Page 66 - CIWA Water Data Revolution Overview Report

Hackathons demonstrating the use of RS data and
data platforms

A knowledge hub for African water institutions
and organizations on RS data and data products
with water resource management applications

Information on RS data and data products that
are being currently used in Africa

Information on water resources management
tools that use only RS data

Use of free or low-cost data platforms (such as
GEE or DEA) that have analysis-ready data

Use of RS to assist with decision making for
sustainable, resilient, and efficient management
of transboundary water resources

Workshops on accessing, storing, and managing
RS data from free or low-cost data sources

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
No. of Organizations

Figure 11: Number of organization interested in receiving trainings of various types.

Overall, organizations view RS data, data products, and analytical tools using RS as opportunities
to improve their management of transboundary water resources, while alleviating common
constraints plaguing conventional data collection and analysis methods (i.e., financial constraints
and limited access to in-situ data collection). A majority of organizations would like to expand
their use of RS data and analysis-ready data platforms; learn about methods for cost effective RS
data collection; and improve their capacity to apply analytical tools that perform flood
forecasting or monitoring and drought analyses.

7.5 Constraints for Expanding the Use of RS Data, Data Platforms, and Analytical Tools

Identifying the leading constraints inhibiting the current use of RS data, data products, and
analytical tools using RS is of immense importance for understanding how to build capacity and
sustainable adoption of RS technologies by the RBOs and ROs. As explained in 7.4 organizations
are highly interested in using RS data and tools, so the constraints to adopting these tools must
be carefully considered to achieve the WDR objectives. The list of constraints identified by the
RBOs and ROs are provided in Figure 12. As highlighted below, the dominant factors inhibiting

28