1 / 37

Visualisation of Water Bodies: Austrian Typology, Size, and Risk

This working group meeting discusses the visualisation of water bodies, focusing on the Austrian typology, size assessment based on various data sets, and risk assessment based on UK river, RBDs, sub-basins and CCM. The findings and recommendations aim to improve the understanding and interpretation of water bodies in terms of their classification, size, and risk.

atreadway
Download Presentation

Visualisation of Water Bodies: Austrian Typology, Size, and Risk

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Working Group meeting26 April 2005 Visualisation

  2. Two meetings • 10th March 2005 – discussion about • GIS Guidance • Schema • 13th April 2005 – discussion about • Visulisation • Schema • Attendees • Germany, Holland, Croatia, Austria, United Kingdom, Ireland

  3. Background • Expert group met 13 April 2005 • Looked at two views of data • Public and internal to the Commission • Trying to address different needs • Reviewed two areas • Information provision • Visualisation of risk • Outcome • General consensus between those present • Commonality of ideas

  4. Basis of the work • Article V reporting is the start point • Comparing WFD to other reporting • Variation of information provision • Visualisation by information submission • Consideration of the use of CCM • Make recommendations • Identify limits and related issues

  5. Visualisation of water bodiesBased on Austrian data

  6. Austrian river waterbody types (49 different types) } Types for rivers, e.g. Non-glaciated Crystalline Alps, Saprobiological Basic Condition = 1,25 . : : } Special types „Large Rivers“ } Other special river types National river water body typology

  7. Ecoregions aggregated on Austrian planning areas Ecoregions in Austria Ecoregions aggregated on catchment areas with 1000 km² Typology -Ecoregions

  8. Heavily Modified (HMWB) and Artificial Waterbodies (AWB) HMWB and AWB graduated by length All Waterbody categories

  9. Heavily Modified (HMWB) and Artificial Waterbodies (AWB) Waterbodies aggregated on Austrian planning regions Austrian waterbodies aggregated on CCM WSO5 catchments Waterbodies aggregated on catchments with 1000 km²

  10. HMWB aggregated on catchment areas 1000 km² Heavily Modified Water Bodies Austrian HMWB aggregated on CCM WSO5 catchments

  11. AWB aggregated on catchment areas 100 km² Artificial Water Bodies Austrian AWB aggregated on CCM WSO5 catchments

  12. Groundwater bodies at risk Austrian planning areas and groundwater bodies Groundwater bodies

  13. Findings • Typology difficult to visualise • Diversity, various across member states • Subsets better option • Viewed at different subdivisions • Mapping good for visualising water body coverage • Ground water maps also viable

  14. Water body sizeBased on various data sets

  15. Findings • Good way of evaluating differences • DG Env will need to recognise that there will be differences • Visualisation is important • Use of red identifies issues • Single colour difficult to interpret

  16. Visualisation of riskBased on UK river, RBDs, sub-basins and CCM

  17. Findings • Detail level useful for DG Env • Point representation and Strahler order 1 • Public view Catchment preferable • RBD level too coarse • Basin / Sub Basin better • Need coherent sub-divisions • Best defined by Member States (CCM difficult to interpret) • River depiction gives wrong impression of risk • Length and number metric both valid • Length = risk, Number = management

  18. Comparing risk depictionBased on UK and Germany

  19. Recommendations - general • View risk against basins / sub-basins • Use rivers only for context • Restrict public catchment size visualisation • Needs to be determined • Consider small sea catchments • Best for Member States to define recognisable sub-basins • Possible need for sub-sub-basins

  20. Recommendations - CCM • Define catchments and sub-basins as agglomerations of low level CCM catchments CCM could be a useful tool to Member States but needs to be improved • Use geometries provided to improve CCM • Rivers, basins, sub-basins • Match catchments to an agreed border definition • SABE • Match CCM rivers to borders • Mark as border rivers

More Related