The Value of

Water Information
OVERCOMING THE GLOBAL DATA DROUGHT
Acknowledgements
Xylem gratefully acknowledges the comments of independent reviewers on a draft of this report and the
tremendous contribution made by the Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN) at
Columbia University in structuring the problem and completing the analysis that drives the findings of this report.
Xylem also thanks the Nicholas Institute for Energy and Environment at Duke University for their extensive review
of different methods for valuing of hydrologic data.

Authors Abbreviations
Xylem CIESIN
Albert Cho and Randolf Webb Center for International Earth Science Information
Network
CIESIN, Columbia University
Marc Levy and Paola Kim-Blanco GEMS
Global Environmental Monitoring System
Smith School of Enterprise and Environment,
University of Oxford GRDC
Alex Fischer Global Runoff Data Center

Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy NASA

Solutions, Duke University and The Aspen Institute National Aeronautics and Space Agency
Martin Doyle NOAA
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
MDG
Millennium Development Goals
SDG
Sustainable Development Goals
SDSN
Sustainable Development Solutions Network
UN
United Nations
USGS
United States Geological Service
WMO
World Meteorological Organization

An appropriate citation for this report is:

Albert Cho, Alex Fischer, Martin Doyle, Marc Levy,
Paola Kim-Blanco and Randolf Webb. “The Value
of Water Information: Overcoming the Global Data
Drought.” Xylem Inc. White Paper, August 2017.
Accessed at http://xylem.com/waterdata.

2
There is a troubling mismatch in the world of water
data. On the one hand, the global need for information
about water is immense and growing. Rising demand
for fresh water, coupled with increased volatility in
global climate patterns, means that robust and timely
information to support decisions about allocating and
managing water resources is more valuable than ever.
Meanwhile, the digital revolution has made collecting
and analyzing large datasets ever cheaper, and the
application and use of these data more powerful.

Despite the growing need and the increasingly

actionable opportunity to address it, the backbone
of the global water monitoring system – made up of
publicly available, scientifically validated networks of
sensors, communications equipment, and data centers
that support a wide number of uses – is struggling just
when it is needed and used most. As our analysis below
will suggest, this decline represents a significant lost
economic opportunity for the world.

This paper is a call to action for data users, data providers, and global
decision-makers concerned about water resources, climate resilience
and sustainable development. It provides an overview of hydrological
monitoring systems and explains the importance of public water data
to national governance, resource management, planning, and efforts
to achieve global objectives such as the Sustainable Development
Goals. This paper also finds significant declines in the number of
hydrological monitoring stations reporting in the public water data
systems responsible for sharing hydrological information globally,
with highly inconsistent temporal coverage and insufficient spatial
coverage. These findings are particularly concerning given our review
of economic literature indicating that hydrologic information is a
sound and attractive investment that provides a 4-to-1 return with
direct and indirect benefits to private actors and the general public.
These findings provide a call to action to increase public and private
sector support for these vital public goods – and suggest a number
of recommendations to reverse the growing ‘data drought’ facing a
changing world.

3
Hydrological monitoring systems
This document focuses on hydrological monitoring systems that collect water data in situ through
the design, installation, operation and maintenance of networks of sensors and research stations.
While remote sensing (e.g. satellite-derived imagery) is a very important complement to in situ
data, it has different operational and research characteristics beyond the scope of this assessment.
In situ networks are operated by a variety of public and private actors, including government
agencies, such as the United States Geological Survey, non-profit organizations, and private sector
companies.

4
There is no single global hydrological monitoring all,” but data about water are vital to the achievement
system, but rather a proliferation of networks designed of nearly all 17 of the Sustainable Development Goals
and operated by their respective owners for specific (UN Water 2016). Lack of access to clean water and
uses and at different spatial scales. These systems sanitation spreads diseases that kill millions every
take measurements of many different parameters year (SDG 3), and the burden of obtaining water and
and data types, including source measurements of sanitation falls disproportionately on women and
atmospheric water (e.g. precipitation), surface water children, exacerbating gender inequality (SDG 5) and
(e.g. streamflow and lakes), groundwater, and oceans educational challenges (SDG 4). Water management
and coastal water resources. On the demand side, is a vital driver of food security (SDG 2); sustainable
data related to agricultural, industrial, municipal, energy (SDG 7); resilient infrastructure (SDG 9);
domestic and environmental uses of water are also safe and resilient human settlements (SDG 11);
used to support decision-making. sustainable production and consumption patterns
(SDG 12); climate resilience (SDG 13); conservation
These monitoring networks support vital decisions and sustainable use of oceans (SDG 14); sustainable
related to the management of water resources. The management of terrestrial ecosystems (SDG 15); and
US Geological Survey (USGS), for example, identified promotion of peace – as water scarcity is a driver of
nine different categories of uses for its national water conflict (SDG 16). Table 1 maps various categories
monitoring network, including assessment of general of water information, ranging from streamflow
hydrological conditions, statistical modeling of information to data on water consumption, to
streamflow to support regional planning, support for decision-making across various policy domains.
users’ daily operational decision-making, hydrologic
forecasting, water quality monitoring, planning For example, local, state and national governments
and design for specific infrastructure projects, use real-time streamflow readings to generate flood
scientific research, and other applications, including warnings; without these data, flood warnings would
recreational decision support for uses such as fishing have much lower accuracy, and potentially lead to
and watersports (Wahl et al. 1995). Others have the public ignoring warnings to evacuate areas in
grouped these benefits into three core categories: advance of a flood. In addition, infrastructure planners
planning and design-related benefits, flood and use these data to plan highways and bridges capable
storm management, and resource optimization of withstanding changes in water level and flow
(Azar, Sellars, and Schroeter 2003). All of these uses rates. Insurance companies depend on accurate
are likely to expand as global macro drivers, such floodplain mapping, which depends on streamflow
as a growing population, urbanization, economic and precipitation data (USGS 2006). Energy
development and climate change, intensify the need companies depend on hydrological data to predict
for water information delivered with higher density river flows for projects such as sustainable run-of-river
(more parameters measured at higher spatial and hydropower projects. However, despite the relevance
temporal resolution), continuity over long periods, of water information to the achievement of important
and availability (i.e. discoverability, access, machine development objectives, as the next section outlines,
readability). many countries lack robust water information systems,
and the trend lines are not positive. As it is difficult to
Because water touches nearly every aspect of human manage what goes unmeasured, gaps in public water
lives, water information systems are important to the data systems do not bode well for our collective ability
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) agreed by the to achieve sustainable water resources management.
United Nations in 2015. The SDGs include a specific
goal (SDG 6) devoted to ensuring the “availability and
sustainable management of water and sanitation for

5
Table 1
Water data are used across a variety of critical decisions.

Water Supply Water Demand

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Energy production ■ ■ ■
Food production ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Flood protection ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Insurance ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Water storage planning ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Climate resilience ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Water quality for human health ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Water quality for ecosystem health ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Wastewater treatment ■ ■ ■ ■
Infrastructure design ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

Targets for SDG 6 Water Supply Water Demand

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

6.1: universal and equitable access to safe

■
and affordable drinking water for all
6.2: access to adequate and equitable
■
sanitation and hygiene for all
6.3: improve water quality globally
■ ■ ■ ■

6.4: substantially increase water-use

■ ■ ■ ■
efficiency across all sectors
6.5: implement integrated water resources
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
management at all levels
6.6: protect and restore water-related
■ ■ ■ ■
ecosystems
6.a: expand international cooperation and
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
capacity building support
6.b: strengthen local communities for improving
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
water and sanitation management

Legend:
1. Atmospheric, 2. Surface water, 3. Subterranean,
4. Oceanic, 5. Agricultural, 6. Industrial,
7. Domestic, 8. Environment

6
The data drought
Scientists, industry experts, and policymakers recognize that the existing reach of water
monitoring systems is insufficient to support the global need for water data. According to a 2012
industry survey of over 700 water professionals, including hydrologists, engineers, and utility
managers, 72% reported that they need data from more monitoring stations to meet program
goals (Aquatic Informatics 2015). Academic studies support this conventional wisdom (Gleick et
al. 2013). Several studies have documented an overall decline in in-situ monitoring systems across
the world (Fekete and Robarts 2015). This decline includes a diminishing number of precipitation
gauges (Stokstad 1999), water quality monitoring systems (Zhulidov et al. 2000), and river
discharge sensors (Fekete et al. 2012).

While there will always be a gap between the as outlined in its “Guide to Hydrological Practices:
nearly infinite desire for more data and the finite From Measurement to Hydrologic Information”
resources available to supply it in any given domain, (WMO 2008), which provides the best-available
the “data drought” facing hydrological information approach to discuss generalized adequacy of in-
is particularly concerning given the social benefits situ stations. The framework outlines benchmark
and vital importance of water resources. This paper levels of minimum network density for hydrological
gauges the extent of monitoring gaps by examining monitoring stations to deliver appropriate levels of
public, globally standardized data sets and station hydrological information services, disaggregated
density targets recommended by the United Nations by physiographic area (terrain and climatic
World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The considerations), such as mountainous, coastal,
databases in this analysis rely on voluntary reporting arid/polar, interior plains, hilly and small islands
by national statistics and environment agencies and (Kundzewicz 1997; Mishra and Coulibaly 2009;
are aggregated either by a United Nations center or WMO 2008). These reference levels are used in
by a United States government agency. this analysis to estimate the number of sensors that
“should be” in place in a given physiographic area
To estimate the scale of the monitoring gaps, (Table 2 outlines the minimum benchmark station
information from these data sets was compared to density for each physiographic area).
the WMO framework for minimum network density

Table 2
WMO’s recommended minimum densities of hydrological stations

Physiographic Description Precipitation Streamflow

unit (Area in km2 (Area in km2
per station) per station)

Small islands Island states or territories with area 500km2 or less. 250 300

Coastal Areas within 100km from the coastline. 9,000 2,750

Arid / Polar Areas classified as ‘Dry system’ or ‘Polar system’ 100,000 20,000
by the Köppen-Geiger climate classification system

Mountainous Areas with elevation of 1,500m or greater. 2,500 1,000

Interior plains Areas with elevation of 200m or less. 5,750 1,875

Hilly / Total area not classified as Coastal, 5,750 1,875

Undulating Mountainous, or Interior plains.

Source: WMO 2008.

7
The assessment also draws a distinction between We have therefore chosen to quantify the reporting
reporting gaps and measurements gaps. We defined gap based on objective standards and observable
the ‘reporting gap’ as the difference between the data, and to estimate the measurement gap based
number of stations reported to global databases on statistical analysis. Both metrics are relevant to
and the recommended station density standards decision-makers interested in ensuring access to
defined by the WMO. We defined the ‘measurement hydrological data, but their use requires careful
gap’ as the difference between the recommended interpretation.
station density standards defined by the WMO and
the estimated number of active stations, which we The gap analysis based on this approach suggests
assessed using a statistical model. Both metrics are some common themes. First, there are significant
imperfect. The reporting gap could be due to a lack gaps in the water monitoring system between
of physical stations or to gaps in reporting practices current reporting of station data and reference
for extant stations; at the limit, a country could have coverage levels established by technical experts.
a high-density, active monitoring network that is Moreover, these gaps are most pronounced in
not reporting data to global public databases. The developing countries, and have widened over the
measurement gap is not directly observable because past 20 years around the world. The analysis is
it is difficult to quantify the number of extant stations, summarized in the following table:
especially for stations that are not reporting data.

Table 3
Reporting gap analysis of water data by type of monitoring system

Station Reporting Country Reporting Reporting Gap1

Streamflow By 2010, stations decline Declined from 142 Gap of 30,938 to

(GRDC) 40% since peak reporting countries in 1979 to less 52,057 in current global
in 1979 than 40 after 2010 database

Precipitation By 2010, stations decline Over 180 countries Gap of 6,416 to 14,773
(NOAA) 31% since peak reporting reporting since the in current aggregated
in early 1980s mid-1800s database

Water Quality By 2010, stations decline Total of 83 countries Not calculated as no

Stations (GEMS) 41% since peak reporting reporting since 1965, targets by parameter.
in 1993 but only 16 after 2010

1
Reporting gaps are defined as the WMO recommended number of stations minus the number of reported stations
in the specific database since 2010.

8
Streamflow analysis
Streamflow monitoring stations provide critical high-income countries was generally adequate
information about the spatial distribution and for minimum benchmarking, this was not the case
seasonal variation of surface-water resources, for middle and lower income countries and certain
including flooding and indicators of droughts. specific spatially defined topographies (Fekete et
al. 2012; Hannah et al. 2011). Moreover, even at
The Global Runoff Database maintained by the UN peak coverage of streamflow in the 1980s, coverage
Global Runoff Discharge Center (GRDC) is the most was still significantly short of the recommended
comprehensive aggregator of streamflow data with number of stations. Using the WMO station density
geo-located stations (GRDC 2015). As seen in guidelines and CIESIN’s Population, Landscape and
Figure 1, records show a peak in number of stations Climate Estimates spatial data (CIESIN 2012), we
in the 1980s, a short-lived era of global concern assessed the gap between the number of stations
around environmental health impacts and resource recommended and those actually reporting
constraints that resulted in greater public spending (Table 4).
and reporting on monitoring systems (Hannah et al.
2011). While the number of stations reporting in

Figure 1
Active reported streamflow stations peaked in 1979 and have declined over 40% from this peak2

Temporal distribution of GRDC stations with river discharge data

8000

6000
Number of stations

4000

2000

0
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

High Income Countries Middle and Low Income Countries

Source: GRDC 2015 Database; CIESIN analysis.

To understand the global station coverage and determine if there are any gaps, we combined the WMO
station density guidelines with country-level aggregations of terrain types (CIESIN 2012). This calculated lower
and upper estimates of required stations, the variation being due to definitions of mountainous terrain. This
method yields a global reporting gap of roughly 31,000 – 52,000 stations.

This reporting gap could be significantly closed by making more station data publicly available.
2
The data from GRDC was provided and analyzed in June-November 2015 and was not reflective of the most recent
inventories in the database.

9
But precisely because reporting is so limited, it
is difficult to accurately assess the more critical
measurement gaps. Experts generally agree that
high-income countries meet minimum standards for
monitoring networks, but that many other countries
— especially those in Africa and Central Asia — have
deficient coverage of monitoring stations (Fekete et
al. 2012; Hannah et al. 2011).

To provide indicative estimates on the potential

measurement gaps, we developed a statistical
model to estimate the underlying density of
measurement stations using the assumption, based
on expert input, that national levels of income per
capita are correlated with the completeness of
hydrological monitoring networks. Using these
models, we estimated a global ‘measurement gap’
of about 8,500-33,600 stations.

10
Table 4
Gap analysis for reported streamflow stations

Regional Number of stations Number of Reporting Measurement

Clusters recommended unique stations Gap Analysis Gap Analysis
using WMO reported in
density guidelines GRDC since
2010 Lower Upper Lower Upper
Min - Max estimate estimate estimate estimate

Africa 5,570 - 10,060 251 5,319 9,809 4,673 - 9,728

Asia 5,423 - 14,579 6 5,417 14,573 2,523 - 13,131

Europe 9,390 - 10,812 917 8,473 9,895 353 - 736

North America 5,592 - 9,778 1,567 4,025 8,211 211 - 1,695

Oceania 1,129- 1,257 99 1,158 1,030 202 - 310

South America 6,705 - 8,698 159 6,546 8,539 578 - 8,045

World 33,937 - 55,057 2,999 30,938 52,057 8,540 - 33,645

Africa

Asia

Europe

North America

Oceania

South America

0 5000 10000 15000

Number of Missing Stations

Reporting Gap Measurement Gap

Note: The range of recommended stations represents variation in the interpretation of mountainous
areas, which have the highest density of recommended stations. The measurement gap analysis
was calculated using income-based inferences for all countries, regardless of previous reporting to
GRDC. The model assumes that countries who have surpassed defined wealth levels have installed
the minimum WMO benchmarking stations. If countries already report equal or more stations, they
are automatically included. Running these scenarios at two different wealth levels provides the upper
and lower bound of the potential number of in-situ stations. This method was meant to circumvent the
challenges of inconsistent reporting and provide a second modeled estimate of measurement gaps.

Source: Global Runoff Data Center (GRDC) 2015; WMO 2008; CIESIN analysis.

11
Precipitation analysis
Precipitation measurement stations are used by station-years, dispersed across 175 years of records,
multiple water resource users, ranging from city including some stations updated hourly (Menne et
planners managing drinking water reservoirs to al. 2012). Similar to streamflow reporting, there was a
farmers optimizing their use of stored irrigation significant spike in number of recorded precipitation
water to climate scientists trying to predict likelihood stations in the 1980s with approximately 18,750
of future droughts. As with streamflow, the public stations at the peak, and a decline in subsequent
reporting of rainfall and climate monitoring stations years to the lowest level of reported stations since
also appears to be declining. Two historical datasets 1960 (Figure 2). Today, there are fewer than 12,900
from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric stations that have actively logged data since the year
Administration (NOAA) were combined to provide 2000; a 31% decrease from the peak number of
an estimate of the global coverage of known stations. Unlike streamflow measurement, the peak
and aggregated publicly available rain gauges coverage of recorded precipitation stations in the
(Ropelewski, Janowiak, and Halpert 1985; Vose et 1980s was greater than the recommended amount,
al. 1992). These data sets, initially aggregated by the but has recently fallen to levels that are slightly
United States NOAA and hosted in the online Climate below the recommended coverage. Based on WMO
Data Library at the International Research Institute on guidelines, the number of stations needed globally
Climate and Society, provide historic records from is between 10,000 – 20,000 stations (Table 5). The
multiple government agencies. This includes over reporting gap is smaller but still significant, between
180 countries with over 140,000 6,500 – 15,000 precipitation stations.

Figure 2
Active precipitation stations peaked in 1983 and have declined over 30% from this peak3

Temporal distribution of global precipitation stations (NOAA’s NCEP & NCDC, 1960 - 2013)

15000
Number of stations

10000

5000

0
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

High Income Countries Middle and Low Income Countries

Source: Ropelewski, Janowiak, and Halpert 1985; Vose et al. 1992, CIESIN analysis.

3
The data from NOAA was provided and analyzed in June-November 2015 and was not reflective of the most recent
inventories in the database.

12
Table 5
Gap analysis for reported rainfall and climate stations

Region Number of Stations Number of Reporting Gap

Based on WMO Stations in NOAA Analysis
Density Guidelines after 2010
Low High Low High

Africa 1,683 3,654 845 1,012 2,910

Asia 1,634 5,442 1,548 661 4,157

Europe 3,015 3,601 1,254 2,390 2,871

Americas 1,744 3,485 1,282 580 2,229

Oceania 360 369 253 172 181

South America 2,149 2,977 552 1,601 2,425

Total 10,585 19,528 5,734 6,416 14,773

Note: All numbers are rounded to the nearest ten; small island estimates are rounded to the nearest 5.
As a result, totals do not always sum.

Source: CIESIN analysis.

Water quality analysis

Water quality measurement helps decision-makers further data were not reported. Therefore, while the
understand and respond to risks related to public total number of reporting stations reached 1,568 in
and ecosystem health by measuring the physical 2004, the annual average remains below 800 input
properties, chemical components, and organic and points5 (see Figure 3). A significant portion of the
microbial variables of various types of water resources. 3,600 stations provide only geo-location information
Since 1978 the UN Global Environmental Monitoring of the station, not reporting actual water quality data.
System (GEMS/Water) has aggregated the ongoing This practice explains the discrepancy in total numbers
status of global water quality data related to inland between the total stations and number reported
water bodies (UNEP 2017). Country-level reporting, as each year. This data set shows another key trend:
in other databases, remains voluntary. This database inconsistent reporting of individual stations from year-
includes a range of 176 water quality parameters to-year. Only 35% of all the stations have submitted
varying across station and country (UNEP 2014), with a more than 5 years of data, although this is skewed
total of 3,631 station-level points. by the large submission from Brazil. In sum, despite
the lack of a reference level for water quality network
The historic analysis of stations, unlike the other density, public water quality reporting is sparse
databases, continues to increase until the mid-1990s, and inconsistent relative to flow and precipitation
when it declines to a relatively stable number until monitoring despite the obvious importance of
2010, when reporting declines sharply4. One large water quality parameters for public health and
data transfer from Brazil created a large spike in the environmental sustainability.
number of reporting stations in 2004, after which
4
This post-2010 decline in reporting is attributable to the recent transition of hosting responsibilities for the GEMS/Water Data Center from
Environment Canada to the International Centre for Water Resources and Global Change at the Federal Institute of Hydrology in Germany,
and is currently being addressed.
5
We did not calculate gap analysis for this database as each water source type (river, lake, stream, groundwater) has different requirements for
benchmarking and water quality parameters.

13
Figure 3
Summary of reported stations in GEMS-Water database

Temporal distribution of global water quality stations (GEMS-Water 1980 - 2015)

1800

1600

1400
Number of stations

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

High Income Countries Middle and Low Income Countries

Source: UNEP 2017; CIESIN Analysis

Discussion and analysis

It is important to reiterate that in each case, these We addressed these reporting gaps by running
analyses reflect the number of stations that are several scenario analyses using varying national
reported in public databases, not the underlying wealth thresholds to provide estimates of potential
number of extant stations. There are likely to be measurement density of streamflow stations. This
stations and sensors in place that are not being assessment of the ‘measurement gap’ suggested
reported, which may be a result of malfunctioning that for streamflow data, about 50% of the ‘reported
equipment, lack of institutional capacity to report the data gap’ is likely driven by the absence of physical
station, not meeting technical collection standards monitoring stations, and thus requires expansion of
or quality, or unwillingness to openly share data. the in situ monitoring station network.
Academic and policy research papers have
repeatedly identified this challenge of obtaining Regardless of the cause of the reporting and
reliable and continuous multi-year and high measurement gap, this analysis reveals three
frequency data from many countries. For example, important findings of concern. First, levels of
Dinku et al inventoried over 140 stations in Ethiopia, publicly reported data are well below established
(vs. 29 reported in the NOAA collection); 60 stations benchmarks for station coverage. Second, there is
in Zimbabwe (vs. 30); and 400 in Colombia (vs. 57). a growing gap in reported data in three of the most
All four barriers need to be addressed but the result widely available and globally comprehensive public
is the same: data that are not recorded and shared water data sets. Third, these gaps are most severe in
can be difficult to access and are likely to generate the developing countries of Africa, Asia and South
less social benefit than data that are openly shared America. Finally, there are reasons to believe that
and easily discoverable. a significant proportion of the “missing data” in
the gap analysis is attributable to the absence of
stations, not just the absence of public reporting.
14
Estimating returns on investment
Clearly there is a gap between optimal levels of station density and actual reporting stations
in global hydrological data systems, but that does not necessarily indicate a problem. After all,
measurement costs money, as it requires designing, installing, operating, and maintaining a network
of environmental sensors and research stations as well as further investments in technology, data
management, and training to clean, verify and disseminate data. Decision-makers inevitably need to
make choices about which parameters to monitor to support a broad range of uses, how to monitor
these parameters using scientifically robust methods, and how to collect, manage and share the
resulting data in a cost-effective way.

The question is whether decision-makers are wisely range of 0.04 to 33 (Figure 4), suggesting that a dollar
avoiding investments that do not yield adequate of investment in public water data systems generates,
returns, or whether there is a market failure leading at the median, four dollars in social benefit. In 86%
to sub-optimal provision of public access to of the analyses, authors reported that the benefits of
hydrological data. After all, water information is a water information are greater than the costs. There are
public, non-rivalrous and non-excludable good, which also reasons to believe that this benefit-to-cost ratio
in economic theory suggests the potential for sub- is understated as most studies focused on a limited
optimal levels of investment absent adequate public subset of the potential beneficiaries from a given
investment. To explore this question, Xylem partnered public hydrological dataset.
with the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy
Solutions at Duke University to conduct a detailed Though the methodological limitations of the
review of economic literature assessing the returns on underlying studies suggest a degree of caution is
investment from hydrological monitoring programs warranted, this analysis suggests that the world is
(Gardner, Doyle, and Patterson 2017). leaving significant value ‘on the table’ by under-
investing in public water data infrastructure.
Research databases were scanned for academic and These invisible losses take the form of inefficient
peer-reviewed studies that quantified a benefit-cost infrastructure investment decisions, sub-optimal
ratio for public water data; this yielded 29 estimates operational decision-making by water users, and
benefit-cost ratios from 21 articles, ranging from the avoided losses from adverse water conditions that
academic literature, government (e.g. USGS, OMB), might have been anticipated with better, dense, more
inter-governmental agencies (e.g. World Bank), and accessible water data. By contrast, making renewed
NGOs that account for both costs and benefits of investments in such data infrastructure could unlock
water information. significant benefits that are difficult to measure
because they are difficult to specify ex ante; once
While many of the studies faced methodological datasets exist and are freely available, they become a
limitations related to the measurement of costs and powerful foundation for innovation and a diversity of
benefits, the picture that emerges from this synthesis use cases that may create substantial social benefit.
of the analytic literature is striking. The median
benefit-cost ratio of water information was 4, with a

15
Figure 4
Benefit-cost ratio of public water data, from synthesis in Gardner et al. (2017). Median benefit-cost ratio is ~4.
Red line indicates benefit-cost ratio of 1.

Benefit cost ratio

0 5 10 15 20

Figure 5
Benefit-cost ratio across sectors (left) and number of benefit-cost estimates within each sector (right). Many
values are counted multiple times because estimates for multiple sectors were aggregated at the same study.

Benefit cost ratio # of studies

WSP
ECO
AG
ENERGY
TRANS
HYDRO
TOUR
MANU
FOREST
MINING

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15

16
Conclusions and recommendations
Several conclusions emerge from this analysis:
• Demand for public water data will continue to • Moreover, public water data infrastructure has
increase as demand-driven scarcity and supply- been declining in coverage over time across a
driven variability both increase with macro number of critical parameters and organizations.
trends such as population growth, urbanization • The current gap and declining trend line are
and climate change. A robust network of both concerning because public water data
continuously reported in-situ monitoring infrastructure tends to have highly positive
stations is fundamental to manage the present benefit-cost ratios. The world is leaving money
and underpin models of the future. on the table by failing to invest at appropriate
• Public water data systems serve a broad variety levels.
of needs vital to many users and objectives, • Benefit-cost literature demonstrates an
including framing within the Sustainable approximate 4-to-1 return on investment for
Development Goals. Yet they are not currently public water data, cutting across themes and
available at levels and in platforms considered applications.
satisfactory by their users.
• Recent activity since this report was first drafted,
• Public water data infrastructure is not delivering related to ongoing mobilization around
water data with information density (either monitoring the Sustainable Development Goals,
spatial or temporal) consistent with the gives hope that more resources and attention
expectations that technical experts (e.g., the will be given to providing hydrological data as a
World Meteorological Organization) have global public good.
established as an appropriate standard.

To address these issues, decision-makers can take

the following actions:
• Conduct a national-level assessment of earlier costing work by the United Nations
hydrological monitoring capacity to feed Sustainable Development Solutions Network
into global data sets. Data sets on the current (SDSN) by providing an indicative basis for the
state of hydrological monitoring systems are investment needs at a country or regional scale
sparse. Reframing monitoring around minimum for both increased sensor systems and improved
reporting standards could motivate a more data aggregation. (Espey et al. 2015) Human
comprehensive inventory and analysis of national resources and institutional capacity will also need
monitoring systems, with efforts to document to be built in order to ensure that countries have
and understand the root causes of declining the ability to share and analyze the data they
coverage. This may be occurring already collect. Finally, there is an often-overlooked cost
under the various UN Water initiatives related to making data publicly available that needs
to monitoring SDGs. Findings should engage equal advocacy from the international policy and
public and private stakeholders to support filling scientific communities.
identified gaps. • Explore new models for data sharing that
• Commit sufficient resources. Although we did reinforce existing validated databases.
not perform a detailed analysis of current funding Recognizing that substantial data exists beyond
levels for water monitoring systems, it is clear that the spreadsheets of government-validated
the declines in monitoring stations cannot be sources, but often not easily discoverable or
reversed without incremental funding. This gap available to public users, seek new models for
analysis methodology could help refine data sharing that are supported or endorsed by
international forums.

17
Conclusions and recommendations (continued)
• Elevate monitoring from technical to principal • Automate data reporting through new real-
negotiating forums. Establishing a robust water time monitoring technologies. Many in-situ
data infrastructure is vital to the achievement of sensors are now available to provide automated
the Sustainable Development Goals and climate transfer of data to cloud services. This has
resilience. Reversing declines in hydrological been done most effectively in the climate
monitoring data collection and data sharing and precipitation monitoring systems and
should be the subject of discussion by principals reduces transaction costs of data processing
at negotiating forums, such as the UN Framework and transmission; water quality sensors are
Convention on Climate Change, not confined increasingly available and should be integrated
to discussions in subsidiary technical bodies. into cloud services as well.
This could include more formal mechanisms • Prioritize critical gaps, including streamflow
for annual accountability for reporting by data stations and under-covered regions. Our
producers to the database platforms. analysis found that streamflow monitoring
• Continue to develop standard frameworks represents a significant gap between current
to ensure comparability and quality of coverage and good practice, even though
water monitoring systems. The lack of streamflow monitoring is among the most
standardized data reporting frameworks and valuable components of the water monitoring
tools for implementing and managing the water system. Investments should also be targeted
monitoring system results in a heterogeneous toward improving coverage in developing
global system that is impossible to benchmark, countries, specifically in Asia, Africa, and
improve, and manage. Continuing to South America.
standardize frameworks for reporting and • Combine data technologies to increase cost-
integrating data will be not only useful, but benefit ratios. Design information systems
necessary if (and when) efforts are made to link so that integration of data technologies is
to non-governmental data, including academic, mutually beneficial, such as satellite imagery
private sector or citizen-science data. The goal and in-situ monitoring. This approach sees each
should be a minimum density of stations that marginal investment in data technologies as
have standardized protocols to also ensure data complementary towards the total potential of
quality and comparability. other data technologies if efficiently combined
and reconciled. This could greatly increase the
cost-benefit ratios (Levy 2017).

Water data can play a vital role in helping stakeholders solve many of today’s most important global
challenges. Without these data, decision-makers are ‘flying blind’ into a world of greater scarcity,
variability and climate risk. By investing to reverse the global “data drought” in public water data
infrastructure, decision-makers can establish greater certainty, unlock innovation, and create significant
social, economic and environmental value in support of the Sustainable Development Goals.

18
Works Cited
Azar, J., D. Sellars, and D Schroeter. 2003. Water Quantity Menne, M.J. et al. 2012. “An Overview of the Global
Monitoring in British Columbia: A Business Review of the Historical Climatology Network-Daily Database.” Journal of
BC Hydrometric Programs. Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology 29(7): 897–910.

CIESIN, ed. 2012. “National Aggregates of Geospatial Data Mishra, A K, and P Coulibaly. 2009. “Developments in
Collection: Population, Landscape, And Climate Estimates, Hydrometric Network Design: A Review.” Review of
Version 3.” http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/data/set/ Geophysics 47(2).
nagdc-population-landscape-climate-estimates-v3/
Ropelewski, C F, J E Janowiak, and M S Halpert. 1985. “The
metadata.
Analysis and Display of Real Time Climate Data.” Mon. Wea.
Espey, J et al. 2015. Data for Development: A Needs Rev. http://iridl.ldeo.columbia.edu/SOURCES/.NOAA/.
Assessment for SDG Monitoring and Statistical Capacity NCEP/.CPC/.EVE/index.html?Set-Language=en.
Development. New York: Sustainable Development
Stokstad, E. 1999. “Scarcity of Rain, Stream Gages
Solutions Network.
Threatens Forecasts.” Science 285: 1199.
Fekete, Balazs, Ulrich Loose, Alain Pietroniro, and Richard
UNEP. 2014. “Analytical Methods for Environmental Water
Robarts. 2012. “Rational for Monitoring Discharge on the
Quality.” United Nations Environment Programme Global
Ground.” Journal of Hydrometeorology 13: 1977–86.
Environment Monitoring System (GEMS)/Water. Available
Fekete, Balazs, and Richard Robarts. 2015. “Time for in Situ at http://www.unep.org/gemswater.
Renaissance.” Science 349(6249): 685–868.
UNEP. 2017. “GEMStat Database of the Global Environment
Gardner, J., M. Doyle, and L. Patterson. 2017. Estimating the Monitoring System for Freshwater (GEMS/Water)
Value of Public Water Data. https://nicholasinstitute.duke. Programme.” International Centre for Water Resources and
edu/sites/default/files/publications/ni_wp_17-05.pdf. Global Change, Koblenz. Accessed June 2017. Available
upon request from GEMS/Water Data Centre: data-
Gleick, Peter et al. 2013. “Improving Understanding of the
[email protected].
Global Hydrological Cycle: Observation and Analysis of the
Climate System.” In Climate Science for Serving Society: Vose, R S et al. 1992. “The Global Historical Climatology
Research, Modeling and Prediction Priorities, eds. G R Asrar Network: Long-Term Monthly Temperature, Precipitation,
and J W Hurrell. Sea Level Pressure, and Station Pressure Data.” http://iridl.
ldeo.columbia.edu/SOURCES/.NOAA/.NCDC/.GHCN/.
Global Runoff Data Center (GRDC). 2015. “Watershed
v2beta/.
Boundaries of GRDC Stations.” http://grdc.bafg.de.
UN Water. 2016. Monitoring Water and Sanitation in
Hannah, David et al. 2011. “Large-Scale River Flow
the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. New
Archives: Importance, Current Status and Future Needs.”
York: United Nations Water. http://www.unwater.org/
Hydrological Processes 25: 1191–1200.
publications/publications-detail/en/c/379864/.
Informatics, Aquatic. 2015. Global Hydrological Monitoring
Wahl, K. et al. 1995. “Stream-Gaging Program of the
Industry Trends. Vancouver: Aquatic Informatics. http://
U.S. Geological Survey.” U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
www.aquaticinformatics.com.
CIRCULAR 1123. https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1123/
Kundzewicz, Zbigniew. 1997. “Water Resources for overview.html
Sustainable Development.” Hydrological Sciences Journal
WMO. 2008. Guide to Hydrology- From Measurement
42(4): 467–80.
to Hydrological Information. Sixth Ed. Geneva: World
Levy, Marc. 2017. Getting the Most out of SDG Data Meteorological Organization.
Investments: A Guide to Increasing Value by Focusing
Zhulidov, A V, V V Khlobystov, R D Robarts, and D F Pavlov.
on Decision Needs and Portfolio Design. Forthcoming
2000. “Critical Analysis of Water Quality Monitoring in the
Publication. Sustainable Development Solutions Network
Russian Federation and Former Soviet Union.” Canadian
(SDSN).
Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 57: 1932–39.

19
Xylem |'zīl m| e
1) The tissue in plants that brings water upward from the roots;
2) a leading global water technology company.

We’re a global team unified in a common purpose: creating advanced technology solutions to the
world’s water challenges. Developing new technologies that will improve the way water is used,
conserved, and reused in the future is central to our work. Our products and services move, treat,
analyze, monitor and return water to the environment in public utility, industrial, residential and
commercial building services settings. With its October 2016 acquisition of Sensus, Xylem added
smart metering, network technologies and advanced data analytics for water, gas and electric
utilities to its portfolio of solutions. In more than 150 countries, we have strong, long-standing
relationships with customers who know us for our powerful combination of leading product brands
and applications expertise, and a sharp focus on developing comprehensive, sustainable solutions.

Xylem, Let’s Solve Water, Flygt, Godwin Pumps, Lowara, Multitrode, Wedeco, YSI, Experior,
Adaptive N-Pump, SmartRun, e-SV, Spektron, Dri-Prime, Prime Guard, Multismart and
Slimline are trademarks or registered trademarks of Xylem Inc. or one of its subsidiaries.

For more information on how Xylem can help you, go to www.xylem.com

Xylem Inc.
1 International Drive
Rye Brook, New York 10573
United States of America
[email protected]
www.xylem.com
©2017 Xylem Inc.