Participatory indicator design
•Als PPTX, PDF herunterladen•
1 gefällt mir•110 views
Presentation at the Water Science for Impact Conference.
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Ähnlich wie Participatory indicator design
Ähnlich wie Participatory indicator design (20)
Mehr von Cristina Madrid Lopez
Mehr von Cristina Madrid Lopez (7)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
Participatory indicator design
- 1. Quantitative methods meet social concerns: Participatory indicator design in shale gas analysis Cristina Madrid-López Marie Curie Fellow ICTA-UAB, Yale University Water Science for Impact Conference Wageningen 16-18 October 2018
- 2. Index 1. The IANEX project 2. The research cycle 3. Result Sample
- 3. Index 1. The IANEX project 2. The research cycle 3. Result Sample
- 4. IANEX igs.indiana.edu “The Shale Gas Factory” (Stephenson 2015) • IANEX: Integrated Analysis of the Nexus. The Case of Hydraulic Fracturing (2015-2018) • Funded by: European Commission’s 7th FP’s Marie Curie Program • Objective: Support decision-making about shale gas development in the EU Problem Identification Validation and Ranking Design Quantitative Assessment Run Quantitative Assessment Sensitivity check Output Feedback Participation Quantification Research Cycle
- 5. IANEX igs.indiana.edu “The Shale Gas Factory” (Stephenson 2015) • IANEX: Integrated Analysis of the Nexus. The Case of Hydraulic Fracturing (2015-2018) • Funded by: European Commission’s 7th FP’s Marie Curie Program • Objective: Support decision-making about shale gas development in the EU Problem Identification Validation and Ranking Design Quantitative Assessment Run Quantitative Assessment Sensitivity check Output Feedback Participation Quantification Research Cycle
- 6. Index 1. The IANEX project 2. The research cycle 3. Result Sample
- 7. Research cycle 101 1 2 3 4 5 6 Participation Quantification WEF Issue 1 .Issue Definition • Literature Review GHG Emissions Water Use Changes in the biodiversity Coverage of energy demand Ability to manage economic constraints Degree of Fossil fuel dependence Population with benefits/damage Empowerment Institutional network complexity Perception about the activity Indicator Example Contribution to domestic economy/labor market Issue Social Desirability Economic Viability Environmental Feasibility 2 Indicator design • Interviews (Policy makers, Industry) • Workshops (Land owners) • Surveys (General Public) Challenge!! Trust! QT/QLIntegration X9 X10 X11 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 Value X1
- 8. Research cycle 101 1 2 3 4 5 6 Participation Quantification WEF Issue 1 .Issue Definition • Literature Review 2 Indicator design • Interviews (Policy makers, Industry) • Workshops (Land owners) • Surveys (General Public) Issue Social Desirability Economic Viability Environmental Feasibility Challenge!! Trust! QT/QLIntegration GHG Emissions Water Use Changes in the biodiversity Coverage of energy demand Ability to manage economic constraints Degree of Fossil fuel dependence Population with benefits/damage Empowerment Institutional network complexity Perception about the activity Indicator Example Contribution to domestic economy/labor market X9 X10 X11 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 Value X1
- 9. (DETAILED) SYSTEMS PERSPECTIVE LCA Socio-hydrological modellingSocio-energy modelling Research cycle 101 1 2 3 4 5 6 Participation Quantification WEF Issue 3 Design quantitative method 4 Run Quantitative analysis Challenge!! Multi-scaleview
- 10. Index 1. The IANEX project 2. Participatory indicator design 3. Result Sample
- 11. The local perspective – Water Use Well Productivity (Mcf/day) 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 0 1 2 3 4 5 Drilling & fracking Production Decay Years Water Extraction (cf) per well age, productivity in reporting period (month) and county 2015
- 12. The local perspective –GHG Emissions Well Productivity (Mcf/day) 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 0 1 2 3 4 5 Drilling & fracking Production Decay Years Methane emissions per well age, productivity and county 2015 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 0-1 1.1-2 2.1-3 3.1-4 4.1-5 >5 Well population Drilling & Production Decay
- 13. The state perspective 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Decay Production Decay Production Decay Production Decay Production Decay Production Decay Production Decay Production 20102010201120112012201220132013201420142015201520162016 Average productivity ProdWellNo PA productivity vs number of wells Mcf/day No. Water use/hour Methane/hour 2,000.00 1,500.00 1,000.00 500.00 0.00 500.00 1,000.00 1,500.00 CRAWFORD VENANGO HUNTINGDON CAMBRIA WARREN FOREST CAMERON BLAIR MERCER CLARION SOMERSET BEAVER CENTRE LAWRENCE ALLEGHENY INDIANA JEFFERSON ELK POTTER MCKEAN SULLIVAN CLEARFIELD CLINTON ARMSTRONG WYOMING WESTMORELAND FAYETTE BUTLER GREENE TIOGA SUSQUEHANNA WASHINGTON LYCOMING BRADFORD Obama Decay Obama Production Trump Decay Trump Production Regional distribution of emission (Gg)
- 15. Good indicators matter (case for water) Sewage Toilet Origin Water Network Connection Ecuador 2014 Participatory Shower