Page 170 - Contributed Paper Session (CPS) - Volume 6

CPS1866 Milica Maricic et al.
suggested an eight-indicator structure. These results indicate that further
research on the SSI structure and its weighting scheme could be conducted.
The next steps of the framework methodology which should be more
closely observed are the aggregation and the weighting approach applied. In
the latest edition of the SSI geometric average was used as the aggregation
method, while the assigned weights were equal on each level. In our case
study, we will observe the hypothetical case when the aggregation method is
arithmetic. In such case, it would be valuable to explore the effective weight
of each indicator. Namely, the fact that equal weighting is used on each level
of the indicator does not imply that all indicators have the same importance
(Greco et al., 2018). The effective weights are obtained as the product of
weights assigned to the indicator on each level (Nardo et al., 2005). The
effective weights of the indicators of the SSI are given in Table 1. As it can be
observed, the weights range from 3.70% (for example indicators Sufficient
Food and Sufficient to Drink) to 8.33% (indicators Organic Farming and
Genuine Savings). Therefore, we can conclude that there is difference in the
importance of indicators for the ranking process.
Table 1: Weights assigned to indicators on each levels of the SSI and their effective weights

Weight
Weight
Weight
Dimension Category Indicator indicators categories dimension (a b c   )
Effective
within
within
within
weight
( )
( )
( )
a
b
c
Sufficient 33.33% 33.33% 33.33% 3.70%
Food
Sufficient to
Basic needs 33.33% 33.33% 33.33% 3.70%
Drink
Safe 33.33% 33.33% 33.33% 3.70%
Sanitation
Human wellbeing development Healthy Life 33.33% 33.33% 33.33% 3.70%
Education
Personal
33.33%
33.33%
3.70%
33.33%
Gender
33.33%
& Health
33.33%
33.33%
3.70%
Equality
Income
Distribution 33.33% 33.33% 33.33% 3.70%
Well-balanced Population 33.33% 33.33% 33.33% 3.70%
society Growth
Good
Governance 33.33% 33.33% 33.33% 3.70%
Biodiversity 33.33% 50.00% 33.33% 5.56%
Environmental wellbeing resources Consumption 33.33% 50.00% 33.33% 5.56%
Renewable
Natural
Water
Resources
33.33%
50.00%
5.56%
33.33%
4.17%
25.00%
Energy Use
33.33%
50.00%
159 | I S I W S C 2 0 1 9