# Reasons for the spatial aggregation of indicators: A case study in water management

Sandrine Allain, Gaël Plumecocq, Delphine Burger-Leenhardt

► To cite this version:

Sandrine Allain, Gaël Plumecocq, Delphine Burger-Leenhardt. Reasons for the spatial aggregation of indicators: A case study in water management. 12. Conference of the European Society for Ecological Economics (ESEE), Jun 2017, Budapest, Hungary. 15 p. hal-01603098

HAL Id: hal-01603098

https://hal.science/hal-01603098v1

Submitted on 5 Jun 2020

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY-SA 4.0 - Attribution - ShareAlike - International
License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

# Reasons for the Spatial Aggregation of Indicators
## A case study in water management

Sandrine Allain, Gaël Plumecocq, Delphine Leenhardt
ESEE Conference, Budapest, 2017

*Special session: Negotiating diverging values, interests and institutions in the spatial governance of commons*

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>
# Outline

* Introduction : spatial aggregation in the development of indicators

* Our case study, our material

* Results: reasons underlying aggregations

* Discussion
# 1. Intro: Information compressions

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_17.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_18.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_19.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_20.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_21.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_22.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_23.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_24.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_25.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_26.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_27.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_28.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_29.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_30.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_31.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_32.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_33.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_34.png" /></figure>

?
# 1. Intro: What's the matter?

*Average number of water use restrictions per year*

<figure><img src="image_35.png" /><figcaption>Situation 1</figcaption></figure>

37

<figure><img src="image_36.png" /></figure>

3 different **descriptions** of
the situations

<figure><img src="image_37.png" /><figcaption>Situation 2</figcaption></figure>

52

<figure><img src="image_38.png" /></figure>

3 different objects for
**evaluating** the situations

Customization 1

Customization 2

Customization 3

3 different **indicators**

Spatial aggregation
# 1. Intro: How to make a « good » aggregation choice?

<figure><img src="image_39.png" /></figure>

> "Indicators have a dual role. They should describe aspects of the situation or options under scrutiny, and also permit protagonists to express normative judgments."
> 
> (Frame and O'Connor, 2011)

## What about normative claims ?

<figure><img src="image_40.png" /></figure>

Test based on justifications for aggregation choices
## 2. Case study: water management in an agricultural landscape

* Water = « fugitive » common (Giordano, 2005) -> asymmetries, distributional issues

* Watershed scale = spatially-explicit data available -> spatial aggregation choices

Which pathways / methods?

<figure><img src="image_41.png" /></figure>

Who makes them? (developer vs user)

How are those choices justified?

<figure><img src="image_42.png" /></figure>

The downstream of the Aveyron watershed (South-Western France)
## 2. Material: a list of indicator profiles

* 11 evaluation criteria translated into 146 indicator profiles

« Number of days when the low-water target flow is crossed »

<figure><img src="image_43.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_44.png" /></figure>

### Definition

- Meaning: related criteria, justification

- Estimation: estimation mode, scale of raw data

- Customization: representation, aggregation scale

...

<figure><img src="image_45.png" /></figure>
## 3. Results: some examples

**Indicator name**
(given by
experts)

« Variation of water stored in soils »

« Fit bw storing capacities and needs of farmers »

« Frequency, distance and severity of water flow disruptions »

**Scale of raw data available**

<figure><img src="image_46.png" /></figure>

Adequation to the criteria

<figure><img src="image_47.png" /></figure>

Expression of a social rationality
Accounting for uncertainties

<figure><img src="image_48.png" /></figure>

Plural interpretations
Contextualizing information

**Aggregation scale**
(given by experts)

<figure><img src="image_49.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_50.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_51.png" /></figure>
3. Results: Developer-led aggregations

<figure><img src="image_52.png" /></figure>

Partial aggregations

To highlight contrasts
To increase readability

To fit to the criteria targeted
To fit to the process scale

<figure><img src="image_53.png" /></figure>

Complete
aggregations

To facilitate comparison bw options
To integrate uncertainties
To force the expression of a social
rationality
## 3. Results: User-led aggregations

<figure><img src="image_54.png" /></figure>

- To visualize variability

- To favour diverse interpretations

- To contextualize information

- To acknowledge a knowledge gap
## 4. Discussion: Descriptive claims...

* To fit to the criteria /process
* To acknowledge a knowledge gap
* To contextualize info

* To increase readability

* To facilitate comparison between options

<figure><img src="image_55.png" /></figure>

The descriptive balance

<figure><img src="image_56.png" /></figure>

But not only ...
4. ... coexist with normative claims

<figure><img src="image_57.png" /></figure>

To favour
plural
interpretations

To highlight
contrasts

To force the
expression of a social
rationality

<figure><img src="image_58.png" /><figcaption>The normative balance</figcaption></figure>
## 4. Discussion: Both make sense for the governance of commons

<figure><img src="image_59.png" /></figure>

Indicators as objects that **compress information** and **create coherence**.
5. Conclusion

* Spatial aggregation is one example of information compression that bears both a descriptive and normative aspect.

<figure><img src="image_60.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_61.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_62.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_63.png" /></figure>

- The choices made contribute to expanding / reducing the array for different uses of indicators.

- The way indicators are customized deserves more attention.
Thank you!

Contact : sandrine.allain@inra.fr