the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 14 May 2025
User priorities for hydrological monitoring infrastructures supporting research and innovation
Abstract. Observational data availability, quality, and access are major obstacles to hydrological science and innovation. To alleviate these issues, major investments are being made in hydrological monitoring infrastructures to enable data collection and sharing at unprecedented scales and resolution. These projects integrate a range of complex physical and digital components, which require careful design to prioritise the needs of end-users and optimise their value delivery. We present here the findings of multiple-methods research on end-user needs for a £38 million hydrological monitoring and research infrastructure in the UK, integrating a systematic literature review of common user-requirements with interviews of 20 national stakeholders. We find an overall trend in demand for infrastructures that complement their provision of baseline hydrological datasets, where feasible, with additional services designed specifically to enable wider and more decentralised data collection. This can unlock the capacities of user communities by addressing barriers to data collection through, for example, the provision of land access, reliable benchmark datasets, equipment rental and technical support. Similarly, value can be unlocked by providing data management services, including data access, storage, quality control, processing, visualisation and communication. Our respondents further consider digital and physical spaces where users can collaborate to be critical for incubating genuine value to science and innovation. We conclude that new hydrological monitoring infrastructures require concurrent investments to build and nurture associated research and innovation communities, where specific enabling support is provided to facilitate collaborations. Supplementing digital and monitoring services with support for data collection and collaboration among active, value-generating user communities can produce multiplier effects from initial capital investments, by attracting longer-term contributions of ideas, methods, findings, technologies, data, training and investments from their beneficiaries.
Competing interests: At least one of the (co-)authors is a member of the editorial board of Hydrology and Earth System Sciences. The peer-review process was guided by an independent editor, and the authors also have no other competing interests to declare.
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(1258 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1258 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2035', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 May 2025
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', William Veness, 17 Jun 2025
Thank you for your well-considered and detailed comments – these will certainly improve the communication of our work and the quality of the article overall. Replying to each comment in-turn:
- Clarify the Framing Around Data Scarcity
We agree this can be framed more clearly. We intend to communicate that the issue of scarcity relates in most cases to locally-collected, in-situ or high resolution hydrological datasets and will add that clarification. And indeed for existing datasets (such as remotely-sensed data), issues of data access, sharing and use remain barriers despite greater availability. We will make this clearer in the introduction.
- Relate More Clearly to Existing Research Infrastructures
We agree that the article will benefit from this. We will add to the introduction to provide reader context on how FDRI fits in with broader research infrastructures and observatories. Then (relating to your Comment 6), we will offer more reflection in the discussion on the implications of FDRI’s design recommendations for its future role and relationships with other infrastructures (in sub-section ‘Considerations for Operational Sustainability’). We especially agree that there is a need to relate to those that have broader ecological/environmental focuses such as eLTER in these sections, as the systematic review procedure maintained a narrower focus on hydrological research and data infrastructures.
- Improve Transparency and Justification of Stakeholder Sampling
We will expand the explanation in Section 2.2 to provide clearer details about respondent selection, including roles, sectors, and levels of seniority. We will also add detail of how preliminary workshops guided the selection of key informants through purposive and snowball sampling of FDRI’s major expected user groups. Through FDRI’s large project network, we were able to purposively sample key informants from expected major user groups, whilst specifically targeting individuals recognised by others to be knowledgeable about data and research infrastructures like FDRI. Sampling participants with prior experience and understanding of such infrastructures enabled deeper reflections on design elements and priorities.
We emphasise for transparency in the methods that the sample size (n=20) was intended for breadth and depth in a formative design phase and that further rounds of stakeholder engagement are planned. On reflection, we can better clarify this in the conclusion (such as after Line 587) to ensure the reader is aware of sample size limitations and will add this to the revised manuscript.
- Refine Terminology and Conceptual Framing
Thank you for this observation. The terms used, such as those you highlight, reflect the language commonly used by our interviewees, and we chose to retain them to stay closer to the original expressions of stakeholder perspectives. Also, where they are used, these terms are supported by more specific sub-themes in the tables and are discussed in more detail throughout the text. We hope this helps clarify their meaning. That said, we will keep this point in mind when reviewing the full manuscript in light of all reviewer feedback and consider whether any further clarification or rewording could be helpful to the reader.
- Clarify the Manuscript Structure: Results vs. Discussion
Thank you for this thoughtful comment. We agree this raises an important point about what constitutes “results” in interpretative qualitative research, and we could improve the article by adding clarifications/modifications to the manuscript.
Firstly, to address the comment on normative claims, we agree there are occasions when interviewee perspectives on FDRI are combined with literature references, then language is used that presents interviewee perspectives more normatively (such as Line 269). We will revise phrasing throughout the results to make it clear when stakeholder recommendations made are specific to FDRI. Then, where there is broader support from the literature, that will be noted additionally. This should help distinguish FDRI-specific observations from generalised recommendations in the results.
Secondly, regarding restructuring, we recognise that Section 3.3 of the results in particular seems more interpretive than descriptive, as the priorities presented are interpretative syntheses based on themes that emerged across the full interview set - not from a single question as in Sections 3.1 and 3.2. We believe this section still belongs in the results. It is common when conducting interviews and inductive analysis for ‘emergent’ points of emphasis (or themes) such as these to arise that span across different questions. In more structured approaches to qualitative research these might be omitted from the results. Here we feel that, pragmatically, and given the semi-structured nature of these interviews, the level of emphasis and evidence supporting these structural design priorities warrants their reporting as an important, relevant result from the semi-structured interview and literature review procedure.
We will address this second point explicitly with more explanation in the final paragraph of the methods. Specifically, this will justify the inclusion of Section 3.3 in the results section and explain how ‘design priorities’ had a dedicated round of thematic coding inclusive of all questions, in contrast to Sections 3.1 and 3.2, where only direct responses to single questions were coded. We will also add clearer explanation at the start of Section 3.3 in the results (Line 390 onward) about how these design priorities were recorded separately in the interview analysis.
- Strengthen the Discussion and Critical Reflection
This is a very helpful recommendation and links back to Comment 1. We will add a new paragraph in the discussion Section ‘Considerations for Operational Sustainability’ about implications of this study’s findings for FDRI’s (and equivalent infrastructures’) future role and relationships with other research and data infrastructures, drawing on the references that will have been newly introduced to the introduction.
Best wishes from the Authors.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2035-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', William Veness, 17 Jun 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2035', Anonymous Referee #2, 01 Jul 2025
This manuscript describes a research project seeking to inform an effort to improve hydrological monitoring infrastructure through deliberate user engagement about priorities. The manuscript is clearly written, the methods are sound, the contribution is laid out in a logical and clear fashion, and the manuscript does what it sets out to do. It makes a nice contribution to the field of user-centered water data system development.
I just have a very few minor edits to suggest.
First, in the last paragraph of the introduction (85-90) it would be helpful to add one or two sentences on what questions the research seeks to answer- e.g., "This study seeks to learn more about the specific end-user data needs and priorities to inform development of the FDRI so that the system is responsive and useful" or something along those lines.
Second, in Figure 3, it may be helpful to draw a line between "cost" and "supporting infrastructure" as these seem related.
Third, in the references, there are a few places where an additional paragraph break/ line space is needed where multiple references run together.
This is a clearly written paper that makes a nice contribution to a growing body of scholarship on user-driven data systems and I look forward to its publication.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2035-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', William Veness, 03 Jul 2025
We sincerely thank the reviewer for taking the time to provide thoughtful feedback on our manuscript and for recognising its contribution to user-centred hydrological monitoring system development.
We appreciate the helpful suggestions for improvement. For the first point, we agree this is important. We will add one to two sentences to the final paragraph of the introduction to clarify the specific research questions the study seeks to address. The second observation is also very helpful and highlights a link that didn't make it into the visualisation - we will update Figure 3 to include a connecting line between “cost” and “supporting infrastructure” to better illustrate this relationship. We will also carefully check the reference list and ensure paragraph breaks are correctly formatted.
Best wishes from the authors.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2035-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', William Veness, 03 Jul 2025
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2035', Anonymous Referee #3, 04 Jul 2025
General comments
The paper presents a study aiming at defining the needs and priorities of future users of the Floods and Droughts Research Infrastructures, which is currently developed in the UK.
The study is based on literature review and on semi-structured interviews of future users. The paper is generally well written and clear. It is informative and provides results that are somehow unexpected (like the majority or responses highlighting the “community” theme (line 251).
The paper is UK centered and could benefit from a better positioning within what is done in the international community (see some suggestions below).
I suggest moderate revision of the paper to address the specific points listed below.Specific comments
1/ A general comment: in the manuscript, the use of the word “infrastructure” is ambiguous, as, to my understanding, it is use for things that are different. The word can refer to physical elements in the fields including sensors, a data information system or an organization that provides services, like its use in the context of European Strategic Forum for Research Infrastructures (ESFRI), in particular the eLTER RI (Integrated European Long-Term Ecosystem, critical zone and socio-ecological Research, https://elter-ri.eu/ ). This ambiguity makes the reading of the paper sometimes confusing. Clarification of the meaning or the use of other words within the paper is recommended.
2/ Line 44: the argument about data scarcity in hydrological sciences is not necessarily true now, with the avenue of satellite data products with a spatial and temporal resolution which becomes relevant for hydrological studies and provide high resolution data that can be useful in water resources management and in running or evaluating models.
3/ Line 69: explicit the acronym WRM
4/ Lines102: is the Water4All European partnership relevant for the UK (https://www.water4all-partnership.eu/ ). This project is also conducting a survey to define the users’needs.
5/ Lines 119, 125: ensures and note ensure
6/ section 2.1: I am surprised not to see the words “information system” in the search query.
7/ line 147: if I understood correctly, you launched the project using online questionnaire and online workshops. Could you have a bias in the participation of such events, that tends to attract persons that usually participate in such events. How do you ensure that you have reached all the potential users?
8/ Line 212: could you explain what an inductive approach is?
9/ Line 335: users ask for real-time access to data. This objective is more an operational one and is generally the role of monitoring networks. However, the initial objective of the FDRI network is “to support state-of-the-art research and innovation” (line 72). This seems somehow incompatible.
10/ Lin 355: FAIR principles are only principles and their practical implementation may lead to different interpretations. Their meaning within the context of the FDRI program should be defined.
11/ Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) standards are not only relevant for remote sensing date. They are also relevant for vector data.
12/ p13: I am surprised not to see the harmonization of protocols to measure the targeted observed properties as an issue. It proves to be a challenge (for instance, in the eLTER RI, it required several years of work (Zacharias et al, 2025)
13/ Line 364: “automated by manually verified processes”: could you elaborate on the way you see the implementation of such processes?
14/ Line 371: I am surprised to see that the used of X or Facebook is suggested. With such platforms, how do you ensure the protection of personal data?
15/ p.15: would the paper of Brantley et al. (2017) be relevant for your discussion?16/ Figure 3: could you add some elements in the caption on how to read this figure?
17/ lines 582-591: this paragraph is more discussion than conclusion
References
Brantley, S. L., McDowell, W. H., Dietrich, W. E., White, T. S., Kumar, P., Anderson, S. P., Chorover, J., Lohse, K. A., Bales, R. C., Richter, D. D., Grant, G., and Gaillardet, J.: Designing a network of critical zone observatories to explore the living skin of the terrestrial Earth, Earth Surf. Dynam., 5, 841-860, 10.5194/esurf-5-841-2017, 2017.
Zacharias, S., Lumpi, T., Weldon, J., Dirnböck, T., Gaillardet, J., Haase, P., Kühn, I., Vereecken, H., Bäck, J., Bergami, C., Bertsch-Hoermann, B., Braud, I., Cools, N., Dick, J., Dor-Haim, S., Forsius, M., Futter, M.N., Gaube, V., Groner, E., Halada, L., Kauppi, L., Lami, A., Lindholm, T., Marangi, C., Matteucci, G., Mendez, P.F., Mueller, C., Monteith, D., Nejstgaard, J., Nikolaidis, N.P., Oggioni, A., Orenstein, D.E., Piscart, C., Pons M.-N., Ptacnik, R., Rinke, K., Sanden, T., Schaub, M., Schrön, M., Schütze, C., Siebert, C., Spiegel, A., Thornton, J.M., Vogel, H.J., Mirtl, M., 2025. Achieving harmonized and integrated long-term environmental observation of essential ecosystem variables - eLTER’s Framework of Standard Observations, Earth and Space Science Open Archive, https://doi.org/10.22541/essoar.175130653.38919874/v1 .
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2035-RC3 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', William Veness, 16 Jul 2025
Thank you to the reviewer for their detailed comments that will certainly improve the manuscript. And we agree, the findings on community elements are interesting and should generate interesting lines of research and scientific debate. We reply to each of the detailed comments in-turn.
1/ A general comment: in the manuscript, the use of the word “infrastructure” is ambiguous, as, to my understanding, it is use for things that are different. The word can refer to physical elements in the fields including sensors, a data information system or an organization that provides services, like its use in the context of European Strategic Forum for Research Infrastructures (ESFRI), in particular the eLTER RI (Integrated European Long-Term Ecosystem, critical zone and socio-ecological Research, https://elter-ri.eu/ ). This ambiguity makes the reading of the paper sometimes confusing. Clarification of the meaning or the use of other words within the paper is recommended.
We agree that we use the term infrastructure for different meanings in the paper and this can be confusing. There is some variance in how eLTER and other infrastructures define themselves, owing mostly to slight differences in their objectives. So we will add to the introduction a clearer description of the infrastructure landscape (eLTER included), how they are defined and how FDRI is defined as a monitoring and research infrastructure within that landscape (FDRI has a greater emphasis on in-situ monitoring data than some research infrastructures). This aligns with comments from the other 2 reviewers.
In other parts of the paper, such as when talking about fixed, mobile and digital components of the monitoring infrastructure, it would be clearer to use the word ‘component’ to avoid confusion – we will make those changes too and any other language clarifications where appropriate.2/ Line 44: the argument about data scarcity in hydrological sciences is not necessarily true now, with the avenue of satellite data products with a spatial and temporal resolution which becomes relevant for hydrological studies and provide high resolution data that can be useful in water resources management and in running or evaluating models.
Thank you. This reinforces the first suggestion made by Reviewer 1 for better framing around data scarcity, to which we responded:
“We agree this can be framed more clearly. We intend to communicate that the issue of scarcity relates in most cases to locally-collected, in-situ or high resolution hydrological datasets and will add that clarification. And indeed for existing datasets (such as remotely-sensed data), issues of data access, sharing and use remain barriers despite a wide and growing availability. We will make this clearer in the introduction.”3/ Line 69: explicit the acronym WRM
Thanks, will do.
4/ Lines102: is the Water4All European partnership relevant for the UK (https://www.water4all-partnership.eu/ ). This project is also conducting a survey to define the users’needs.
This is indeed relevant, thank you. We will include that in the introduction and seek internally to connect with them.
5/ Lines 119, 125: ensures and note ensure
Thanks
6/ section 2.1: I am surprised not to see the words “information system” in the search query.
We agree this search term would have been appropriate. However, we expect that the inclusion of the terms “monitoring” and “data” has captured most or all of the literature focussed on information systems relevant to the other search terms.
7/ line 147: if I understood correctly, you launched the project using online questionnaire and online workshops. Could you have a bias in the participation of such events, that tends to attract persons that usually participate in such events. How do you ensure that you have reached all the potential users?
We will add some detail in the methods on the scoping survey (127 completed), 2 workshops (81 total attendees), stakeholder group discussions (20 held) and how they were setup to be inclusive for a representative sample of FDRI’s expected users. This was an iterative process as scoping stage discussions gradually refine the objectives, services and potential users of the infrastructure. More details on the scoping study available here (https://www.ceh.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2022-06/FDRI_Community%20Report_FINAL.pdf).
8/ Line 212: could you explain what an inductive approach is?
Will clarify this better in the paper methods. It is a qualitative research approach whereby questions do not have pre-set answers, and instead ‘codes’ and ‘themes’ are generated and tagged to sections of text by the data analyst based on their interpretation of the qualitative responses.
9/ Line 335: users ask for real-time access to data. This objective is more an operational one and is generally the role of monitoring networks. However, the initial objective of the FDRI network is “to support state-of-the-art research and innovation” (line 72). This seems somehow incompatible.
Thanks, this touches upon a prudent debate on real-time data that we can elaborate more clearly in the text. One of FDRI’s priorities is to support practical research to support better management of floods, droughts and other hydrological issues in the UK. As such, studies such as those involving citizen scientists (e.g. surge monitoring in 24 hours after a flood), and studies evaluating operational or management activities sometimes require real-time data to trigger or inform subsequent data collection efforts. It is also an important additional incentive/reward for engagement with research activities for civil society, community and industrial data user/contributors if their efforts yield real-time data, insights or feedback that is interesting or useful to them. On the other side of the debate, real-time data is more expensive and comes with operational risks such as telemetry failure, so this is a decision to take case-by-case considering the benefit, costs and operational risks of the data being real-time.
10/ Lin 355: FAIR principles are only principles and their practical implementation may lead to different interpretations. Their meaning within the context of the FDRI program should be defined.
Good point, we will do so.
11/ Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) standards are not only relevant for remote sensing date. They are also relevant for vector data.
Thank you, we will clarify this.
12/ p13: I am surprised not to see the harmonization of protocols to measure the targeted observed properties as an issue. It proves to be a challenge (for instance, in the eLTER RI, it required several years of work (Zacharias et al, 2025)
Thank you, this is a very good point and it is brilliant to see this research by Zacharias et al. (2025). This was raised by respondents T1, A6 and A9 in particular but have been coded to other labels such as standardisation, FAIR principles, quality assurance and control, interoperability etc. We agree this is a major issue and should be addressed explicitly in the text. Harmonisation of protocols can be addressed explicitly the analysis on digital infrastructure requirements in Section 3.2, as well as Section 3.3. in the analysis of required data collection enabling services.
13/ Line 364: “automated by manually verified processes”: could you elaborate on the way you see the implementation of such processes?
We will elaborate on this – respondents advised periodic manual reviews and alerts for QA/QC input when issues are flagged that need review.
14/ Line 371: I am surprised to see that the used of X or Facebook is suggested. With such platforms, how do you ensure the protection of personal data?
We will add a note on this, but this is largely just as a data, insights and research communication & tool where data sharing agreements allow. We will add a note however on personal data considerations of subsequent engagement of users on those platforms.
15/ p.15: would the paper of Brantley et al. (2017) be relevant for your discussion?
Thank you and yes, the common measurements across the CZOs networks in the US are especially interesting here. It is certainly worth raising and including in the introduction as ‘critical zone observatory’ is another definition to define early in this article.
16/ Figure 3: could you add some elements in the caption on how to read this figure?
Yes, thank you for flagging this.
17/ lines 582-591: this paragraph is more discussion than conclusion
Agreed. We will move this into the discussion. Thank you for your review and thoughtful comments.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2035-AC3
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', William Veness, 16 Jul 2025
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2035', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 May 2025
This manuscript presents a timely and well-motivated investigation into user requirements for the UK's upcoming Floods and Droughts Research Infrastructure (FDRI), with a broader aim of informing the design of hydrological research infrastructures. The authors combine a systematic literature review with stakeholder interviews, which is methodologically sound and provides a basis for generating practical recommendations. The topic is highly relevant given the ongoing development of environmental monitoring infrastructures and the need for user-driven design.
However, I recommend major revisions for the following reasons:
1. Clarify the Framing Around Data Scarcity
The manuscript repeatedly refers to “data scarcity” as a key limitation to hydrological science and innovation (e.g., lines 44–50), yet does not sufficiently engage with the reality that large volumes of hydrological data already exist—including through well-established datasets such as CHIRPS (Funk et al., 2015), the Global Flood Database (Blöschl et al., 2020), CAMELS/CARAVAN (Kratzert et al., 2023), and ISMN. The issue is not simply scarcity, but the cost and complexity of leveraging existing data, including labour, integration, and access barriers. This point is acknowledged in passing (line 49), but it must be integrated more centrally and explicitly into the framing of the manuscript to avoid a misleading narrative.
2. Relate More Clearly to Existing Research Infrastructures
While the manuscript briefly references international infrastructures like TERENO and OZCAR (lines 64–66), it does not go far enough in situating FDRI within the existing ecosystem of RIs, especially eLTER. For instance, Ohnemus et al. (2024) present a comprehensive vision for eLTER RI, which includes a significant hydrological component. It is unclear why FDRI is not part of eLTER, or how it complements or diverges from its goals and structure. Similarly, recent work on pre-implementation (line 133) design of hydrological observatories (e.g. Nasta et al., 2025) and assessments of RI's user needs and surveys on data gaps (Baatz et al., 2018) are highly relevant and must be addressed directly to highlight this study’s novelty. The omission of these discussions weakens the positioning of the manuscript.
3. Improve Transparency and Justification of Stakeholder Sampling
The stakeholder interviews form a core pillar of the study, yet the manuscript does not provide enough information to evaluate their representativeness or significance. The authors mention that 20 stakeholders were interviewed and categorized by sector (lines 153–160), but they do not specify the respondents’ levels of seniority, expertise, or relevance to RI design and operation. Since the study draws major conclusions from a small sample, this contextual information is critical—especially where only one or two responses appear sufficient to warrant thematic inclusion (Table 1). I recommend the authors clarify the selection process, balance of perspectives, and relative weight given to each respondent type.
4. Refine Terminology and Conceptual Framing
Several terms used throughout the manuscript are imprecise or informal. For example, referring to "community" as a value category (line 250) feels vague and may trivialize important stakeholder roles. Terms like “expert networks,” “cross-sector innovation consortia,” or “interdisciplinary research communities” would improve clarity and align better with the discourse on research infrastructure planning. Similarly, “more and better data” (line 252) is too general—more specific terminology regarding data resolution, accessibility, interoperability, or long-term reliability would enhance the precision of the analysis.
5. Clarify the Manuscript Structure: Results vs. Discussion
The manuscript currently presents substantial interpretation and normative claims within the Results section (e.g., section 3.3 on “Structural Design Priorities”, or lines 495 onwards). Many of these points—such as design recommendations, innovation pathways, or sustainability implications—would be more appropriately placed in the Discussion section. I recommend reorganizing the manuscript to clearly separate descriptive findings from interpretive insights. Doing so would enhance readability and strengthen the logic of the argument.
6. Strengthen the Discussion and Critical Reflection
The Discussion section (Section 4) currently functions more as a continuation of the results, reiterating conceptual points rather than reflecting critically on the implications of the findings. A deeper discussion is needed on how FDRI can position itself within national RIs, related RIs in other countries, and or internationally, drawing on similar concepts such as transnational access frameworks (e.g., ESFRI, Horizon Europe), and how its structure might evolve in light of lessons learned from other RIs. Engaging more directly with European strategies for open data, FAIR principles, and transdisciplinary collaboration would help clarify what makes FDRI unique and where it might integrate or diverge from existing models.
Conclusion
This manuscript addresses a critical and contemporary issue and makes a valuable contribution in concept. However, a more precise framing, fuller engagement with related work, clearer stakeholder justification, and improved structural organization are needed to realize its full potential.Baatz et al. 2018 https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-9-593-2018
Blöschl et al. 2020 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2478-3
Funk et al. 2015 https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2015.66
Kratzert et al. 2023 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-023-01975-w
Nasta et al. 2025 https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-465-2025
Ohnemus et al. 2024 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2024.100456Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2035-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', William Veness, 17 Jun 2025
Thank you for your well-considered and detailed comments – these will certainly improve the communication of our work and the quality of the article overall. Replying to each comment in-turn:
- Clarify the Framing Around Data Scarcity
We agree this can be framed more clearly. We intend to communicate that the issue of scarcity relates in most cases to locally-collected, in-situ or high resolution hydrological datasets and will add that clarification. And indeed for existing datasets (such as remotely-sensed data), issues of data access, sharing and use remain barriers despite greater availability. We will make this clearer in the introduction.
- Relate More Clearly to Existing Research Infrastructures
We agree that the article will benefit from this. We will add to the introduction to provide reader context on how FDRI fits in with broader research infrastructures and observatories. Then (relating to your Comment 6), we will offer more reflection in the discussion on the implications of FDRI’s design recommendations for its future role and relationships with other infrastructures (in sub-section ‘Considerations for Operational Sustainability’). We especially agree that there is a need to relate to those that have broader ecological/environmental focuses such as eLTER in these sections, as the systematic review procedure maintained a narrower focus on hydrological research and data infrastructures.
- Improve Transparency and Justification of Stakeholder Sampling
We will expand the explanation in Section 2.2 to provide clearer details about respondent selection, including roles, sectors, and levels of seniority. We will also add detail of how preliminary workshops guided the selection of key informants through purposive and snowball sampling of FDRI’s major expected user groups. Through FDRI’s large project network, we were able to purposively sample key informants from expected major user groups, whilst specifically targeting individuals recognised by others to be knowledgeable about data and research infrastructures like FDRI. Sampling participants with prior experience and understanding of such infrastructures enabled deeper reflections on design elements and priorities.
We emphasise for transparency in the methods that the sample size (n=20) was intended for breadth and depth in a formative design phase and that further rounds of stakeholder engagement are planned. On reflection, we can better clarify this in the conclusion (such as after Line 587) to ensure the reader is aware of sample size limitations and will add this to the revised manuscript.
- Refine Terminology and Conceptual Framing
Thank you for this observation. The terms used, such as those you highlight, reflect the language commonly used by our interviewees, and we chose to retain them to stay closer to the original expressions of stakeholder perspectives. Also, where they are used, these terms are supported by more specific sub-themes in the tables and are discussed in more detail throughout the text. We hope this helps clarify their meaning. That said, we will keep this point in mind when reviewing the full manuscript in light of all reviewer feedback and consider whether any further clarification or rewording could be helpful to the reader.
- Clarify the Manuscript Structure: Results vs. Discussion
Thank you for this thoughtful comment. We agree this raises an important point about what constitutes “results” in interpretative qualitative research, and we could improve the article by adding clarifications/modifications to the manuscript.
Firstly, to address the comment on normative claims, we agree there are occasions when interviewee perspectives on FDRI are combined with literature references, then language is used that presents interviewee perspectives more normatively (such as Line 269). We will revise phrasing throughout the results to make it clear when stakeholder recommendations made are specific to FDRI. Then, where there is broader support from the literature, that will be noted additionally. This should help distinguish FDRI-specific observations from generalised recommendations in the results.
Secondly, regarding restructuring, we recognise that Section 3.3 of the results in particular seems more interpretive than descriptive, as the priorities presented are interpretative syntheses based on themes that emerged across the full interview set - not from a single question as in Sections 3.1 and 3.2. We believe this section still belongs in the results. It is common when conducting interviews and inductive analysis for ‘emergent’ points of emphasis (or themes) such as these to arise that span across different questions. In more structured approaches to qualitative research these might be omitted from the results. Here we feel that, pragmatically, and given the semi-structured nature of these interviews, the level of emphasis and evidence supporting these structural design priorities warrants their reporting as an important, relevant result from the semi-structured interview and literature review procedure.
We will address this second point explicitly with more explanation in the final paragraph of the methods. Specifically, this will justify the inclusion of Section 3.3 in the results section and explain how ‘design priorities’ had a dedicated round of thematic coding inclusive of all questions, in contrast to Sections 3.1 and 3.2, where only direct responses to single questions were coded. We will also add clearer explanation at the start of Section 3.3 in the results (Line 390 onward) about how these design priorities were recorded separately in the interview analysis.
- Strengthen the Discussion and Critical Reflection
This is a very helpful recommendation and links back to Comment 1. We will add a new paragraph in the discussion Section ‘Considerations for Operational Sustainability’ about implications of this study’s findings for FDRI’s (and equivalent infrastructures’) future role and relationships with other research and data infrastructures, drawing on the references that will have been newly introduced to the introduction.
Best wishes from the Authors.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2035-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', William Veness, 17 Jun 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2035', Anonymous Referee #2, 01 Jul 2025
This manuscript describes a research project seeking to inform an effort to improve hydrological monitoring infrastructure through deliberate user engagement about priorities. The manuscript is clearly written, the methods are sound, the contribution is laid out in a logical and clear fashion, and the manuscript does what it sets out to do. It makes a nice contribution to the field of user-centered water data system development.
I just have a very few minor edits to suggest.
First, in the last paragraph of the introduction (85-90) it would be helpful to add one or two sentences on what questions the research seeks to answer- e.g., "This study seeks to learn more about the specific end-user data needs and priorities to inform development of the FDRI so that the system is responsive and useful" or something along those lines.
Second, in Figure 3, it may be helpful to draw a line between "cost" and "supporting infrastructure" as these seem related.
Third, in the references, there are a few places where an additional paragraph break/ line space is needed where multiple references run together.
This is a clearly written paper that makes a nice contribution to a growing body of scholarship on user-driven data systems and I look forward to its publication.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2035-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', William Veness, 03 Jul 2025
We sincerely thank the reviewer for taking the time to provide thoughtful feedback on our manuscript and for recognising its contribution to user-centred hydrological monitoring system development.
We appreciate the helpful suggestions for improvement. For the first point, we agree this is important. We will add one to two sentences to the final paragraph of the introduction to clarify the specific research questions the study seeks to address. The second observation is also very helpful and highlights a link that didn't make it into the visualisation - we will update Figure 3 to include a connecting line between “cost” and “supporting infrastructure” to better illustrate this relationship. We will also carefully check the reference list and ensure paragraph breaks are correctly formatted.
Best wishes from the authors.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2035-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', William Veness, 03 Jul 2025
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2035', Anonymous Referee #3, 04 Jul 2025
General comments
The paper presents a study aiming at defining the needs and priorities of future users of the Floods and Droughts Research Infrastructures, which is currently developed in the UK.
The study is based on literature review and on semi-structured interviews of future users. The paper is generally well written and clear. It is informative and provides results that are somehow unexpected (like the majority or responses highlighting the “community” theme (line 251).
The paper is UK centered and could benefit from a better positioning within what is done in the international community (see some suggestions below).
I suggest moderate revision of the paper to address the specific points listed below.Specific comments
1/ A general comment: in the manuscript, the use of the word “infrastructure” is ambiguous, as, to my understanding, it is use for things that are different. The word can refer to physical elements in the fields including sensors, a data information system or an organization that provides services, like its use in the context of European Strategic Forum for Research Infrastructures (ESFRI), in particular the eLTER RI (Integrated European Long-Term Ecosystem, critical zone and socio-ecological Research, https://elter-ri.eu/ ). This ambiguity makes the reading of the paper sometimes confusing. Clarification of the meaning or the use of other words within the paper is recommended.
2/ Line 44: the argument about data scarcity in hydrological sciences is not necessarily true now, with the avenue of satellite data products with a spatial and temporal resolution which becomes relevant for hydrological studies and provide high resolution data that can be useful in water resources management and in running or evaluating models.
3/ Line 69: explicit the acronym WRM
4/ Lines102: is the Water4All European partnership relevant for the UK (https://www.water4all-partnership.eu/ ). This project is also conducting a survey to define the users’needs.
5/ Lines 119, 125: ensures and note ensure
6/ section 2.1: I am surprised not to see the words “information system” in the search query.
7/ line 147: if I understood correctly, you launched the project using online questionnaire and online workshops. Could you have a bias in the participation of such events, that tends to attract persons that usually participate in such events. How do you ensure that you have reached all the potential users?
8/ Line 212: could you explain what an inductive approach is?
9/ Line 335: users ask for real-time access to data. This objective is more an operational one and is generally the role of monitoring networks. However, the initial objective of the FDRI network is “to support state-of-the-art research and innovation” (line 72). This seems somehow incompatible.
10/ Lin 355: FAIR principles are only principles and their practical implementation may lead to different interpretations. Their meaning within the context of the FDRI program should be defined.
11/ Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) standards are not only relevant for remote sensing date. They are also relevant for vector data.
12/ p13: I am surprised not to see the harmonization of protocols to measure the targeted observed properties as an issue. It proves to be a challenge (for instance, in the eLTER RI, it required several years of work (Zacharias et al, 2025)
13/ Line 364: “automated by manually verified processes”: could you elaborate on the way you see the implementation of such processes?
14/ Line 371: I am surprised to see that the used of X or Facebook is suggested. With such platforms, how do you ensure the protection of personal data?
15/ p.15: would the paper of Brantley et al. (2017) be relevant for your discussion?16/ Figure 3: could you add some elements in the caption on how to read this figure?
17/ lines 582-591: this paragraph is more discussion than conclusion
References
Brantley, S. L., McDowell, W. H., Dietrich, W. E., White, T. S., Kumar, P., Anderson, S. P., Chorover, J., Lohse, K. A., Bales, R. C., Richter, D. D., Grant, G., and Gaillardet, J.: Designing a network of critical zone observatories to explore the living skin of the terrestrial Earth, Earth Surf. Dynam., 5, 841-860, 10.5194/esurf-5-841-2017, 2017.
Zacharias, S., Lumpi, T., Weldon, J., Dirnböck, T., Gaillardet, J., Haase, P., Kühn, I., Vereecken, H., Bäck, J., Bergami, C., Bertsch-Hoermann, B., Braud, I., Cools, N., Dick, J., Dor-Haim, S., Forsius, M., Futter, M.N., Gaube, V., Groner, E., Halada, L., Kauppi, L., Lami, A., Lindholm, T., Marangi, C., Matteucci, G., Mendez, P.F., Mueller, C., Monteith, D., Nejstgaard, J., Nikolaidis, N.P., Oggioni, A., Orenstein, D.E., Piscart, C., Pons M.-N., Ptacnik, R., Rinke, K., Sanden, T., Schaub, M., Schrön, M., Schütze, C., Siebert, C., Spiegel, A., Thornton, J.M., Vogel, H.J., Mirtl, M., 2025. Achieving harmonized and integrated long-term environmental observation of essential ecosystem variables - eLTER’s Framework of Standard Observations, Earth and Space Science Open Archive, https://doi.org/10.22541/essoar.175130653.38919874/v1 .
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2035-RC3 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', William Veness, 16 Jul 2025
Thank you to the reviewer for their detailed comments that will certainly improve the manuscript. And we agree, the findings on community elements are interesting and should generate interesting lines of research and scientific debate. We reply to each of the detailed comments in-turn.
1/ A general comment: in the manuscript, the use of the word “infrastructure” is ambiguous, as, to my understanding, it is use for things that are different. The word can refer to physical elements in the fields including sensors, a data information system or an organization that provides services, like its use in the context of European Strategic Forum for Research Infrastructures (ESFRI), in particular the eLTER RI (Integrated European Long-Term Ecosystem, critical zone and socio-ecological Research, https://elter-ri.eu/ ). This ambiguity makes the reading of the paper sometimes confusing. Clarification of the meaning or the use of other words within the paper is recommended.
We agree that we use the term infrastructure for different meanings in the paper and this can be confusing. There is some variance in how eLTER and other infrastructures define themselves, owing mostly to slight differences in their objectives. So we will add to the introduction a clearer description of the infrastructure landscape (eLTER included), how they are defined and how FDRI is defined as a monitoring and research infrastructure within that landscape (FDRI has a greater emphasis on in-situ monitoring data than some research infrastructures). This aligns with comments from the other 2 reviewers.
In other parts of the paper, such as when talking about fixed, mobile and digital components of the monitoring infrastructure, it would be clearer to use the word ‘component’ to avoid confusion – we will make those changes too and any other language clarifications where appropriate.2/ Line 44: the argument about data scarcity in hydrological sciences is not necessarily true now, with the avenue of satellite data products with a spatial and temporal resolution which becomes relevant for hydrological studies and provide high resolution data that can be useful in water resources management and in running or evaluating models.
Thank you. This reinforces the first suggestion made by Reviewer 1 for better framing around data scarcity, to which we responded:
“We agree this can be framed more clearly. We intend to communicate that the issue of scarcity relates in most cases to locally-collected, in-situ or high resolution hydrological datasets and will add that clarification. And indeed for existing datasets (such as remotely-sensed data), issues of data access, sharing and use remain barriers despite a wide and growing availability. We will make this clearer in the introduction.”3/ Line 69: explicit the acronym WRM
Thanks, will do.
4/ Lines102: is the Water4All European partnership relevant for the UK (https://www.water4all-partnership.eu/ ). This project is also conducting a survey to define the users’needs.
This is indeed relevant, thank you. We will include that in the introduction and seek internally to connect with them.
5/ Lines 119, 125: ensures and note ensure
Thanks
6/ section 2.1: I am surprised not to see the words “information system” in the search query.
We agree this search term would have been appropriate. However, we expect that the inclusion of the terms “monitoring” and “data” has captured most or all of the literature focussed on information systems relevant to the other search terms.
7/ line 147: if I understood correctly, you launched the project using online questionnaire and online workshops. Could you have a bias in the participation of such events, that tends to attract persons that usually participate in such events. How do you ensure that you have reached all the potential users?
We will add some detail in the methods on the scoping survey (127 completed), 2 workshops (81 total attendees), stakeholder group discussions (20 held) and how they were setup to be inclusive for a representative sample of FDRI’s expected users. This was an iterative process as scoping stage discussions gradually refine the objectives, services and potential users of the infrastructure. More details on the scoping study available here (https://www.ceh.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2022-06/FDRI_Community%20Report_FINAL.pdf).
8/ Line 212: could you explain what an inductive approach is?
Will clarify this better in the paper methods. It is a qualitative research approach whereby questions do not have pre-set answers, and instead ‘codes’ and ‘themes’ are generated and tagged to sections of text by the data analyst based on their interpretation of the qualitative responses.
9/ Line 335: users ask for real-time access to data. This objective is more an operational one and is generally the role of monitoring networks. However, the initial objective of the FDRI network is “to support state-of-the-art research and innovation” (line 72). This seems somehow incompatible.
Thanks, this touches upon a prudent debate on real-time data that we can elaborate more clearly in the text. One of FDRI’s priorities is to support practical research to support better management of floods, droughts and other hydrological issues in the UK. As such, studies such as those involving citizen scientists (e.g. surge monitoring in 24 hours after a flood), and studies evaluating operational or management activities sometimes require real-time data to trigger or inform subsequent data collection efforts. It is also an important additional incentive/reward for engagement with research activities for civil society, community and industrial data user/contributors if their efforts yield real-time data, insights or feedback that is interesting or useful to them. On the other side of the debate, real-time data is more expensive and comes with operational risks such as telemetry failure, so this is a decision to take case-by-case considering the benefit, costs and operational risks of the data being real-time.
10/ Lin 355: FAIR principles are only principles and their practical implementation may lead to different interpretations. Their meaning within the context of the FDRI program should be defined.
Good point, we will do so.
11/ Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) standards are not only relevant for remote sensing date. They are also relevant for vector data.
Thank you, we will clarify this.
12/ p13: I am surprised not to see the harmonization of protocols to measure the targeted observed properties as an issue. It proves to be a challenge (for instance, in the eLTER RI, it required several years of work (Zacharias et al, 2025)
Thank you, this is a very good point and it is brilliant to see this research by Zacharias et al. (2025). This was raised by respondents T1, A6 and A9 in particular but have been coded to other labels such as standardisation, FAIR principles, quality assurance and control, interoperability etc. We agree this is a major issue and should be addressed explicitly in the text. Harmonisation of protocols can be addressed explicitly the analysis on digital infrastructure requirements in Section 3.2, as well as Section 3.3. in the analysis of required data collection enabling services.
13/ Line 364: “automated by manually verified processes”: could you elaborate on the way you see the implementation of such processes?
We will elaborate on this – respondents advised periodic manual reviews and alerts for QA/QC input when issues are flagged that need review.
14/ Line 371: I am surprised to see that the used of X or Facebook is suggested. With such platforms, how do you ensure the protection of personal data?
We will add a note on this, but this is largely just as a data, insights and research communication & tool where data sharing agreements allow. We will add a note however on personal data considerations of subsequent engagement of users on those platforms.
15/ p.15: would the paper of Brantley et al. (2017) be relevant for your discussion?
Thank you and yes, the common measurements across the CZOs networks in the US are especially interesting here. It is certainly worth raising and including in the introduction as ‘critical zone observatory’ is another definition to define early in this article.
16/ Figure 3: could you add some elements in the caption on how to read this figure?
Yes, thank you for flagging this.
17/ lines 582-591: this paragraph is more discussion than conclusion
Agreed. We will move this into the discussion. Thank you for your review and thoughtful comments.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2035-AC3
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', William Veness, 16 Jul 2025
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 923 | 81 | 27 | 1,031 | 20 | 31 |
- HTML: 923
- PDF: 81
- XML: 27
- Total: 1,031
- BibTeX: 20
- EndNote: 31
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Alejandro Dussaillant
Gemma Coxon
Simon De Stercke
Gareth H. Old
Matthew Fry
Jonathan G. Evans
Wouter Buytaert
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1258 KB) - Metadata XML
This manuscript presents a timely and well-motivated investigation into user requirements for the UK's upcoming Floods and Droughts Research Infrastructure (FDRI), with a broader aim of informing the design of hydrological research infrastructures. The authors combine a systematic literature review with stakeholder interviews, which is methodologically sound and provides a basis for generating practical recommendations. The topic is highly relevant given the ongoing development of environmental monitoring infrastructures and the need for user-driven design.
However, I recommend major revisions for the following reasons:
1. Clarify the Framing Around Data Scarcity
The manuscript repeatedly refers to “data scarcity” as a key limitation to hydrological science and innovation (e.g., lines 44–50), yet does not sufficiently engage with the reality that large volumes of hydrological data already exist—including through well-established datasets such as CHIRPS (Funk et al., 2015), the Global Flood Database (Blöschl et al., 2020), CAMELS/CARAVAN (Kratzert et al., 2023), and ISMN. The issue is not simply scarcity, but the cost and complexity of leveraging existing data, including labour, integration, and access barriers. This point is acknowledged in passing (line 49), but it must be integrated more centrally and explicitly into the framing of the manuscript to avoid a misleading narrative.
2. Relate More Clearly to Existing Research Infrastructures
While the manuscript briefly references international infrastructures like TERENO and OZCAR (lines 64–66), it does not go far enough in situating FDRI within the existing ecosystem of RIs, especially eLTER. For instance, Ohnemus et al. (2024) present a comprehensive vision for eLTER RI, which includes a significant hydrological component. It is unclear why FDRI is not part of eLTER, or how it complements or diverges from its goals and structure. Similarly, recent work on pre-implementation (line 133) design of hydrological observatories (e.g. Nasta et al., 2025) and assessments of RI's user needs and surveys on data gaps (Baatz et al., 2018) are highly relevant and must be addressed directly to highlight this study’s novelty. The omission of these discussions weakens the positioning of the manuscript.
3. Improve Transparency and Justification of Stakeholder Sampling
The stakeholder interviews form a core pillar of the study, yet the manuscript does not provide enough information to evaluate their representativeness or significance. The authors mention that 20 stakeholders were interviewed and categorized by sector (lines 153–160), but they do not specify the respondents’ levels of seniority, expertise, or relevance to RI design and operation. Since the study draws major conclusions from a small sample, this contextual information is critical—especially where only one or two responses appear sufficient to warrant thematic inclusion (Table 1). I recommend the authors clarify the selection process, balance of perspectives, and relative weight given to each respondent type.
4. Refine Terminology and Conceptual Framing
Several terms used throughout the manuscript are imprecise or informal. For example, referring to "community" as a value category (line 250) feels vague and may trivialize important stakeholder roles. Terms like “expert networks,” “cross-sector innovation consortia,” or “interdisciplinary research communities” would improve clarity and align better with the discourse on research infrastructure planning. Similarly, “more and better data” (line 252) is too general—more specific terminology regarding data resolution, accessibility, interoperability, or long-term reliability would enhance the precision of the analysis.
5. Clarify the Manuscript Structure: Results vs. Discussion
The manuscript currently presents substantial interpretation and normative claims within the Results section (e.g., section 3.3 on “Structural Design Priorities”, or lines 495 onwards). Many of these points—such as design recommendations, innovation pathways, or sustainability implications—would be more appropriately placed in the Discussion section. I recommend reorganizing the manuscript to clearly separate descriptive findings from interpretive insights. Doing so would enhance readability and strengthen the logic of the argument.
6. Strengthen the Discussion and Critical Reflection
The Discussion section (Section 4) currently functions more as a continuation of the results, reiterating conceptual points rather than reflecting critically on the implications of the findings. A deeper discussion is needed on how FDRI can position itself within national RIs, related RIs in other countries, and or internationally, drawing on similar concepts such as transnational access frameworks (e.g., ESFRI, Horizon Europe), and how its structure might evolve in light of lessons learned from other RIs. Engaging more directly with European strategies for open data, FAIR principles, and transdisciplinary collaboration would help clarify what makes FDRI unique and where it might integrate or diverge from existing models.
Conclusion
This manuscript addresses a critical and contemporary issue and makes a valuable contribution in concept. However, a more precise framing, fuller engagement with related work, clearer stakeholder justification, and improved structural organization are needed to realize its full potential.
Baatz et al. 2018 https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-9-593-2018
Blöschl et al. 2020 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2478-3
Funk et al. 2015 https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2015.66
Kratzert et al. 2023 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-023-01975-w
Nasta et al. 2025 https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-465-2025
Ohnemus et al. 2024 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2024.100456