[okfn-tw] Fwd: [New post] Global Open Data Index: Water Quality

Wed Feb 10 03:21:26 UTC 2016

Nisha 真認真。

sent from mobile device
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Data{Meet}" <donotreply at wordpress.com>
Date: Feb 10, 2016 10:38
Subject: [New post] Global Open Data Index: Water Quality
To: <info at motomosa.com>
Cc:

Nisha Thompson posted: "Last year I helped assess the water quality section
of the Global Open Data Index (GODI). Given the news of lead poisoning in
Flint, Michigan and increasingly beyond, safe drinking water is no longer
assured even in countries where it's been guaranteed, s"

New post on *Data{Meet}*
<http://datameet.org/?author=3> Global Open Data Index: Water Quality
<http://datameet.org/2016/02/10/global-open-data-index-water-quality/> by Nisha
Thompson <http://datameet.org/?author=3>

Last year I helped assess the water quality section
<http://global.census.okfn.org/dataset/water> of the Global Open Data Index
(GODI) <http://global.census.okfn.org/>. Given the news of lead poisoning i
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flint_water_crisis>n Flint, Michigan and
increasingly beyond, safe drinking water is no longer assured even in
countries where it's been guaranteed, so I am very glad they included it in
GODI.

GODI is a survey of 148 countries that look at the status of 'high priority
datasets' and whether they are truly open according to the Open Data
Criteria. <http://global.census.okfn.org/about/> Water quality was included
last year for the first time. So my job was to examine each country's
submission  and assess if the data submitted was what was asked for and met
the criteria for being open. This was a daunting task but I figured if I
could find water quality data in India of all places it wouldn't be
impossible.

*Assessment Criteria/Methodology*

GODI looked for very specific parameters:

   - fecal coliform <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fecal_coliform>
   - arsenic
   <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenic_contamination_of_groundwater>
   - fluoride levels <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation>
   - nitrates
   <http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/chemicals/nitratenitrite2ndadd.pdf>
   - TDS (Total dissolved solids)
   <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_dissolved_solids>

While there are a lot more parameters
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_water_quality_standards>that could
be asked for, these were a good sample of parameters to assess if there is
robust water monitoring in the country.

After the initial submission phase there were a lot questions about why
wouldn't the survey just ask for drinking water quality data or
environmental monitoring data?

Choosing parameters instead of programmes is important because monitoring
the environment and drinking water quality are connected. Some countries
haven't really established large nationalized water treatment strategies,
drinking water comes directly from a natural resource so the environmental
monitoring data inadvertently applies to the drinking water scenario.
Which means that if a country really has robust water quality data they
must have these 5 parameters because they cover surface and ground water
sources and also reflect safe drinking water standards.

The assessment would be rejected if a submitter only found the
surface water body monitoring stations (environmental water monitoring) for
instance because arsenic and fluoride are only found in groundwater. So the
submitter would either ideally find the treated drinking water quality data
which will cover all the parameters or the source water quality data for
both surface and ground water.

For a full look at the methodology of the entire survey go here.
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/13xrVB7o2ex2PpCP12zORqVrD9owK8V2NmrXSzLLMLr0/edit#>

*Some background*

There is no one way to create water management systems but there are two
major ways by which people get water - directly from the source or piped in
from a source or a treatment facility. The origins of the water source is
important. If you are getting water from the ground there are different
quality issues  than from surface water (lake or river). If water is from a
treatment plant there is a possibility that plant is getting water from
both surface water, ground water, and in some cases recycled water. Usually
water quality is measured at source and after treatment (treatment plants
take multiple water quality samples during the treatment process.)

A full water quality assessment means lots of parameters and not all of
them are tested the same way; some parameters take several days and require
specific conditions, others can be taken easily through filters or litmus
papers.  Water quality is a deliberate process of sampling and testing, and
it not as easy as sticking a sensor into the water and monitor a continuous
feed of data (although the potential for these approaches is quickly
growing as technology improves.)

*What I looked for*

Since water quality was a scientific process I figured if I found any proof
of water treatment or quality monitoring, a dataset would not be far
off. After going through a few countries I noticed that the different water
management approaches and policies affected where you would find the data.

Most countries give drinking water treatment responsibilities to local
bodies but sometimes is monitored by central government under public health
regulation so aggregated data could lie with the public health ministry or
the environmental protection body.  In most cases responsibility for
environmental monitoring fell to a central government Environmental
Ministry.

So this scenario means that multiple datasets exist - a centralized dataset
for surface and groundwater that  usually lies with the environmental
ministry that could have all the parameters but sometimes doesn't, or it
doesn't have real time data (this means data  may be available but from
less frequent data collection such as quarterly or half yearly efforts). Or
the Public Health Ministry has reports of water quality with all the
parameters but these are aggregated, and usually in a report form (not a
dataset) and not updated in a timely manner.

The US <http://global.census.okfn.org/place/us>, for instance, falls under
this group and can produce confusing submissions. The US has a robust
geological survey of surface and ground water sources. However, the
drinking water reports are supposed to go to the Environmental Protection
Agency but no one seems to be updating the database with information. In my
assessment I reduced the score because both are supposed to be available in
the public domain.

There are countries like Belgium
<http://global.census.okfn.org/entry/be/water> where water management and
monitoring are completely left to the local body and there is no central
role for monitoring at all, which meant there is no dataset.

There are countries where there is a strong central role in water
management and a dataset could be made open like in France
<http://global.census.okfn.org/place/fr>. Korea
<http://global.census.okfn.org/place/kr>stood out, because they have live
real time water quality information from their treatment plants that gets
updated to a website.

Then there are the 'unsures': which are countries that seem to treat water
to some degree or have national drinking water monitoring programmes but
don't have data online, reports or any mention of data at all. This is not
restricted to the developing world. I was very frustrated with several
European countries with newspaper articles riddled with reports of how
pristine and delicious their water is that don't have a single public
facing dataset.

*Take Aways*

United Kingdom <http://global.census.okfn.org/place/gb> and the US, both
pioneers of the open data movement had terrible water quality data for
water treatment, and no effort has been made to bring the data together or
make it available in a real time fashion.  Also it is not clear to citizens
who holds local bodies accountable for not updating their reports, making
reports public or finding ways to bring this data into the light so it can
be usable. It is no wonder that the US is now on the cusp of a public
health crisis.

It is frustrating that the open data movement hasn't quite been able to
reconcile decentralization and local responsibility with national level
accountability and transparency. Public health is a national level issue
even though local and regional contexts are required for management. How do
we push for openness and transparency in systems like this?

In places like India where water quality treatment is largely left to
private players and huge populations are not receiving treated water, the
need for data to be available, open, and in the hands of central bodies but
also local players is a must, because people need to try to find solutions
and where to intervene. Given the huge problems with water borne diseases,
the slow but epic arsenic and fluoride poisonings gripping parts of India,
and the effects this will have for generations, making this data public,
usable and demystified is no longer an option.

All in all, I have to say this was an enlightening experience, it was cool
to be able to learn something about each country. In our continuous push
for open data we sometimes get lost in standards, formats, and machine
readability, but taking a moment to really prioritize our values in society
and have open data reflect that is essential. Public health outcomes and
engaging with complex issues like it are an essential part of how to grow
the open data movement and make it relevant to millions more.

*Nisha Thompson <http://datameet.org/?author=3>* | February 10, 2016 at
8:06 am | Tags: featured
<http://datameet.org/?taxonomy=post_tag&term=featured>, global open data
index <http://datameet.org/?taxonomy=post_tag&term=global-open-data-index>,
okfn <http://datameet.org/?taxonomy=post_tag&term=okfn>, open knowledge
<http://datameet.org/?taxonomy=post_tag&term=open-knowledge>, water
<http://datameet.org/?taxonomy=post_tag&term=water>, Water Data
<http://datameet.org/?taxonomy=post_tag&term=water-data>, water quality
<http://datameet.org/?taxonomy=post_tag&term=water-quality> | Categories:
Data <http://datameet.org/?taxonomy=category&term=data>, Uncategorized
<http://datameet.org/?taxonomy=category&term=uncategorized> | URL:
http://wp.me/p2Jc3f-yS

Comment
<http://datameet.org/2016/02/10/global-open-data-index-water-quality/#respond>
   See all comments
<http://datameet.org/2016/02/10/global-open-data-index-water-quality/#comments>

Unsubscribe
<https://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=d485a6d1d26e87d7cc6e33108d996acb&email=info%40motomosa.com&b=Ls%3D68%2FCTJIMHLRT%7EJ_7%2FAQfugc2yAlV%2BQWuvHxmMT%3Drt-zraGmN>
to no longer receive posts from Data{Meet}.
Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions
<https://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=d485a6d1d26e87d7cc6e33108d996acb&email=info%40motomosa.com>.

*Trouble clicking?* Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://datameet.org/2016/02/10/global-open-data-index-water-quality/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-tw/attachments/20160210/8ab1f019/attachment-0003.html>