Post a comment on the text below

Previous comments

• scheidand (Andreas Scheidleder) 22 Oct 2021 14:10:43

  Comment from AT

  The presentation in upward and downward trend is very blund. The bars should distinguish between different classes of trends. Otherwise a 0.01 m/y decrease is as dramatic as a 2.23 m/y decrease. The graph and map shows that Norway and Netherlands have the biggest GW level troubles. But is it so? Are these only very soft 0.01m/y trends?
  
  Please also show the number of stations where trend assessment was not feasible (e.g. too short time series) to relate the trend resulst to the total number of available stations. You are now comparing 1214 stations in FR with 1 station in GR (imagine the picture if the 1 station in GE is blue or yellow).
  

  I would also say that the measurement precision of groundwater levels is +/- 0.01 m. Showing a trend of 0.01m/y is probably falling under measurement uncertainty?
  Would be better to define a critical trend.
  

  • zalllnih (Nihat Zal) 26 Nov 2021 16:04:40

     Thank you for your comments.

     The goal of this indicator assessment is to convey a clear message on the GWL change from the European level to policy makers. Hence we maintain the representation in three classes in the figures instead of a more detailed classification. However, added more information about the distribution over these classes is provided in the note section of Figure 1a and 1b: “It can be observed that 11% of the monitoring stations show a downward trend (less than 0.1 m/y decrease: 4%; between 0.1 and 1 m/y decrease: 6%; decrease of more than 1 m/y: less than 1%), 6% of the monitoring stations show an upward trend (less than 0.1 m/y increase: 2%, between 0.1 and 1 m/y increase: 3%; decrease of more than 1 m/y: less than 1%) and 83% of the monitoring stations show no significant trend.”

     We added information about the number of monitoring station where no trend assessment was possible to (1) the indicator assessment and (2) the methodology section of the “supporting information. In addition, Greece was removed from the assessment because only 1 monitoring location was available for trens analysis.

    Comment from AT

    The presentation in upward and downward trend is very blund. The bars should distinguish between different classes of trends. Otherwise a 0.01 m/y decrease is as dramatic as a 2.23 m/y decrease. The graph and map shows that Norway and Netherlands have the biggest GW level troubles. But is it so? Are these only very soft 0.01m/y trends?
    
    Please also show the number of stations where trend assessment was not feasible (e.g. too short time series) to relate the trend resulst to the total number of available stations. You are now comparing 1214 stations in FR with 1 station in GR (imagine the picture if the 1 station in GE is blue or yellow).
    

    I would also say that the measurement precision of groundwater levels is +/- 0.01 m. Showing a trend of 0.01m/y is probably falling under measurement uncertainty?
    Would be better to define a critical trend.