synthesis of Mid-Term Evaluations of Rural Development Programmes 2007–2013. Vienna: DG Agriculture and Rural Development Final Report. Retrieved September 15, 2017. https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sites/agriculture/files/evaluation/rural-development-reports/2012/synthesis-mte-2007-2013/fulltext_en.pdf.

  • European Union (2016). Cork 2.0 declaration. A better life in rural areas. Luxemburg. Retrieved September 20, 2017. https://enrd.ec.europa.eu/sites/enrd/files/cork-declaration_en.pdf.

  • Foster, J. E. (2011). Freedom, opportunity, and well-being. Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, 2, 687–728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallup Healthways (2009). Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index: Methodology Report for Indexes. Washington, DC. Retrieved September 12, 2017. www.well-beingindex.com/hubfs/WBI_Methodology.pdf?t=1483567603927.

  • Haider, L. J., Boonstra, W. J., Peterson, G. D., & Schlüter, M. (2018). Traps and sustainable development in rural areas: A review. World Development, 101, 311–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ISTAT. (2016). Il Benessere Equo e Sostenibile in Italia. Roma: Istituto Nazionale di Statistica.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, J., Spittal, M., Crichton, S., Sathiyandra, S., & Krishnan, V. (2002). Direct measurement of living standards: The New Zealand ELSI scale. Wellington: Ministry of Social Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klir, G. J., & Folger, T. A. (1988). Fuzzy Sets, uncertainty, and information. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klugman, J., Rodríguez, F., & Choi, H. J. (2011). The HDI 2010: New Controversies, Old Critiques. UNDP-Human Development Reports Research Paper, 2011/01.

  • Land, K. C., Lamb, V. L., & Mustillo, S. K. (2001). Child and youth well-being in the United States, 1975–1998: Some findings from a new index. Social Indicators Research, 56, 241–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Land, K. C., & Michalos, A. C. (2017). Fifty years after the social indicators movement: Has the promise been fulfilled? An assessment an agenda for the future. Social Indicators Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-017-1571-y (in press).

  • Land, K. C., Michalos, A. C., & Sirgy, M. J. (2012). Handbook of social indicators and quality of life research. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Léon, Y. (2005). Rural development in Europe: A research frontier for agricultural economists. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 32, 301–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinetti, E. C. (2000). A multidimensional assessment of well-being based on Sen’s functioning approach. Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Sociali, 2, 207–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mauro, V., Biggeri, M., & Maggino, F. (2018). Measuring and monitoring poverty and well-being: A new approach for the synthesis of multidimensionality. Social Indicators Research, 135, 75–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazziotta, M., & Pareto, A. (2016). On a generalized non-compensatory composite index for measuring socio-economic phenomena. Social Indicators Research, 127, 983–1003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mikucka, M., Sarracino, F., & Dubrow, J. K. (2017). When does economic growth improve life satisfaction? Multilevel analysis of the roles of social trust and income inequality in 46 countries, 1981–2012. World Development, 93, 447–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, A. K., Moss, C. B., & Erickson, K. W. (2009). Regional differences in agricultural profitability, government payments, and farmland values: Implications of DuPont expansion. Agricultural Finance Review, 69, 49–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, W. E., & Sheldon, E. B. (1965). Monitoring social change: A conceptual and programmatic statement. Social Statistics Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, 1, 144–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, M. D. (1978). A physical quality of life index. Urban Ecology, 3(3), 225–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munda, G. (2005). “Measuring sustainability”: A multi-criterion framework. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 7(1), 117–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munda, G. (2015). Beyond GDP: An overview of measurement issues in redefining ‘wealth’. Journal of Economic Surveys, 29(3), 403–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munda, G., & Nardo, M. (2009). Noncompensatory/nonlinear composite indicators for ranking countries: A defensible setting. Applied Economics, 41(12), 1513–1523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naldi, L., Nilsson, P., Westlund, H., & Wixe, S. (2015). What is smart rural development? Journal of Rural Studies, 40, 90–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NEF. (2006). The happy planet index. An index of human well-being and environmental impact. New Economics Foundation: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2006). The new rural paradigm: Policies and governance. Paris: OECD.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2008). Handbook on constructing composite indicators: Methodology and user guide. Paris: OECD.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2011). How’s life? Measuring well-being. Paris: OECD.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2015). How’s life? Measuring well-being. Paris: OECD.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ogwang, T., & Abdou, A. (2003). The choice of principal variables for computing some measures of human well-being. Social Indicators Research, 64, 139–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pagnotta, G., Boncinelli, F., Riccioli, F., & Casini, L. (2014). La riduzione della superficie coltivata: Tra evoluzione strutturale del settore agricolo e antropizzazione. Aestimum, 65, 207–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E., Stern, S., & Green, M. (2015). Social progress index 2015. Washington, DC: Social Progress Imperative.

    Google Scholar 

  • Qizilbash, M. (2004). On the arbitrariness and robustness of multi-dimensional poverty rankings. Journal of Human Development, 5(3), 355–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qizilbash, M., & Clark, D. A. (2005). The capability approach and fuzzy poverty measures: An application to the South African context. Social Indicators Research, 74(1), 103–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sachs, J. D. (2012). From millennium development goals to sustainable development goals. The Lancet, 379, 2206–2211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saltelli, A. (2007). Composite indicators between analysis and advocacy. Social Indicators Research, 81, 65–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. K. (1979). The welfare basis of real income comparisons: A survey. Journal of Economic Literature, 17, 1–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. K. (1980). Equality of what? In S. M. McMurrin (Ed.), Tanner lectures on human values (pp. 198–220). Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. K. (1982). Choice, welfare, and measurement. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. K. (1985). Commodities and Capabilities. Professor Dr P. Hennipman Lectures in Economics. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. K. (1987). The Standard of Living. In G. Hawthorn (Ed.), The Standard of Living. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. K. (1988). The Concept of Development. In H. Chenery & T. N. Srinivasan (Eds.), Handbooks of development economics (pp. 10–26). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stockdale, A. (2014). Unravelling the migration decision-making process: English early retirees moving to rural mid-Wales. Journal of Rural Studies, 34, 161–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Talberth, J., Clifford, C., & Slattery, N. (2007). The Genuine Progress Indicator 2006-A Tool for Sustainable Development. Retrieved September 3, 2017. http://rprogress.org/publications/2007/GPI%202006.pdf.

  • UNDP. (1990). Human Development Report 1990. New York: UNDP.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNDP. (2010). Human Development Report 2010-The Real Wealth of Nations: Pathways to Human Development. New York: UNDP.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNDP. (2016). Human Development Report 2016. New York: UNDP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ura, K., Alkire, S., Zangmo, T., & Wangdi, K. (2012). An extensive analysis of GNH index. Thimphu: Centre for Bhutan Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, A. S., & Jobes, P. C. (1990). Economic and quality-of-life considerations in urban-rural migration. Journal of Rural Studies, 6, 187–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yager, R. E., & Zadeh, L. A. (1992). An introduction to fuzzy logic application in intelligent system. New York: Kluwer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and control, 8, 338–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, P., & Ang, B. W. (2009). Comparing MCDA aggregation methods in constructing composite indicators using the Shannon-Spearman measure. Social Indicators Research, 94, 1971–1975.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann, H. J. (2001). Fuzzy set theory and its applications (4th ed.). New York: Kluwer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dipartimento di Gestione dei Sistemi Agrari, Alimentari e Forestali, University of Florence, Piazzale delle Cascine, 18, 50144, Florence, Italy

    Leonardo Casini, Fabio Boncinelli, Caterina Contini, Francesca Gerini & Gabriele Scozzafava

Authors
  1. Leonardo Casini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fabio Boncinelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Caterina Contini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Francesca Gerini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Gabriele Scozzafava
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fabio Boncinelli.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Casini, L., Boncinelli, F., Contini, C. et al. A Multicriteria Approach for Well-Being Assessment in Rural Areas. Soc Indic Res 143, 411–432 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-018-1978-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-018-1978-0

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation