1 / 11

Contribution of the EU project STAR to the intercalibration exercise

1. 2. Contribution of the EU project STAR to the intercalibration exercise - Intercalibration based on existing data -. Bilateral comparison of national assessment and classification methods. Harmonisation of national classification schemes using Benchmark Dataset and Common Metrics. 1.

ady
Download Presentation

Contribution of the EU project STAR to the intercalibration exercise

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. 1 2 Contribution of the EU project STAR to the intercalibration exercise - Intercalibration based on existing data - Bilateral comparison of national assessment and classification methods Harmonisation of national classification schemes using Benchmark Dataset and Common Metrics

  2. 1 Bilateral comparison of national assessment and classification methods Classical approach of method comparison (Tittizer 1975, Nixon et al.1996) 1. Correlating results of two national assessment methods →conversion formula (adjustment factor) 2. National classification →Identifying differences in quality class assignment 3. Matrix of possible bilateral comparisons within a GIG

  3. EXAMPLE • > 80 samples • Intercalibration type: R-C4 „medium lowland rivers, mixed g.“ • countries: Denmark, Germany, Sweden, United Kingdom • Biological Quality Element: Benthic Invertebrates • Assessment methods: • Saprobic Index (DE) • Danish Stream Fauna Index (DK, SE) • Average Score Per Taxon (UK, SE) • national classification systems • and • national reference values to calculate EQRs

  4. EXAMPLE equal: 48 samples SI (DE) higher:30 samples DSFI (DK) higher:5 samples R - C4 medium, lowland, mixed n = 83, rs = 0.80 Saprobic Index (DE) - Danish Stream Fauna Index (DK)

  5. EXAMPLE R - C4 medium, lowland, mixed n = 83, rs = 0.80 Saprobic Index (DE) - Danish Stream Fauna Index (SE)

  6. EXAMPLE R - C4 medium, lowland, mixed n = 83, r = 0.81 Saprobic Index (DE) - Average Score Per Taxon (SE)

  7. EXAMPLE R - C4 medium, lowland, mixed n = 83, r = 0.81 Saprobic Index (DE) - Average Score Per Taxon (UK)

  8. R - C4 medium, lowland, mixed Share of quality classes per method (n = 83)

  9. EQR = national reference value SI (DE) ASPT (UK) ASPT (SE) DSFI (DK) DSFI (SE) comparison of national reference values average index value of all 83 samples

  10. observed > 1 expected EQR per method (n = 83) R - C4 medium, lowland, mixed

  11. Each sample provides: • detailed information on BQE and abiotic data • resulting from different river types within a GIG (normalisation via EQRs) • →quality classification (1 to 5) of each sample based on Best Available Classification Benchmark dataset Test dataset 2 Samples of the national monitoring program (different field techniques, identification level etc.) →quality classification (1 to 5) of each sample based on National Assessment and Classification Method common metrics Harmonisation of national classification schemes using benchmark dataset and common metrics • metrics, that • indicate man-made stress in different habitats (=types) • deliver comparable and reliable results using data on different quality-basis • →combined to Common Multimetric Index COMPARISON: Range of results of Common Multimetric Index per Quality Class

More Related