Biological Monitoring Database in Greece Dr. Yorgos Chatzinikolaou Expert on ecological status assessment and monitoring, Athens, Greece

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Polsko-Norweski Fundusz Badań Naukowych / Polish-Norwegian Research Fund Estimation of uncertainty in status class assessment for Wel waterbodies Jannicke.
Advertisements

Intercalibration of assessment systems for the WFD: Aims, achievements and further challenges Presented by Sandra Poikane Joint Research Centre Institute.
The Ecological Data Application System (EDAS) for biological data analysis and data upload to STORET
Database Theory Why use database? Data is a valuable corporate resource which needs adequate accuracy, consistency and security controls. The centralized.
Overview of Databases and Transaction Processing Chapter 1.
Managing Information Systems Information Systems Security and Control Part 2 Dr. Stephania Loizidou Himona ACSC 345.
Workshop, 12/3/2004 Banska Bystrica – SLOVAC REPUBLIC “INTEGRATED LICENCE PROCEDURE (Greek case)” Katerina Iakovidou-Anastasiadou Hellenic Ministry for.
GEOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM (GIS)
Final Coverage Topic 4: INFORMATION RESOURCES and INFORMATION SYSTEMS By Dr. Faustino Reyes.
MESH UK Workshop 19 October 2006 Introduction Dr Paul Gilliland Marine Policy Adviser and MESH Partner Lead Natural England.
Database Security Outline.. Introduction Security requirement Reliability and Integrity Sensitive data Inference Multilevel databases Multilevel security.
Chapter 1 Overview of Databases and Transactions.
Bárbara Willaarts 1,2, Mario Ballesteros 2 and Nuria Hernández-Mora 3 1 Observatorio del Agua-Fundación Botín 2 CEIGRAM-Universidad Politécnica de Madrid.
Biological methods to detect the effects of hydrological and morphological pressures Introduction and overview of questionnaire responses.
Management of the coastal and marine environment: The legal framework of the European Union from the first EEC Directives to the Water Framework Directive.
IC Guidance Annex III: Reference conditions and alternative benchmarks Sandra Poikane Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
SM Sec.1 Dated 13/11/10 STRATEGY & STRUCTURE Group 3.
WISER Water bodies in Europe: Integrative Systems to assess Ecological status and Recovery.
Artificial Intelligence In Power System Author Doshi Pratik H.Darakh Bharat P.
Auditing Concepts.
Project Cost Management
EMODnet Chemistry 3 Kick-off Meeting May 2017
ITIL SERVICE LIFECYCLE
Environmental Intelligence Platform – Monitoring Nutrients Pollution with Earth Observation Data for Sustainable Agriculture and Clean Waters Blue.
Agenda item 5: Discussion of next steps
Distributed Databases
ServiceNow Implementation Knowledge Management
Side Event: GEOGLOWS and the Harmonization of GEO Water Activities
Addressing sustainable development by enhancing Black Sea fisheries
Intercalibration progress: Central - Baltic GIG Rivers
Overview of Databases and Transaction Processing
Results of the metadata analysis Meeting of the Working Group 2A on Ecological Status (ECOSTAT) March 4-5 , 2004, Ispra, Italy Peeter Nõges Anna-Stiina.
WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE
GEP vs. GES.
EU Water Framework Directive
USING ALIEN SPECIES DATA FOR THE WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE
Water Directors meeting - Dresden
Working Group A Ecological Status - ECOSTAT WFD CIS Strategic Coordination Group meeting, October 2005 Progress in the intercalibration exercise.
CIS workshop : assessment of the ecological status.
IT and Development support services
The normal balance of ingredients
Change and adapt the Eionet water data flow to meet WFD requirements
Jorge Rodriguez Romero, Violeta Vinceviciene DG ENV unit D
Nutrient Standards: Proposals for further work
Update on progress since last WG meeting (13-14 June 2002)
Working Group A Ecological Status - ECOSTAT State of play in the intercalibration exercise Water Directors Meeting, November 2005.
WISE - State of the art --- WISE - in the context of SEIS
Project 2.7 Guidance on Monitoring
Progress Report Working Group A Ecological Status Intercalibration (1) & Harmonisation (3) Activities Presented by Anna-Stiina Heiskanen EC Joint Research.
CIS workshop : assessment of the ecological status.
Intercalibration Decision and Technical Report
National Student Enrollment Registry
Working Group A ECOSTAT progress report on Intercalibration Presented by Wouter van de Bund Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
Working Group 2A ECOSTAT progress report Presented by Wouter van de Bund Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
ECOSTAT 2013 – 2015 Tasks and Deliverables
Reporting of chemical monitoring data to ICES Overview and way forward
Successfully introduce cost-effective MCS tools
EU Water Framework Directive
Water Directors meeting Spa, 2-3 December 2010
Working Group 2A ECOSTAT Guidance for the intercalibration process Wouter van de Bund Joint Research Centre Institute for Environment and Sustainability.
WFD CIS 4th Intercalibration Workshop
UK Technical Advisory Group
Lake Intercalibration – IC Decision Annexes + what to do in future
Working Group D Reporting, Brussels 31 March – 1 April 2008
Frequently asked questions Part I: Objectives and differences in scope of the WFD and BHD Workshop: Biodiversity and Water - Links between EU nature and.
Summary overview of methods used to define GEP in practice by countries represented in the ad-hoc group Dr. Ursula Schmedtje.
WG A Ecological Status Progress report October 2010 – May 2011
European waters - assessment of status and pressures 2018
Mismatches between nutrients and BQEs: what does it tell us?
Why are we reviewing reference conditions in intercalibration?
Presentation transcript:

Biological Monitoring Database in Greece Dr. Yorgos Chatzinikolaou Expert on ecological status assessment and monitoring, Athens, Greece TAIEX Workshop on Establishment of a Biological Monitoring Database ANKARA 27 – 28 January 2016

Data Ministry of Environment & Energy, Special Secretariat for Water Hellenic Centre for Marine Research (Rivers, transitional & coastal waters) Greek Biotope /Wetland Centre (Lakes)

Biological monitoring in Greece BQEsRiversLakesTransitional watersCoastal waters PhytoplanktonXXX Phytobenthos Macrophytes Macroscopic algaeXX AngiospermsXX MacroinvertebratesXXX Fish(X)

Data in Greece Ministry: WBs’ status per QE & necessary info (data in reports) Hydromor phological data Biological data Chemical data

BQE data Rivers Transitional waters Coastal waters Lakes

Rivers (Wise: Station info(station info #2)Data aggregationClassification system CountryCode NationalStationIDWaterCategory NationalStationNameNationalStationIDDeterminandBiology WFDstationWaterbodyTypeNCSBQE WFD_EU_CDRepresentativeStationWaterbodyTypeICImpactBio RiverNameReferenceStationYearMetricName WaterCategoryImpactStationAggregationPeriodSamplingMethodBio WaterBodyIDLargestStationAggregationMonthsAnalysisMethodBio WaterBodyNameFluxStationAggregationLengthWaterbodyTypeNCS CatchmentNameGeologyDeterminandBiologyHMWB RBD-codeWaterColourAverageUnitBiologyArtificialWB RBDnameWaterColourLevelBQEReferenceCondition RegionAlkalinityAverageMetricScaleHG_Boundary SeaAreaNameAlkalinityLevelDeterminandStatusClassGM_Boundary SeaRegionNameHMWBNumberOfSamplesMP_Boundary SeaConventionAreaArtificialWBMinValuePB_Boundary LongitudePurposeMeanValueIntercalibratedDeterminandBiology LatitudeLengthFromSourceMaxValueIntercalibratedClassBoundaries CatchmentAreaRiverDischargeMedianValueIntercalibratedWaterbodyType AltitudeSubsiteLocationStDevValueRemarks

Lakes (Wise: Station info(station info #2)Data aggregationClassification system CountryCodeRepresentativeStationCountryCode NationalStationIDReferenceStationWaterCategory NationalStationNameImpactStationNationalStationIDDeterminandBiology WFDstationLargestStationWaterbodyTypeNCSBQE WFD_EU_CDGeologyWaterbodyTypeICImpactBio LakeNameWaterColourAverageYearMetricName WaterCategoryWaterColourLevelAggregationPeriodSamplingMethodBio WaterBodyIDAlkalinityAverageAggregationMonthsAnalysisMethodBio WaterBodyNameAlkalinityLevelAggregationLengthWaterbodyTypeNCS CatchmentNameHMWBDeterminandBiologyHMWB RBD-codeArtificialWBUnitBiologyArtificialWB RBDnamePurposeBQEReferenceCondition RegionLocationMetricScaleHG_Boundary LongitudeSurfaceAreaDeterminandStatusClassGM_Boundary LatitudeMeanDepthNumberOfSamplesMP_Boundary CatchmentAreaMaximumDepthMinValuePB_Boundary AltitudeResidenceTimeMeanValueIntercalibratedDeterminandBiology VolumeMaxValueIntercalibratedClassBoundaries ReservoirMedianValueIntercalibratedWaterbodyType SamplingDepthStDevValueRemarks TotalDepth NoOfSubsites MethodSubsitesSpatialAggreg Remarks

Transitional & Coastal waters (Wise: Station infoData aggregationClassification systemWaterbody aggregation CountryCode NationalStationIDWaterCategory NationalStationNameNationalStationIDDeterminandBiologyWaterBodyID WaterCategoryWaterbodyTypeNCS_TCwatersSubstrateLongitude WaterBodyIDWaterbodyTypeIC_TCwatersBQELatitude WaterBodyNameYearMetricNameYear WaterbodyTypeNCS_TCwatersSubstrateSamplingMethodBioUnitBiology WaterbodyTypeIC_TCwatersDeterminandBiologyWaterbodyTypeNCS_TCwatersDeterminandStatusClass RBD-codeUnitBiologyWaterbodyTypeIC_TCwatersNumberOfSamples RBDnameBQEReferenceConditionNoOfSubsites RegionDeterminandStatusClassHG_BoundaryEQR_Mean SubregionNumberOfSamplesGM_BoundaryStDevValue LongitudeMeanValueMP_BoundarySamplingTimes LatitudeStDevValuePB_BoundaryMethodAggregation RepresentativeStationSamplingTimesRemarksSurfaceAreaWB ReferenceStationMethodAggregationConfindenceClassification ImpactStationConfindenceClassificationRemarks SurfaceAreaWBRemarks SamplingDepth ConfindenceClassification Remarks

Rivers: Protocol Database Input Datasheet

Rivers: benthic macroinvertebrates Protocol

Rivers: benthic macroinvertebrates Database (MS Access)

Rivers: benthic macroinvertebrates Input Datasheet

Rivers: fish Protocol

Rivers: fish Database (Oracle, Java)

Rivers: fish Input Datasheet

Decentralized vs. centralized db 3 cases: 1.Many db in different institutions vs. many db in one institution/agency (e.g. MoFWA) 2.Many db in different institutions vs. one db in one institution 3.Many db vs. one db in one institution 4.One db in different institutions vs. one db in one institution

3.Many db vs. one db in one institution/agency (e.g. MoFWA) Local orchestrated decentralized vs. one centralized db Performance improvements in terms of increased throughput and scalability and lower response time Easier to handle modifications over individual output per BQE (ref. conditions, index, classes) Higher specification over data (e.g. new species) Incorrect design of a decentralized system can lead to potential deadlock or non- optimal usage of system resources, higher risk. Data integrity is not guaranteed and data redundancy is a risk. Maintaining of data in a single db offers as accurate and as consistent as possible and enhances data reliability. In general centralized db offer bigger data security In case a single record or a group of records are lost recovery is more difficult

1.Many db in different institutions vs. many db in one institution Various orchestrated decentralized vs. local decentralized db Data acquisition connected with data inputs and facilitation of sampling errors’ correction Easier to handle modifications by experts over individual output per BQE (ref. conditions, index, classes) Authority difficulties over data and outcomes Effort to maintain an increased level of communication between local db administrators and the various db in the final competent institution In case a geographical allocation occurs for the same BQE, problems of integrity and interpretation may occur, higher risk

2.Various located db vs. one db in one institution/agency (e.g. MoFWA) Various orchestrated decentralized vs. one centralized db Centralised databases are highly dependent on network connectivity. The slower the internet connection is, the longer the database access time needed will be for the data acquisition personnel to entry Easier to handle modifications over individual output per BQE (ref. conditions, index, classes, status) Higher specification over data by experts (e.g. new species) Additional complexity to the system in terms of error recovery and fault handling Incorrect design of a decentralized system can lead to potential deadlock or non- optimal usage of system resources, higher risk Data integrity is not guaranteed and data redundancy is a risk. Maintaining of data in a single db offers as accurate and as consistent as possible and enhances data reliability. In case a single record or a group of records are lost recovery is more difficult

Decision drivers 1.Data and info authority 2.Data acquisition and stage of implemantation 3.Database outcome 4.Data specification and personnel placement 5.Overall data and db outcome quality control

Biological Monitoring Database in Greece Dr. Yorgos Chatzinikolaou Expert on ecological status assessment and monitoring, Athens, Greece TAIEX Workshop on Establishment of a Biological Monitoring Database ANKARA 27 – 28 January 2016