Purpose of Addressing Aggregation Risk
This page explains the risks associated with interpreting residential information at an aggregated city level. Its purpose is to clarify why city-wide readings of listing-based data can obscure structural variation and lead to misleading assumptions.
Aggregation is addressed here as an interpretive shortcut rather than as a neutral analytical step.
City-Level Aggregation as a Loss of Structure
Aggregating residential listings across Addis Ababa collapses multiple district-level and submarket contexts into a single frame. This process removes the structural distinctions that give meaning to residential presence at more granular levels.
What remains visible after aggregation is not a comprehensive city portrait, but a blended exposure layer shaped by where listings were most visible at the time of observation.
Unequal Contribution to Aggregated Views
Not all districts contribute equally to aggregated city-level representations. Areas with higher listing visibility may dominate the aggregated view, while others recede or disappear entirely.
This imbalance is a function of visibility conditions and platform participation, not of residential scale or importance.
Interpretive Boundaries
City-level aggregation does not support conclusions about overall residential conditions, balance, or distribution. It masks internal heterogeneity and encourages false coherence.
This risk establishes a clear boundary: aggregated city-level readings should be treated as organizational summaries of visibility only, not as representations of residential reality.