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

Wed Feb 10 06:07:39 UTC 2016

仔細一看，台灣的狀況很有趣，因為台北的自來水供應是直屬市政府的台北市自來水事業處，由於直屬市政府，data.taipei有很完整、可用API接續的資料
http://data.taipei/opendata/datalist/queryDataset;jsessionid=88F350D89ECBA3820C6F07BB9022FDC8

但台灣其他地方則是經濟部所屬的國營事業台灣自來水公司，data.gov.tw就....

Nisha在上文也提到：
"United Kingdom 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."

既然台灣自來水公司也是仿英國系統，看起來這是個普遍的問題（先不管地下水等等）

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 11:21 AM, TH Schee <info at motomosa.com> wrote:

> 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/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> okfn-tw mailing list
> okfn-tw at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/okfn-tw
>
>

-- 

Chen-Yi Tu  |  @crystaltu_
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-tw/attachments/20160210/7d3f9b89/attachment-0004.html>