Post a comment on the text below

Data sources:

Previous comments

  • gomesfer (Fernanda Gomes) 26 Aug 2022 19:32:48

    We consider that the diversity of data sources (EEA/EIONET, OECD, Eurostat, AQUAstat,…), all with different purposes, assumptions and statistical treatment, can cause problems of coherence and comparability. For this reason it was important to ask each member state to validate its baseline data, whether this data is correct vis-à-vis the intended target, before calculating the indicator.

    • zalllnih (Nihat Zal) 14 Sep 2022 14:10:07

       Thank you for your comment, all data reported to EU or other international organizations are considered as validated ones. We've gone through an extensive assessment of potential different definitions of parameters under these datasets and in very limited cases it required additional data curation. Other than this, these data sources are fit for calculating the WEI+ indicator

      We consider that the diversity of data sources (EEA/EIONET, OECD, Eurostat, AQUAstat,…), all with different purposes, assumptions and statistical treatment, can cause problems of coherence and comparability. For this reason it was important to ask each member state to validate its baseline data, whether this data is correct vis-à-vis the intended target, before calculating the indicator.

       

  • guzmojan (Janka Guzmov√°) 31 Aug 2022 13:16:54

    We support the previous comment that „it was important to ask each member state to validate its baseline data, whether this data is correct vis-à-vis the intended target, before calculating the indicator“.

    • zalllnih (Nihat Zal) 14 Sep 2022 14:14:49

      Thank you for your comment, all data reported to EU or other international organizations are considered as validated ones. We've gone through an extensive assessment of potential different definitions of parameters under these datasets and in very limited cases it required additional data curation. Other than this, these data sources are fit for calculating the WEI+ indicator. In line with your comments, we have also made the reference data available to this Eionet consultation. Data on water abstraction by source and by sector is the same data set used for developing the indicator on water abstraction in Europe for which the Eionet consultation had been conducted before calculating the WEI+ indicator (<a href="https://forum.eionet.europa.eu/nrc-eionet-freshwater/library/indicator-water-abstraction-by-source-and-sector;" rel="nofollow">https://forum.eionet.europa.eu/nrc-eionet-freshwater/library/indicator-water-abstraction-by-source-and-sector;</a> and <a href="https://www.eea.europa.eu/ims/water-abstraction-by-source-and" rel="nofollow">https://www.eea.europa.eu/ims/water-abstraction-by-source-and</a>).  

      We support the previous comment that „it was important to ask each member state to validate its baseline data, whether this data is correct vis-à-vis the intended target, before calculating the indicator“.

       

  • marquman (Manuel Marquis) 01 Sep 2022 15:36:57

    We agree with previous comments. In addtion, we found that the input data for France (in reference data file) is not all consistent with our national data. This is why we cannot give a relevant opinion on the final values of the indicator at country level (the indicator apparently has to be reprocessed with complete reported values)

    • zalllnih (Nihat Zal) 14 Sep 2022 14:16:42

      Thank you for your comment, we will re-assess the French case in accordance to your previous comment. In addition, we would happly replace our data with your data; or directly publish the outcomes of your WEI+ computation

      We agree with previous comments. In addtion, we found that the input data for France (in reference data file) is not all consistent with our national data. This is why we cannot give a relevant opinion on the final values of the indicator at country level (the indicator apparently has to be reprocessed with complete reported values)

       

  • giovabra (Giovanni Braca) 01 Sep 2022 16:37:31

    Italy:

    We agree with previous comments. We found that the input data are not consistent with our national data and spatial aggregation used for WFD-related issues so that we cannot evaluate nor validate the final values of the indicator.

    • zalllnih (Nihat Zal) 14 Sep 2022 14:26:12

      Thank you for your comment, all data reported to EU or other international organizations are considered as validated ones. Nevertheless, we should underline the fact that the WISE SoE and the Eurostat database present large spatial and temporal gaps for providing a comparable and comprehesive overview. In order to achieve that we perform large gap fillings for those countries where reported data is not sufficient. This exposes the outcomes of data compilation and harmonisation to a certain level of uncertainity and diminish the qulity of the results. In order to eliminate such obstacles, we kindly request the countries to provide missing datasets through WISE-3 or Eurostat reporting. Regarding the unmatching spatial unit of Ecrins with WFD RBD delineation, as pointed out in previous replies to the same content of concern, WFD spatial data doesn't hold the topological information. Hence, its usability for computing the WEI+ is very limited. Therefore, Ecrins dataset is used as spatial reference. 

      Italy:

      We agree with previous comments. We found that the input data are not consistent with our national data and spatial aggregation used for WFD-related issues so that we cannot evaluate nor validate the final values of the indicator.

       

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