Post a comment on the text below

For 81% of the monitoring stations, the annual groundwater level doesn’t present a significant trend. This may give the false impression that no groundwater level trends occur in certain regions or countries. The short length of the available timeseries may have affected this result.

Previous comments

  • scheidand (Andreas Scheidleder) 22 Oct 2021 13:45:01

    Comment from AT:

    For 81% of the monitoring stations, the annual groundwater levels do not show a significant trend development.
    The 2nd sentence sounds strange: You have chosen a 20 years time window and chosen to use minimum 5 year data and you considered monitoring stations only that fulfill these criteria. So what is wrong with either the time window or the chosen minimum 5 years that the results may give false impressions? What would be the ideal time-window and what will be the ideal number of minimum years to show more confident results?
    The 2nd sentence should rather sound like: … the selected trend assessment criteria (time window and minimum number of considered years) may hide long term trend developments due to ….
    3rd sentence: Define the necessary length of timeseries. Define the optimal conditions here but also in the methodological chapter 2 (supporting information).

    • zalllnih (Nihat Zal) 26 Nov 2021 15:26:58

       Thank you for your comments.

      Based on your suggestions we have revised this paragraph to the following text that provides a more clear descrition of the approach and is more explicit about the limitations of the dataset for indicator development:

      “The Groundwater Level Trend indicator assesses the annual groundwater level change across Europe, covering the period 2000-2019 based on WISE SoE Water quantity data reported by EEA member countries. The spatial distribution and length of the available groundwater level data series was limited and varied strongly between and within countries. With the intention to make best use of the capacity of the available groundwater level dataset, a minimum number of 5 annual records within the 20-year period was set as a requirement. The indicator dataset covered 17 from the 38 European countries and consisted of 3114 monitoring stations (24% of reported stations).

      For 83% of the monitoring stations, the annual groundwater levels do not show a significant trend development. Any existing long term groundwater level trend developments at these stations may not yet be invisible, because of the limited length of the available data series.”

      More information about the development of the methodlogy is added to the “supporting information” (methodology section).

      Comment from AT:

      For 81% of the monitoring stations, the annual groundwater levels do not show a significant trend development.
      The 2nd sentence sounds strange: You have chosen a 20 years time window and chosen to use minimum 5 year data and you considered monitoring stations only that fulfill these criteria. So what is wrong with either the time window or the chosen minimum 5 years that the results may give false impressions? What would be the ideal time-window and what will be the ideal number of minimum years to show more confident results?
      The 2nd sentence should rather sound like: … the selected trend assessment criteria (time window and minimum number of considered years) may hide long term trend developments due to ….
      3rd sentence: Define the necessary length of timeseries. Define the optimal conditions here but also in the methodological chapter 2 (supporting information).

       

  • bednamal (Malgorzata Bednarek) 22 Oct 2021 16:15:20

    POLAND

    It should be recalculated with using the same units.

    • zalllnih (Nihat Zal) 26 Nov 2021 15:27:28

      Thank you for your comment. Please refer to the anwers to the previous comments.

      POLAND

      It should be recalculated with using the same units.

       

You cannot post comments to this consultation because you are not authenticated. Please log in.