Water Quality: Development of an index to assess

country performance

Genevive M. Carr & Carrie J. Rickwood

UNEP GEMS/Water Programme
351 Boul. St Joseph
Gatineau, QC K1A 0H3
CANADA

Tel: 1-819-934-5567; Fax: 1-819-953-0461

Email: genevieve.carr@gemswater.org
URL: www.gemswater.org; www.gemstat.org
January 2008

Introduction
The development of a composite index of water quality will allow assessment of the
overall quality of inland surface water resources as it relates to both human and aquatic
ecosystem health.

Policy Focus
Water is ranked as second only to oxygen as essential for all life, and access to fresh
water and sanitation services is a precondition to all the other internationally agreed goals
and targets, including the eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) that were
established by the United Nations in 2000 and expanded upon in 2002 at the World
Summit on Sustainable Development. While water quality management contributes both
directly and indirectly to achieving all eight MDGs, it is most closely tied to the targets of
Goal 7, to ensure environmental sustainability (UNEP GEMS/Water 2007).
By focusing on water quality, water, sanitation and aquatic biodiversity targets of the
MDGs can be met. The way we perceive nature and the value of the goods and services
that aquatic resources provide to people is fundamental to peace, security and prosperity.
Water is vital to the survival of ecosystems, and in turn ecosystems help to regulate the
quantity and quality of water.
From a human health perspective, it is estimated that 1.1 billion people do not have
access to safe drinking water. However, if an initial investment is made to improve the
quality of water, the economic benefits will increase. For example, people with access to
safer, cleaner and healthier water and sanitation facilities would become sick less often,
and reduce the burden on health care. They would also be able to lead more productive
lives (WHO/UNICEF JMP 2004).
From an environmental perspective, the maintenance of good quality water is essential to
the protection of aquatic life and reducing the loss of aquatic biodiversity. The demand to
supply water for domestic, agricultural, and/or industrial use to a growing population has
led to extensive modifications of inland waters (UNEP GEMS/Water 2006). These
modifications have led to habitat loss, pollution, introduction of invasive species and
manipulation of flows by the construction of dams and levees, which has ultimately
resulted in losses of biodiversity. The loss is so great that the Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD) described inland waters as one of the most threatened ecosystem types
of all and that biodiversity of freshwater ecosystems is declining faster than for any other
biome (CBD, 2001). The monitoring of water quality on a global basis is essential for
isolating areas that are declining in water quality and establishing successful techniques
in areas of improvement.

What is water quality?

There are many different physical and chemical parameters that can be used to measure
water quality and, therefore, there is no one answer to the question of what is water
quality (UNEP GEMS/Water 2006). Water quality may be assessed in terms of, among
others, quality for life (e.g., the quality of water needed for human consumption),
quality for food (e.g., the quality of water needed to sustain agricultural activities), or
quality for nature (e.g., the quality of water needed to support a thriving and diverse
fauna and flora in a region) and the selection of parameters used to assess the quality of
water depends largely on the intended use of the body of water.
By regularly monitoring the physical and chemical makeup of water quality, it is possible
to detect changes (both good and bad) and implement response measures to mitigate
detrimental change before a situation worsens. Monitoring data are essential in
identifying hot spots or areas of concern that require immediate attention; in other words,
it enables attention to be focused where it is needed the most. At the same time, water
quality monitoring data can be used to track response to management regimes aimed at
improving water quality.
From a global perspective, it is important to identify a few consistent measurements that
provide insight into the general quality of surface waters and that can be monitored
easily, by all, on a regular basis. The parameters used here to quantify water quality on a
country by country basis were chosen to represent a number of key environmental issues
that have global relevance, including organic pollution, nutrient pollution, acidification,
and salinisation, and together allow an assessment of overall water quality. The
parameters are not meant to be all encompassing; that is, they cannot necessarily identify
specific contaminants or assess the suitability of the water for specific uses. However, by
using these parameters it is possible to assess and compare the general status of surface
water quality in relation to environmental concerns.
The following section outlines the five water quality parameters chosen for inclusion in
the water quality index.

Dissolved oxygen (DO)

DO is the measure of free (i.e., not chemically combined) oxygen dissolved in water. It is
essential to the metabolism of all aerobic aquatic organisms and at reduced levels has
been shown to cause both lethal and sublethal effects. DO levels can fluctuate on a daily,
seasonal, and annual basis, and the concentration at which a certain amount is required by
all aquatic organisms to survive will differ depending on species and life-stage. The
effects of low DO on aquatic organisms have been reviewed extensively (Pollock et al,
2007; Barton and Taylor, 1996; Davis, 1975).
DO is also important when assessing the suitability of water for drinking. Low DO in
source water can increase the conversion of nitrate to nitrite and sulphate to sulphide as
well as increase the concentration of ferrous iron in solution, leading to discoloration in
drinking water (WHO, 2004).

Low DO can occur due to the addition of organic pollutants and nutrients that fuel
bacterial and algal production and respiration, leading to the net consumption of oxygen
in the water column (Correll, 1998; Barton and Tayler, 1996). Sources of such pollutants
include agricultural runoff from manure and fertilizer, municipal areas (municipal
wastewater effluent and stormwater drainage), and industrial areas (e.g., pulp and paper
mill effluents). As such, the measure of dissolved oxygen will provide a good indication
of the state of inland water with respect to nutrient and/or organic pollution.

pH
pH, which is the measure of the acidity or alkalinity of a water body, is an important
parameter of water quality in inland waters in that it can affect aquatic organisms both
directly through impairing respiration, growth and development of fish, and indirectly,
through increasing the bioavailability of certain metals such as aluminium and nickel.
The effects of pH have been well documented in both fish (Alabaster and Lloyd, 1982;
Fromm, 1980; Schofield, 1976) and invertebrates (Hendrey et al, 1976). pH is also
important in assessing the suitability of water for drinking (WHO, 2004).
Acidification in aquatic environments can occur naturally by the breakdown of organic
matter resulting in organic acids, by acid precipitation which is related to air emissions of
sulfuric and nitric oxides from predominantly industrial sources, or through discharge of
acid mine drainage and some industrial effluents (UNEP GEMS/Water 2006). Aquatic
organisms have differing tolerances to acidic waters, but species diversity generally
decreases as pH of a body of water declines. Young organisms tend to be more sensitive
to acidic waters than adults, which can impair reproductive success of some species
(UNEP GEMS/Water 2006).
The inclusion of pH into a general index of water quality will provide a good indication
of the state of inland water with respect to acidification and to the suitability of water for
drinking.

Conductivity
Conductivity is a measure of the ability of water to carry an electric current which is
dependent on the presence of ions. It is often used as an indirect measure of salinity and
total dissolved solids (TDS). Total dissolved solids can also be estimated from
conductivity by multiplying conductivity by an empirical factor (APHA, 1995).
Increases in salinity have been shown to reduce biodiversity and alter community
composition by excluding sensitive species (Weber-Scannell and Duffy, 2007). An
inverse relationship between salinity and aquatic biodiversity has been documented
(Derry et al, 2003).
Inorganic compounds are good conductors compared to organic compounds and, as such,
increases in conductivity can occur due to the input of industrial effluents, such as metal
mining, making conductivity a good indicator of inorganic pollution. Salinity is of
particular concern in agricultural areas where low conductivity is used to determine
suitability of water for agricultural use (Hart et al, 1991). High salinity and/or TDS levels
are also of concern when determining suitability of water for drinking due to

objectionable taste (WHO, 2004). Therefore, measuring conductivity will provide a good
indication of the state of inland water with respect to the suitability of water for both
aquatic life, and for treatment for agriculture and drinking.

Nutrients: Nitrogen and Phosphorus

Nitrogen and phosphorus are naturally-occurring elements essential for all living
organisms and are often found in growth-limiting concentrations in aquatic environments.
Increases in nitrogen and/or phosphorus in natural waters, largely as a result of human
activities in the drainage basin (e.g., from agricultural runoff from manure and synthetic
fertilizers and from municipal and industrial wastewater discharge), can result in
increased biological productivity of a water body. Although this is not always a negative
effect, and nitrogen and phosphorus are rarely if ever present in toxic concentrations,
nutrient increases can lead to shifts in aquatic community composition and loss of
endemic species, and high algal and aquatic plant productivity can lead to depletion of
dissolved oxygen in the water column which can threaten survival of fish and
invertebrates.
The process of nutrient enrichment of a body of water is termed eutrophication and
phosphorus and nitrogen are the primary drivers of the process which has been, and
continues to be, a major problem for water quality globally. The inclusion of nutrients
into the water quality index will provide a direct assessment of the state of rivers and
lakes with regards to eutrophication.

Targets
Water quality monitoring data are most easily interpreted when there is a benchmark or
target for a parameter against which individual observations may be compared: in some
cases, a target may be a human or ecological threshold beyond which life is impaired; in
other cases, a target may be a historical value or a natural background concentration that
can serve as a goal for water quality management programmes to reach through
intervention and protection of water resources.
Setting realistic targets for water quality is essential to identifying areas of concern as
well as to working towards improving water quality on a station by station and country by
country basis. Probably the most widely recognized international targets for water
quality are the World Health Organization Drinking Water Quality Guidelines (WHO
2004) and although these are an excellent resource for ensuring safe drinking water
quality and protecting human health, they do not address issues of environmental
degradation of aquatic resources.
By comparison, there are a number of baseline, threshold, guideline or standard values
for different water quality parameters that have been set or proposed at the national and
regional levels for the protection of ecosystem health (UNEP GEMS/Water 2006). These
guidelines have been established by nations or regions that have comprehensive
monitoring programmes such as Australia and New Zealand (The Australian and New
Zealand Environment and Conservation Council), the European Union (The Water

Framework Directive), the United Kingdom (Environment Agency), the USA

(Environmental Protection Agency) and Canada (Environment Canada). Guidelines and
standards differ according to required uses of a body of water (e.g., for human
consumption, recreation, protection of aquatic life, agriculture) and the actual values may
vary according to natural background conditions of the systems and what is considered
ideal for different parts of the world.
In some cases, even national targets do not exist for the parameters used in the index
described here. This typically occurs when a parameter is not toxic at naturally occurring
concentrations and/or when natural background concentrations are highly variable and,
therefore, a reasonable target in one region might be impractical in another region.
The following sections describe each parameter used in the water quality index and the
targets used as a basis against which observations can be compared. Targets chosen are
also summarized in Table 1.
Table 1. Summary of targets for water quality parameters included in water quality
index.
Parameter
Target
Details
Dissolved oxygen 6 mg L-1
DO must not be less than target when average water
temperatures are > 20 C
9.5 mg L-1
DO must not be less than target when average water
temperatures are 20 C
pH
6.5 9
pH must fall within target range
-1
Conductivity
500 S cm
Conductivity must not exceed target
Nitrogen
Total
1 mg L-1
Total nitrogen must not exceed target
Dissolved
0.5 mg L-1
Dissolved inorganic nitrogen must not exceed target
inorganic
Nitrate + nitrite
0.5 mg L-1
Nitrate + nitrite must not exceed target
-1
Ammonia
0.05 mg L
Ammonia must not exceed target
Phosphorus
Total
0.05 mg L-1
Total phosphorus must not exceed target
-1
Orthophosphate
0.025 mg L
Orthophosphate must not exceed target

Dissolved oxygen target

The lowest acceptable dissolved oxygen concentration for aquatic life, as set by the
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME, 1999), ranges from 6 mg L-1
in warm water to 9.5 mg L-1 in cold water for the protection of early life stages of fish.
These targets were derived from the US Environmental Protection Agencys slight
production impairment estimates (CCME, 1999). The target is in agreement with the
Australian guidelines for protection of freshwater ecosystems and the Brazilian guideline
for Class 1 waters, that recommend DO be greater than 6 mg L-1 (ANZECC, 1992, Brazil
1986).

Since dissolved oxygen is temperature dependent, targets for the global water quality
index developed here were chosen such that monitoring stations where average water
temperatures are > 20 C must have a minimum DO concentration of 6 mg L-1; stations
with cooler average water temperatures (i.e., 20 C) must have a minimum DO
concentration of 9.5 mg L-1.

pH target
The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME, 1999) set a guideline of
pH 6.5 9.0 for the protection of aquatic life. That is, pH should not measure below 6.5
or above 9.0. This target is in agreement with the US EPA (US EPA 2006), Australian
water quality guidelines (ANZECC, 1992) and the European Union (EEA, 2006). In
addition WHO (2004) suggest an optimum pH range of 6.5-9.5 for drinking water; if the
pH was out of this range, the suitability of the water for drinking would be markedly
impaired. Brazilian water quality guidelines for Class 1 waters recommend that pH be
between 6.0 and 9.0 (Brazil 1986).
The target range for pH used in the global index of water quality developed here is pH =
6.5 to 9.0.

Conductivity target
The mean salinity of the worlds rivers is approximately 120 mg l-1 TDS (Weber-Scannell
and Duffy, 2007) which converts to approximately 220 S cm-1. However, conductivities
in fresh waters can range between 10 and 1,000 S cm-1 and in highly polluted rivers
conductivities can exceed 1000 s cm-1 (Chapman, 1996).
A number of studies have identified the effects of TDS on aquatic organisms. These
include reduced egg survival and fertilization rates in fish (Peterka, 1972) as well as
reduced productivity and growth in algae (LeBlond and Duffy 2001, Sorensen et al,
1977) at concentrations above 275 mg L-1 TDS (approximately 500 s cm-1). Derry et al
(2003) found that when TDS increased from 270 to 1170 mg L-1 (approximately 500 to
1500 S cm-1), populations of the aquatic plants Ceratophyllum demersum and Typha sp.
were nearly eliminated.
There are no globally agreed upon guidelines or targets for TDS or conductivity.
Australia and New Zealand have set guidelines for salinity that include a conversion to
conductivity (ANZECC, 1992). Default trigger values (which refer to slightly to
moderately disturbed rivers) for conductivities for upland and lowland rivers nationally in
Australia range between 120 and 300 s cm-1. Brazil (1986) recommends that total
dissolved solids not exceed 500 mg L-1 (~ 780 S cm-1) for class 1 fresh waters, used for
the protection of aquatic life, irrigation of crops, and recreation.
Based on this information a conductivity target of 500 S cm-1 was chosen.

Nutrients target
Although considerable research has been conducted to identify benchmarks for good
nutrient concentrations in inland waters, natural variability in background concentrations

and the fact that nutrients are rarely present in concentrations that are toxic to aquatic
organisms makes it difficult to set global water quality targets (UNEP GEMS/Water
2006; Dodds et al. 1998; Dodds 2002; Wetzel 2003). Thus, nitrogen and phosphorus
targets for the derivation of a global water quality index were chosen to reflect the
average boundary concentration between mesotrophic and eutrophic/hypereutrophic
systems (reviewed in Table 1, Appendix 1). Dissolved nutrient forms, which tend to
cycle very rapidly through aquatic environments, can range from <1 to nearly 100 % of
total nutrient concentrations across a broad range of aquatic environments, making it
difficult to set boundary concentrations for dissolved forms (Dodds 2003). Target
concentrations for dissolved nitrogen and phosphorus were set at one half total nutrient
concentrations; ammonia concentrations were set at 1/10 of the dissolved nitrogen target,
since ammonia concentrations typically are quite low relative to total nitrogen
concentrations.

Potential metrics
Because water quality is a function of a number of different physical and chemical
parameters measured during routine water quality monitoring, as outlined above, a global
index of the general status of water quality, ranked on a country by country basis, is best
developed as a composite index of several key parameters.

How do we interpret monitoring results of complex datasets?

Water quality datasets are necessarily complex and the distillation of multiple
measurements of several parameters over time and over space into a single estimate of
overall water quality is difficult.
There is considerable debate as to which measures should be included in the derivation of
an index, and what type of information such a composite index is able to provide to the
general public and to policy makers. However, a number of countries have begun the
process of developing composite indices of water quality to describe the state of their
domestic waters, including the United States of America (Cude, 2001), Taiwan (Liou et
al, 2004), Argentina (Pesce and Wunderlin, 2000), Australia (ISC, 2005), Canada (Khan
et al. 2003; Lumb et al. 2006; CCME 2001) and New Zealand (Nagels et al, 2001).
Similar to indices of economic strength, such as Gross Domestic Product (GDP), these
water quality indices take information from a number of sources and combine them to
develop an overall snapshot of the state of the national system. In the case of inland
waters, the information used to generate the indices typically consists of concentrations of
a number of different water quality parameters measured as part of routine national,
regional, and local monitoring programmes.

What data sets exist?

The UNEP GEMS/Water Programme is in a unique position to monitor the state of inland
water quality as it maintains the only global database of water quality for inland waters.
GEMStat is an online global database of water quality maintained by GEMS/Water that
has over two million entries for lakes, reservoirs, rivers and groundwater systems, and its

over 3000 monitoring stations include baseline (reference or non-impacted), trend

(impacted) and flux (at the mouth of large rivers that discharge into the oceans) stations.
While the GEMS/Water database is the most comprehensive global database of water
quality, there are still gaps in country coverage. European countries regularly report
annual average water quality conditions for river and lake monitoring stations to the
European Environment Agency (EEA) and these data are available on the internet. EEA
data were also used in the derivation of this index.
Country information has also been supplemented by certain focal points: in the case of
the EPI, Niger and Israel provided updated data for the computation of a water quality
index.
The compilation of data from several sources led to a final dataset that consisted of 6214
monitoring stations from 92 countries.

How reliable are the data?

The data used in the compilation of the index originate primarily from national agencies
and departments responsible for monitoring surface water quality. GEMS/Water is
committed to maintaining a database of consistent and reliable quality and has
implemented a rigorous quality assurance and control system.
The goals of the GEMS/Water Quality Assurance and Control systems are to:
Ensure the comparability and validity of water quality analyses performed by
laboratories around the world;
Encourage a commitment to data integrity, accessibility, and interoperability; and,
Facilitate an international information exchange on methods and other technical
references.

Data issues
Despite attention paid by GEMS/Water and other agencies to ensure the quality of data
maintained within water quality monitoring databases, there are a number of issues that
GEMS/Water and most other water quality monitoring programmes face in the collection
of water quality data. A major concern in any water quality monitoring programme is
ensuring good geographic representation of monitoring stations and temporal coverage of
the same water quality parameters within the area of interest.
At the global scale, approximately 100 countries have provided GEMS/Water with water
quality data since the late 1970s. However, the reporting of data is inconsistent, with
some countries only supplying a year or two of data and others supplying data on a
regular basis. The types of parameters are also inconsistent; certain countries only supply
basic water quality parameters, whereas others supply specific parameters (metals,
pesticides or bacteria) with little or no basic water quality data (i.e. no dissolved oxygen,
pH or conductivity). In addition, some countries only supply data from one or a few
monitoring stations, or, from mainly impacted sites with very little data from nonimpacted or baseline sites, whereas other countries provide water quality data for almost

all of their national monitoring stations, representing a gradient from relatively pristine to
heavily impacted sites. Considerable efforts have been made in recent years to improve
reporting consistency among countries and to increase global coverage; however, legacy
issues remain in the database, and these reflect inconsistent reporting patterns through
time and space.
The parameters chosen to be included in the development of a water quality index for the
EPI were selected for two reasons. First, they are good indicators of specific issues
relevant on a global basis (eutrophication, nutrient pollution, acidification, salinization).
Second, the parameters were chosen because they are the most consistently reported; that
is, we have the most data for these parameters compared to other relevant parameters that
were not included.

Rationale for recommended metrics

Derivation of the water quality index
The water quality index developed for the EPI relies on station by station measurements
of the parameters included in the derivation of the index (i.e., DO, pH, conductivity, total
nitrogen, and total phosphorus). Concentrations were averaged annually and subsequent
overall average concentrations of each of the measured parameters at each station were
calculated for up to the five most recent years for which data were available. Average
parameter concentrations at each station were assigned a maximum possible score of 100
if targets were met; if targets were not met then a proximity-to-target (PTT) score was
assigned, following winsorization of the entire dataset for that parameter.
Whenever possible, total nutrient concentrations were chosen for inclusion in the index
over dissolved nutrient concentrations because they provide a better indication of the true
nutrient status of a body of water (Dodds 2003). When only dissolved nutrient forms
were available, a penalty was applied so that the maximum possible score for nutrients
was 80 (dissolved inorganic nitrogen or orthophosphate) or 60 (nitrate+nitrite or
ammonia). Monitoring stations that did not report a particular parameter were assigned a
score of zero for that parameter.
The average of parameter PTT scores was used to calculate a composite index value at
each station that ranged from a possible 0 to 100, with 100 indicating that all five
parameters were reported and met the targets at the station in question. Stations that
reported values for only three of the five parameters could only receive a maximum total
score of 60 if all three parameters met the targets. In this way, stations that underreported in terms of water quality parameters could not rank as high as those that reported
all five parameters.
Country level index scores were derived by computing the average station score for the
best-reported monitoring stations within a country. That is, if the maximum number of
parameters reported at any one station in a country was five, then only stations that
reported five parameters were included in that countrys index score. A total of 92
countries and 2127 surface water monitoring stations were included in the derivation of

the index, which represents the most complete picture of surface water globally, to our
knowledge.
Country index scores were adjusted according to the density of all monitoring stations
(i.e., not just the stations included in index computations), to account for the fact that
some countries monitor and report water quality for many stations, whereas other
countries report and monitor water quality for only a few stations. Countries with high
station densities ( 1 station / 1000 km2 populated land area) received no adjustment to
their scores, whereas countries with very low station densities ( 1 station / 10,000,000
km2) had index values that were adjusted down by up to 80% (Appendix 2).
Countries were ranked from highest to lowest index scores to illustrate the gradient from
good to poor water quality (Figure 1).

0
NEW ZEALAND
FINLAND
Serbia and Montenegro
Lithuania
Latvia
Slovenia
SWEDEN
Albania
ITALY
Bulgaria
HONG KONG SAR
NORWAY
SWITZERLAND
CANADA
HUNGARY
PORTUGAL
Bosnia and Herzegovina
UNITED KINGDOM
Croatia
URUGUAY
LAO People's Democratic Republic
THAILAND
KOREA, Republic of
JAPAN
VIET NAM
GREECE
SRI LANKA
ARGENTINA
CUBA
GERMANY
PANAMA
AUSTRALIA
BRAZIL
INDONESIA
FIJI
GUATEMALA
SPAIN
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MALAYSIA
DENMARK
MALI
POLAND
ISRAEL
INDIA
ECUADOR
IRELAND
NETHERLANDS
EGYPT
FRANCE
Estonia
CHINA
AUSTRIA
BELGIUM
BANGLADESH
CHILE
KENYA
TURKEY
COLOMBIA
MEXICO
IRAN, Islamic Republic of
Romania
Slovakia
SENEGAL
RUSSIAN FEDERATION
TANZANIA, The United Republic of
CAMBODIA
SUDAN
Mongolia
SOUTH AFRICA
BOLIVIA
GHANA
LUXEMBOURG
MOROCCO
PAKISTAN
PHILIPPINES
TUNISIA
Macedonia, former Yugoslav Republic of
CONGO, Democratic Republic of the
Cyprus
PERU
Iceland
UGANDA
Malta
Niger
Iraq
JORDAN
French Guiana
Czech Republic
Cote d'Ivoire
ALGERIA
PAPUA NEW GUINEA
Liechtenstein

Water Quality Index

100

75

50

25

Figure 1. National water quality index rankings. A score of 100 indicates water quality targets were met for all five parameters.

Interpretation of the Water Quality Index

The WQI developed here is the most comprehensive picture of water quality, using real
water quality monitoring data, available on a global scale to date. However, the index
was built with imperfect data. Specifically, the five parameters included in the index
were not universally reported by all countries, data were not necessarily current for all
countries, and densities of monitoring stations were not the same among countries. Thus,
while some countries reported water quality for only one or a few stations and for only
one or a few of the five parameters, other countries reported water quality for their entire
monitoring network and for all five parameters. The index was designed to adjust scores
for some of the inconsistencies.

Station density and reporting inconsistencies

To evaluate the effect of these adjustments on the index, a comparison of the top and
bottom five countries using different versions of the index was made (Table 2). The final
version of the WQI, which includes a national scale adjustment for station density and
includes only those stations that reported the most number of parameters in the country,
ranks New Zealand, Finland, Serbia and Montenegro, Lithuania and Latvia in the top five
countries globally. These rankings correspond exactly to the top 5 countries ranked when
only stations that reported all five parameters were included in the index, following a
station density adjustment. Note that by limiting the index to only stations that reported
all five parameters, a WQI could only be computed for 68 countries. It was for this
reason that the inclusion criteria were expanded to include the best-reported stations
from within a country.
The effect of limiting the inclusion of stations to those that were best-reported is also
evaluated: by including all stations for which any data were reported in the index, the top
five countries in the revised WQI were New Zealand, Switzerland, Finland, Uruguay, and
the Peoples Democratic Republic of LAO, following a station density adjustment. New
Zealand and Finland are the only two countries that were in the top five in both versions
of the index. Serbia and Montenegro, Lithuania, and Latvia dropped to 11th, 26th, and
19th positions, respectively, due to the inclusion of between 78 and 97 river monitoring
stations that previously were not included because they did not have the most complete
parameter records available from their country.
Switzerland and Uruguay suffered most in their rankings due to the station density
adjustment criteria. Whereas these two countries were in the top five whenever a station
density adjustment was not applied, they did not rank in the top 5 following a station
density adjustment in the final version of the index or in the reduced version of the index,
where only the stations that reported all 5 parameters were included and country-level
WQIs were computed for only 68 countries. In the case of both of these countries, all
stations had all five parameters reported, and their uncorrected WQIs were high.
However, the density of monitoring stations in these countries was comparatively low,
which lowered their overall ranking once the national WQIs were adjusted for station
density.

Table 2. Comparison of country rankings using different criteria to compute a national

index. The entries in bold reflect the WQI in its final form.
Rank
Best-reported stations
Stations reporting 5
All stations included
parameters only
Station
No station
Station
No station
Station
No station
density
density
density
density
density
density
adjustment
adjustment
adjustment
adjustment
adjustment
adjustment
applied
applied
applied
Top 5 countries
1
New
New Zealand New Zealand
New Zealand New Zealand New
Zealand
Zealand
2
Brazil
Finland
Brazil
Switzerland
Switzerland
Finland
3
Finland
Serbia and
Finland
Finland
Uruguay
Serbia and
Montenegro
Montenegro
4
Switzerland
Lithuania
Switzerland Uruguay
LAO
Lithuania
Peoples
Democratic
Republic
5
Uruguay
Latvia
Uruguay
LAO
Cuba
Latvia
Peoples
Democratic
Republic
Bottom 5 countries
88
Cote dIvoire Morocco
Morocco
Cote dIvoire Czech
Czech
Republic
Republic
89
Pakistan
Peru
Algeria
Papua New
Cote dIvoire Czech
Republic
Guinea
90
Papua New
Peru
Luxembourg Papua New
Algeria
Algeria
Guinea
Guinea
91
Algeria
Uganda
Uganda
Denmark
Denmark
Papua New
Guinea
92
Jordan
Liechtenstein Liechtenstein
Liechtenstein Liechtenstein Jordan
The different inclusion criteria had very little effect on the bottom five countries of the
index. In its final version, the Czech Republic, Cote dIvoire, Algeria, Papua New
Guinea and Liechtenstein ranked lowest in terms of their water quality. There was no
change in the bottom five countries when the station density adjustment was removed,
and only limited change when all stations within the country were included in the index
(in this case, Denmark fell to second to last place from 40th position). Not surprisingly,
the bottom five countries were quite different when the index was limited to only stations
that reported all five parameters, so that a WQI could only be computed for 68 countries.
This is because the WQI is computed as the average score for 5 reported parameters, even
if fewer parameters were reported, and so countries that report all five parameters
naturally would have higher WQIs (Figure 2).

Number of parameters

5
4
3
2

20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Average WQI
Figure 2. Relationship between the final version of the WQI and the number of parameters included. Data
are mean country level WQIs. Error bars are standard errors.

The final version of the WQI was designed to balance the need for complete datasets with
a need for increased country coverage in order to provide the most global picture possible
for water quality. This necessarily involved making decisions and setting criteria for
inclusion of data and penalties for under-reporting of water quality information. It would
not be surprising to see many countries improve in their overall rankings, simply by
reporting data for additional water quality parameters or by reporting data for a more
comprehensive monitoring network. Countries that were not included in the index at all
could be included in this global comparison simply by reporting water quality data to the
UNEP GEMS/Water Programme.

Parameter contributions
The parameters included in the WQI were chosen because they are good indicators of
common water quality problems (eutrophication, salinization, acidification, and organic
pollution) and because they are commonly reported to international agencies such as the
UNEP GEMS/Water Programme and the European Environment Agency. The majority
of stations met the targets set for dissolved oxygen, pH, and conductivity, whereas more
than half of the stations failed to meet nutrient targets set for the different forms of
phosphorus and nitrogen (Table 3). Correlation of the proximity-to-target (PTT) scores
for each parameter to the overall station WQIs provides insight into which parameters
most heavily influenced the national WQI values (Table 3). Nitrogen, phosphorus and
conductivity were most strongly correlated to station-level WQIs. pH was the only
parameter where PTT scores were not significantly correlated to WQIs, and dissolved
oxygen PTT scores were only very weakly correlated to WQIs.

Table 3. Summary proximity-to-target (PTT) scores for each parameter included in the
water quality index (WQI) and their correlation to the overall station WQI. Asterisks
denote significant correlations, such that * = P < 0.05 and ** = P << 0.0001
Mean
Median Minimum Maximum
N
% of Pearsons
(Standard
stations
r
deviation)
failing
to meet
target
Dissolved oxygen
99.5 (0.9)
100
93.5
100
2018
39
-0.059*
pH
98.8 (7.6)
100
11.8
100
2052
6
-0.008
Conductivity
94.1 (15.6)
100
41.1
100
1553
18
0.511**
Nitrogen
82.1 (24.8)
93.1
3.7
100
2110
67
0.702**
Phosphorus
89.0 (22.2)
99.7
4.6
100
2092
51
0.590**
Station WQI
85.5 (16.5)
92.2
22.4
100
2127
90
1.00**
Nutrient pollution appears to be driving factor in the WQI, with nutrients having the
highest correlation to the overall station WQI and the most number of stations that failed
to meet targets. The targets used in the index were developed based on a compilation of
scientific literature to reflect boundary concentrations between mesotrophic and eutrophic
systems. There are currently no global targets for nutrients in inland waters, mostly
because nutrients are not usually toxic to either aquatic organisms or humans, and natural
background concentrations can vary by orders of magnitude depending on underlying
geologies. Although site-specific targets could provide more reasonable estimates of true
exceedances beyond natural background nutrient conditions, it remains likely that
nutrient pollution would still be an important driving factor in the WQI. Eutrophication
of aquatic environments is a global concern, as municipal, industrial and agricultural
loadings of nitrogen and phosphorus continue to exceed natural loadings expected due to
rainfall and runoff from the drainage basin (UNEP GEMS/Water 2006).
Dissolved oxygen was only weakly correlated to the WQI, despite a reasonably high
exceedance rate (39%). The weak correlation is probably due to the fact that exceedances
from the target concentrations were small compared to the magnitude of deviations from
targets for parameters such as nitrogen and phosphorus. Thus, while PTT scores for
nitrogen and phosphorus were as low as 3 and 4 out of 100, the minimum recorded PTT
score for dissolved oxygen was 93.5, and the average score was 99.5 (Table 3). It is
possible that more stringent targets for dissolved oxygen would yield a larger spread in
PTT scores, but the targets derived here were based on the best available scientific
information and a review of existing guidelines and standards for the protection of
aquatic life.
The fact that only 6 % of monitoring stations failed to meet pH targets suggests that the
targets chosen to reflect acceptable pH conditions were too broad, making the WQI
insensitive to variations in pH. Given that different parts of the world are more sensitive
than others to the effects of acid precipitation, primarily because of their underlying
geology and the movement of atmospheric pollutants in their regions, it would make

sense to set regional targets to better reflect natural background conditions in different
parts of the world. This could improve the sensitivity of the WQI to pH, and better
reflect the issue of acidification on a global basis.
Conductivity was quite highly correlated to the WQI but had a comparatively low rate of
target exceedances on a station by station basis (18%, Table 3). There are two possible
explanations for this trend. First, conductivity is often well-correlated to nutrient
concentrations, suggesting that although conductivity may seldom fail to meet target
concentrations, the patterns in its recorded values may mimic those observed for
nutrients. In this case, PTT scores for nutrients and conductivity were significantly
correlated (Pearsons correlation coefficient for conductivity to phosphorus and nitrogen
were 0.26 and 0.30, respectively). The strength of the correlations between the raw
conductivity and nutrient concentrations was higher than the PTT correlations (0.26
Pearsons r 0.49), but likely not high enough to explain the overall strong correlation of
conductivity to the WQI.
The second possible explanation for the high correlation of conductivity to the WQI is the
fact that conductivity was the least well-represented of the parameters included in the
index, with only 73% of stations reporting conductivity compared to between 95 and 99
% reporting rates for the other parameters (Table 3). Analysis of variance of WQIs for
stations that did and did not report conductivity revealed that approximately 45% of the
variability in WQI was explained simply by the inclusion of conductivity in the index,
and this value corresponds to a correlation coefficient of ~ 0.67, which is closer to the
range of the linear correlation between WQI and conductivity PTT scores. Thus, it
appears likely that the linear correlation detected between conductivity PTT scores and
station level WQIs is due mostly to the presence or absence of conductivity in the index.
The observation that conductivitys presence or absence in the index could have a strong
effect on WQI scores, leads to the question of whether it should be completely removed
from the index because of under-reporting. A sensitivity analysis, where conductivity
was removed from the index and a new WQI was computed as the average of 4 instead of
5 parameters, revealed that the reduced WQI was still significantly correlated to the
original WQI (Pearsons r = 0.86). The strength of the correlation between the original
WQI and the reduced WQI with conductivity removed was not as great as the
correlations when other parameters were removed (correlation between WQI and reduced
WQIs with dissolved oxygen, pH, nitrogen and phosphorus removed: 0.96 Pearsons r
0.97), but it was still significant. Had the removal of conductivity from the overall
WQI yielded a non-significant correlation, strong justification would be provided for
entirely removing conductivity from this version of the index because of its strong effect
on index values, despite the fact that it seldom fails to meet targets. Thus, although the
eventual removal of conductivity may be warranted in future versions of the WQI, unless
better reporting of the metric is undertaken, its removal is not justified in this version.

Blueprint for future measurement

Although the index reported here provides a valuable snapshot of surface water quality
for the 92 countries for which data were available, it can and needs to be improved upon.
First, recent data from more countries and for all five parameters are required in order to
better rank environmental performance as it relates to water quality on a global scale.
The current formulation of the index could be improved upon by using only data from,
say, the last three to five years of monitoring and ensuring that countries are wellrepresented in terms of station coverage. This would ensure that temporal trends in water
quality conditions could eventually be tracked. The five parameters included in this
index are very basic water quality monitoring parameters, and the targets against which
concentrations were compared are necessarily general. Particularly in the case of
nutrients and pH, regionally referenced nutrient targets may provide more specific
information regarding the state of eutrophication of a countrys surface waters.

References
Alabaster JS, Lloyd R. 1982. Water Quality Criteria for Freshwater Fish. 2nd Edition.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Butterworth's, London. 361 p.
ANZECC (Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council). 1992.
Australian water quality guidelines for fresh and marine waters. Canberra, 202pp
APHA (American Public Health Association). 1995. Standard methods for the
examination of water and wastewater, 19th edition. Washington, DC
Barton, B. A. & B. R. Taylor, 1996. Oxygen requirements of fishes in northern Alberta
rivers with a general review of the adverse effects of low dissolved oxygen. Water Qual.
Res. J. Can. 31:361409.
CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment). 1999. Canadian
environmental quality guidelines, Winnipeg.
CCME. 2001. Canadian water quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic life: CCME
Water Quality Index 1.0, Users manual. In: Canadian Environmental quality guidelines,
1999, Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, Winnipeg, Manitoba
(http://www.ccme.ca/assets/pdf/wqi_usermanualfctsht_e.pdf)
Chapman, D. (ed.) 1996. Water Quality Assessments. A Guide to the Use of Biota,
Sediments and Water in Environmental Monitoring. Second Edition. Published on behalf
of UNESCO, WHO, and UNEP. Chapman and Hall, London.
Convention on Biological Diversity, 2001. Global Biodiversity Outlook, Published by the
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal, Canada.
Correll DL. 1998. The role of phosphorus in the eutrophication of receiving waters: a
review. J. Environ. Qual. 27, 261-266
Cude C. G. 2001. Oregon water quality index: a tool for evaluating water quality
management effectiveness. Journal of the American Water Research Association 37:125
137
Davis JC. 1975. Minimal dissolved oxygen requirements of aquatic life with emphasis on
Canadian species: a review. J. Fish. Res. Board Canada. 32, 2295-2332
Derry AM, Prepas EE, Hebert PDN. 2003. A comparison of zooplankton communities in
saline lakewater with variable anion composition. Hydrobiologia, 505, 199-215
Dodds, Walter K. 2002. Freshwater Ecology: Concepts and Environmental Applications.
Academic Press, Orlando.

Dodds, W.K. 2003. Misuse of inorganic N and soluble reactive P concentrations to

indicate nutrient status of surface waters. Journal of the North American Benthological
Society 22:171-181.
Dodds, W.K., Jones, J.R., and Welch, E.B. 1998. Suggested classification of stream
trophic state: distributions of temperate stream types by chlorophyll, total nitrogen, and
phosphorus. Water Research 32:1455-1462.
EEA (European Environment Agency). 2006. Directive 2006/44/EC of 6 September 2006
on the quality of fresh waters needing protection or improvement in order to support fish
life. Official journal of the European Union, L 264/31
Fromm P. 1980. A review of some physiological and toxicological responses of
freshwater fish to acid stress. Env. Biol. Fish. 5, 79-93
Hart BT, Bailey P, Edwards R, Hortle K, James K, McMahon A, Meredith C, Swadling
K. 1991. A review of the salt sensitivity of the Australian freshwater biota. Hydrobiologia
210, 105-144
Hendrey GR, Baalsrud K, Traaen TS, Laake M, Raddum G. 1976. Acid precipitation:
some hydrobiological changes. Ambio, 5-6, 224 - 227
ISC (2005). Index of Stream condition: the second benchmark of Victorian River.
Victorian Government Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne,
August 2005. www.vicwaterdata.net.
Khan, F., Husain, T., and Lumb, A. 2003. Water quality evaluation and trend analysis in
selected watersheds of the Atlantic region of Canada. Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment 88:221-242
LeBlond, J.B. and L.K. Duffy, 2001. Toxicity assessment of total dissolved solids in
effluent of Alaskan mines using 22-h chronic Microtox and Selenastrum capricornutum
assays. Sci. Tot. Environ., 1-3: 49-59.
Liou SM, Lo SL and Wang SH. 2004. A generalised water quality index for Taiwan.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 96: 35-32
Lumb, A., Halliwell, D., and Sharma, T. 2006. Application of the CCME Water quality
index to monitor water quality: a case study of the Mackenzie River Basin, Canada.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 113:411-429
Nagels J.W., Davies-Colley., R. J., Smith D. G. 2001. A Water Quality Index for Contact
Recreation in New Zealand. Water Science and Technology 43:285-292

Pollock MS, Clarke LMJ, Dube MG. 2007. The effects of hypoxia on fishes: from
ecological relevance to physiological effects. Environ. Rev. 15, 1-14
Pesce SF and Wunderlin DA. 2000. Use of water quality indices to verify the impact of
Cordoba City (Argentina) on Suquia River. Water Research 34: 2915-2926
Peterka, J.J. 1972. Effects of saline waters upon survival of fish eggs and larvae and upon
the ecology of the fathead minnow in North Dakota. PB-223 017, National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, Va. 22161.
Schofield CL. 1976. Acid precipitation: effects on fish. Ambio, 5-6, 228-210
Sorensen, D.L., M. McCarthy, E.J. Middlebrooks and D.B. Porcella, 1977. Suspended
and dissolved solids effects on freshwater biota: A review. US Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA-600/3-77-042.
UNEP GEMS/Water. 2006. Water Quality for Ecosystem and Human Health. Burlington,
Canada. A publication of the UNEP GEMS/Water Programme. ISBN 92-95039-10-6.
http://www.gemswater.org
UNEP GEMS/Water 2007. Water Quality Outlook. A publication of the United Nations
Environment Programme Global Environment Monitoring System (GEMS)/Water
Pogramme. ISBN 95039-11-4. http://www.gemswater.org.
US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2006. National
Recommended Water Quality Criteria. Office of Water, Office of Science and
Technology (4304 T). http://epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nrwqc-2006.pdf
Weber-Scannell PK, Duffy LK. 2007. Effects of total dissolved solids on aquatic
organisms: A review of literature and recommendation for salmonid species. Amer. J.
Environ. Sci., 3, 1-6
Wetzel, R.G. 2001. Limnology, Third Edition. Academic Press, 850 pages.
WHO. 2004. Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality. Third Edition Volume 1:
Recommendations. World Health Organisation, Geneva.
WHO/UNICEF JMP (World Health Organization / UNICEF Joint Monitoring
Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation). 2005. Water for life: making it happen.
WHO Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data.

Appendix 1: Trophic status and nutrient enrichment of

inland waters
The trophic status of a body of water is typically assessed according to its concentrations
of total nitrogen and/or total phosphorus and how these relate to biological productivity.
Water bodies are usually classified as being ultraoligotrophic, oligotrophic, mesotrophic,
eutrophic or hypereutrophic systems, and these classes represent a gradient from low to
high nutrient concentrations and biological productivity (Table A1).
Table A1. Nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations corresponding to intermediate
(mesotrophic) to highly productive (hypereutrophic) trophic states in inland waters
Parameter
Total
Phosphorus
(mg L-1)

Total Nitrogen
(mg L-1)
a

Mesotrophic
0.010 0.035a
0.027b

Eutrophic
0.035 0.100a
0.084b

Hypereutrophic
> 0.100a

0.010 0.030a
0.010 0.020a

0.030 0.100a
0.020 0.050a

> 0.100a
0.050 - >0.100a*

< 0.200c

0.200c

Rivers globally#

< 0.075c

0.075c

0.350 0.650a
0.753b

0.650 1.20a
1.875b

< 1.50c

1.50c

Temperate streams
in North American
and New Zealand
Lakes
Lakes and
Reservoirs

> 1.20a

Type of water body

Lakes
Lakes and
Reservoirs
Lakes
New Zealand lakes

Source
OECD (1982)
Wetzel (2001)
Nurnberg (1996)
Waikato Regional
Council, NZ (19992007)
UNEP
GEMS/Water
2006#
Dodds et al. 1998
Nurnberg (1996)
Wetzel (2001)
Dodds et al. 1998

Data represent the range of expected concentrations

b
Data represent the mean expected concentration
c
Data represent the boundary concentration
*
Includes a classification for supertrophic as intermediate between eutrophic and
hypereutrophic
#
Ranking according to Figure 12, for global distribution of Total phosphorus

References
Dodds, W.K., Jones, J.R., and Welch, E.B. 1998. Suggested classification of stream
trophic state: distributions of temperate stream types by chlorophyll, total nitrogen, and
phosphorus. Water Research 32:1455-1462.
Nrnberg, G.K. 1996. Trophic state of clear and colored, soft- and hardwater lakes with
special consideration of nutrients, anoxia, phytoplankton and fish. J. Lake Reservoir
Management 12:432-447.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) 1982. Eutrophication

of Waters. Monitoring Assessment and Control, Final Report. OECD Cooperative
Programme on Monitoring of Inland Waters (Eutrophication Control). OECD, Paris.
UNEP GEMS/Water. 2006. Water Quality for Ecosystem and Human Health. Burlington,
Canada. A publication of the UNEP GEMS/Water Programme. ISBN 92-95039-10-6.
http://www.gemswater.org
Waikato Regional Council, NZ. 1999-2007.Water Quality Glossary, Table 1: Typical
levels of total phosphorus, total nitrogen and chlorophyll a and Secchi depth in New
Zealand lakes for different trophic states.
http://www.ew.govt.nz/enviroinfo/water/lakes/lakesglossary.htm (accessed October 25
2007).
Wetzel, R.G. 2001. Limnology, Third Edition. Academic Press, 850 pages.

Appendix 2: Station density adjustments to country-level

water quality index scores.
Country-level water quality index scores were adjusted to account for the density of
monitoring stations within the country. To avoid penalizing large, under-populated
countries for low monitoring station densities, the number of monitoring stations in a
country was divided by the populated land area (> 5 individuals km-2) (CIESIN 2007).
All monitoring stations in a country were included in determining density, regardless of
whether they were included in the final water quality index. The target station density
was set to reflect the standards originally recommended by the European Environment
Agencys Monitoring and Information Network for Inland Water Resources (Nixon et al.
1998). Countries that failed to meet the target station density were penalized by adjusting
their national WQI down by a factor of between 0.8 and 0.95, depending on the density of
stations in their country (Table A2).
Table A2: Station density adjustments to national WQI scores:
Multiplier
1
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
Station density ( /
1 station
0.1 & < 1
0.01 & < 0.001 & <
< 0.001
1000 km2):
station
0.1 station
0.01 station
station
** Station density determined per area of country where population density is > 5 people
km-2, according to PLACE II dataset (CIESIN 2007).

References
CIESIN (Center for International Earth Science Information Network) 2007. National
Aggregates of Geospatial Data Collection: Population, Landscape, and Climate
Estimates, Version 2 (PLACE II). Columbia University.
http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/place/
Nixon, S, J. Grath, and J Bgestrand. 1998. Technical Report No. 7, EUROWATERNET,
The European Environment Agencys Monitoring and Information Network for Inland
Water Resources, Technical Guidelines for Implementation. European Environment
Agency, Copenhagen. http://reports.eea.europa.eu/TECH07/en/tech07.pdf