ArticleFrontiers in psychology2024
Opposing objective and subjective wellbeing outcomes within an environmentally vulnerable delta: a case study of Volta Delta, Ghana.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- An environment and comprehensive wellbeing (ECW) conceptual framework: exploring environmental relationships with objective and subjective wellbeing.Population and environment · 2026Article
- "Happy Farmers" in Volta Delta, Ghana? Exploring the Relationship between Environmental Conditions and Happiness.Social indicators research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Despite a growing interest in the measurement and conceptualization of wellbeing, the integration within sustainability research, and the understanding of how different wellbeing outcomes relate, is limited. Many studies focus on singular, often objectively measured, outcomes, without acknowledging the breadth of available measures. This approach can result in crucial subjective information, which can be explored to understand actors' behaviors and responses, being omitted from research and policy. This study explores objective and subjective wellbeing outcomes, and how they relate, within an environmentally vulnerable context. Wellbeing and environmental services are intrinsically interlinked, therefore, appropriate policy solutions are required to address human needs and pressures on supporting ecosystems. Methods: This paper uses binary logistic regression modelling, and qualitative participatory rural appraisal methods, to understand the environmental conditions, including climatic hazards and landscape characteristics, associated with households experiencing different objective/subjective wellbeing outcomes within Volta Delta, Ghana. Results: The mixed method approach highlights a differing relationship between inland agricultural areas impacted by drought and erosion, and coastal/riverine, peri-urban landscapes exposed to flooding and salinization. Agricultural areas associate with "poor but happy" outcomes, whereas peri-urban landscapes associate with being "non-poor but unhappy." Drawing on existing literature, and both quantitative and qualitative results, these varying outcomes are hypothesized to be driven by differences in livelihood vulnerability, relative comparisons to others, responses to climatic hazards, and individualistic/collective wellbeing conceptualizations. Discussion: Our study concludes that environmental conditions influence objective and subjective wellbeing through different mechanisms. Sustainable development research should incorporate both objective and subjective measures when implementing and monitoring policy to more comprehensibly capture, and improve, wellbeing in environmentally vulnerable locations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.