Post a comment on the text below

2.4 Methodology

The analysis of the groundwater level trends is described as a supporting element for the water balance test, conducted as part of the process for determining the groundwater quantitative status (CIS, 2009; EPA, 2010).

Since WISE SoE - Water Quantity (WISE-3) provides the possibility to report in more than one temporal resolutions (daily, monthly, seasonal and annual), an aggregation approach has been followed to optimise the use of reported groundwater level data. The aggregation started with daily data and aggregated all the available daily groundwater level values to monthly, seasonal and finally annual values. A minimum set of criteria were met in all intermediate steps, in order to ensure adequate representativity of all seasons on the annual aggregate value.

Previous comments

scheidand (Andreas Scheidleder) 22 Oct 2021 13:56:19

Comment from AT

End of 1st sentence: Reference should be (EC, 2009) and not (CIS, 2009)
2nd sentence: What kind of aggregation has been made?
What means seasonal aggregation? What seasons?
And for the country level you are counting the stations with trends? This is not described.

No assessment at GWB level?
- zalllnih (Nihat Zal) 26 Nov 2021 15:46:54
  Thank you for your comment.
  
  Reference in first sentenced was changed to (EC, 2009)
  
  The description was the aggregation approach was improved:
  - “Calculation of the Groundwater Level Trend index requires groundwater level data at annual temporal resolution. WISE SoE - Water Quantity (WISE-3) provides the possibility to report groundwater levels in more than one temporal resolutions (daily, monthly, seasonal and annual). To optimise the use of reported groundwater level data, temporal aggregation of station data has been conducted from daily, monthly and seasonal resolution to annual resolution. A minimum set of criteria were met in all intermediate steps, in order to ensure adequate representativity of all seasons on the annual aggregate value.”
  - “Spatial aggregation was done at the following scales: European level, regional level (grouping based on UN M49), and country level. For spatial aggregation at European and country level, the number of monitoring station within the three classes were summed. At the regional level countries were grouped in the bar-chart figures, but no summation of monitoring stations per region was applied.”
  The data availability and quality was not sufficient for an assessment at GWB level.
  
  Comment from AT
  
  End of 1st sentence: Reference should be (EC, 2009) and not (CIS, 2009)
  2nd sentence: What kind of aggregation has been made?
  What means seasonal aggregation? What seasons?
  And for the country level you are counting the stations with trends? This is not described.
  
  No assessment at GWB level?
bednamal (Malgorzata Bednarek) 22 Oct 2021 16:37:04

POLAND

What was a minimum set of criteria? Length of datasets? Representative periods? It should be explicit.
- zalllnih (Nihat Zal) 26 Nov 2021 15:47:17
  
  Thank you for your response. The methodology section was improved and was made more explicit in terms of criteria, length of datasets and representative periods.
  
  POLAND
  
  What was a minimum set of criteria? Length of datasets? Representative periods? It should be explicit.

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