results of the cams user satisfaction survey 2018 · about the survey target audience the purpose...

Results of the CAMS User

Satisfaction Survey 2018

July 2018

Issued by: Copernicus User Support, ECMWF

Date: 01/10/2018

REF.: CAMS User Satisfaction Survey 2018 report v2.docx

Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service

CAMS User Satisfaction Survey 2018

Contents

Executive Summary ............................................................................................ 1

About the survey ................................................................................................ 2

Target audience ............................................................................................... 2

The questionnaire ............................................................................................ 3

Q1: Where are you based? .................................................................................. 5

Results ........................................................................................................... 5

Recommendations ........................................................................................... 5

Q2: Which sector does your organisation belong to? ............................................... 6

Results ........................................................................................................... 6


Q3: How do you use CAMS? ................................................................................. 7

Results ........................................................................................................... 7


Q4: Overall, how satisfied are you with CAMS? ....................................................... 8

Results ........................................................................................................... 8


Q5: How useful are CAMS products and services for you, and how satisfied are you with them? ........................................................................................................ 9

Results ........................................................................................................... 9

Recommendations ......................................................................................... 14

Q6: How useful is, and how satisfied are you with non-data services? ..................... 14

Results ......................................................................................................... 14


Q7: If you downloaded CAMS global data using the WebAPI, how satisfied are you with the WebAPI? .................................................................................................... 16


Q8: If you downloaded CAMS regional data using the WebAPI, how satisfied are you with the WebAPI? ............................................................................................. 17


Q9: What would you like to see in the future from CAMS? ..................................... 18

Results ......................................................................................................... 18



CAMS User Satisfaction Survey 2018

Q10: Do you have any other suggestions how we can improve the Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service for you? .............................................................. 18

Annex: Summary tables and open-ended comments ............................................. 19


CAMS User Satisfaction Survey 2018 1

Executive Summary

Users of the Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service (CAMS) are overall satisfied with the service provided by CAMS and rate the services with an overall satisfaction rating of 3.5 out of 4; this is the same rate as in the previous year’s survey.

61% of CAMS users are based in the European Union. About half of users work in academia/research, with the proportion of business users increasing strongly from the

previous year.

User uptake and satisfaction varies significantly by CAMS products and services: the most popular services are information on global atmospheric composition, solar

radiation, and European air quality. Utility and satisfaction ratings remain largely unchanged across all main products compared to the previous years’ survey.

Users are also mostly satisfied with supporting services, in particular with the available data access mechanisms and with the product documentation. Notably many users are not aware of remote services (e.g. OGC services) and CAMS outreach activities.

Overall the survey participation and the results are remarkably similar to the previous year’s results, give or take only a few percentage points.

The 2017 survey identified four areas for improvement, which all remain valid in 2018: (a) the footprint of CAMS in Eastern Europe (b) the attractiveness of CAMS to public sector users and in particular the utility and awareness of policy support products, (c)

data access tailored to users’ specifications, and (d) more detailed scientific documentation.



About the survey

Target audience

The purpose of the CAMS User Satisfaction Survey 2018 was to understand how satisfied CAMS users are with services provided, to collect feedback, analyse them and

help improve CAMS services.

The survey targeted all users who, in the 12 months preceding the survey, accessed CAMS data products or who interacted with Copernicus User Support, and for whom

email addresses were available. This demographic comprised 2816 distinct users (with some users registered for multiple services):

• 1615 users of ECMWF-hosted CAMS/MACC data services (Global NRT, Global NRT archive, GFAS, CAMS Reanalysis, MACC Reanalysis, CAMS/MACC GHG inversion, CAMS climate forcing)

• 923 users of CAMS solar data services (CAMS_72) • 521 users of CAMS User Support

• 142 users of the CAMS Regional service (CAMS_50) • 19 users of CAMS Anthropogenic Emissions data services (CAMS_81)

Some CAMS services allow anonymous access (e.g. CAMS_50, CAMS_71); users of

these anonymous services are not included in the survey. Hence the actual number of CAMS users is expected to be higher than the targeted demographic.

The survey was deployed via an online questionnaire, in English, which was open between 26th June and 17th July 2018. CAMS invited all 2816 identified users by email to participate in the survey.

In total 259 users responded (9.2% of addressees; previous year: 254 responses, 7.5% of addressees).

The previous year’s survey had addressed users who ever accessed CAMS data services (3388 users), with 254 responses (7.5% of the demographic).

For further information please contact [email protected].



The questionnaire

The following questionnaire was used:

Q1: Where are you based? (List of countries and territories)

Q2: Which sector does your organisation belong to? (Public authorities / University and Research / Commercial or private sector / International organisation, NGO /

Other)

Q3: How do you use CAMS? I usually use…

• Parameters : A single parameter or species / A few at a time / Many

• Time: A single date / Multiple dates / Long time series • Vertical levels: Surface only, or a single specific model or pressure level /

Multiple model or pressure levels / All model or pressure levels

Q4: Overall, how satisfied are you with the Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service? (1 = not satisfied, 4 = very satisfied)

Q5: How useful are the following CAMS products and services for you, and how satisfied are you with them?

• European air quality • Global atmospheric composition • Policy support products

• Solar radiation • Greenhouse gas fluxes

• Climate forcing • Anthropogenic emissions • Fire emissions

• Other

Q6: How useful is, and how satisfied are you with ...

• CAMS Website • Product catalogue • Automated data download (WebAPI, FTP, ...)

• Data download portal (apps.ecmwf.int) • Remote services (e.g. WMS, CSW)

• Available data formats • Documentation

• Knowledge base • Validation reports • Helpdesk / Support

• Mailing list • Newsletter

• Other

Q7: If you downloaded CAMS global data using the WebAPI, how satisfied are you with the WebAPI?

• In terms of speed (1 = not satisfied, 4 = very satisfied) • In terms of availability (24/7) (1 = not satisfied, 4 = very satisfied)

Q8: If you downloaded CAMS regional data using the API, how satisfied are you with the WebAPI?



• In terms of speed (1 = not satisfied, 4 = very satisfied)

• In terms of availability (24/7) (1 = not satisfied, 4 = very satisfied)

Q9: What would you like to see in the future from CAMS?

• Interactive web maps • Subset data to a specific geographical area • Time series at custom locations

• Vertical profiles at custom locations • Epsgrams for custom locations

• Additional parameters and chemical species • More OGC services (WMS, WCS) • More documentation

• Additional data formats • Other

Q10: Do you have any other suggestions how we can improve the Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service for you?



Q1: Where are you based?

Results

Responding CAMS users are mostly based in the European Union (61% of all responses). Outside Europe most responses come from India and the USA (4% each).

Overall and among the EU countries France is leading, followed by Germany (reversing the previous year’s top two

positions), and by Spain and Greece (Figure 1).

Looking only at the Regional Atmospheric Composition Service (CAMS_50), we find the same country distribution.

Overall the regional distribution remains almost identical to the previous years’

survey results.

Recently CAMS targeted specifically the eastern EU countries; however, the user

numbers do not show increased user uptake in the Eastern EU.

Recommendations

The regional distribution shows that

CAMS is primarily used within in the EU, in line with its mandate.

Respondent numbers correlate with

countries’ population; however, the eastern EU countries are still

underrepresented and the efforts to increase the user uptake in Eastern Europe should continue.

Figure 1: Responses by country (where >= 2%)



Q2: Which sector does your organisation belong to?

Results

In terms of industry sectors, globally most users work in academia and research, followed by commercial entities and public authorities (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Responses by sector, global

Compared to the previous year, the use of CAMS in the commercial sector increased (from 18% to 22%), while in the public sector it decreased (from 18% to 15%).

Responses from EU-based users show a similar distribution (Figure 3), and a similar change over the past year: the use of CAMS in the EU commercial sector increased by

significantly (from 21% to 28%), while it decreased in the public sector (20% to 16%) and in academia/research (54% to 49%).

Figure 3: Responses by sector, EU only

Overall, CAMS is well known and well used in academia and research, and shows signs

of growth in the commercial sector compared to last year’s survey. A word of caution though that firm conclusions can only be made about the types of respondents to the

survey. Conclusions about the type of users are more tentative and may be different if the response rates among the academic and commercial user categories are different

(commercial users may spend less time in responding to survey for instance).

Recommendations

Further user uptake activities should concentrate on the public sector, where CAMS is

relatively underrepresented.



Q3: How do you use CAMS?

Results

To determine how CAMS should provide data products in an efficient and user friendly way, users were asked what combinations of parameters, time periods and vertical

levels they usually use.

Figure 4: Use by parameters / time periods / levels (all responses)

While users show no clear preference for the number of parameters and chemical

species, a clear majority are interested in time series or multiple dates rather than single dates (Figure 4). For heights, surface data is significantly more popular than

vertically differentiated data. These patterns were already present in the 2017 survey and are even more pronounced in the current survey. These findings apply to the whole demographic as well as EU-based users.

Despite the strong preference for surface level data and time series, the combinations of number of parameters, time periods, and level types required by users remain

diverse.

Recommendations

To respond to the diversity in user requirements, CAMS should provide mechanisms for users to customise data access to their individual preferences.



Q4: Overall, how satisfied are you with CAMS?

Results

Overall satisfaction with CAMS is high, both globally and from EU respondents. The weighted average rating is 3.5 out of 4, both globally and among EU-based service

users.

In the interannual comparison the percentage of ‘very satisfied’ users increased from 57% to 62% (globally) and from 56% to 61% (EU users).

The 2017 survey highlighted relatively low satisfaction among the EU-based public authorities. This situation improved (‘very satisfied’ ratings in this demographic went

from 46% in 2017 to 56% in 2018) and is now in line with the overall satisfaction ratings.

Figure 5: Overall satisfaction, all respondents

Figure 6: Overall satisfaction, EU respondents

Recommendations

Overall user satisfaction with CAMS is high and does not indicate a need for radical

change to the CAMS strategy and portfolio.

Some free text comments:

“Powerful open data for innovation”

“The provided OGC services allows us

work with the data in a standard way.”

“Being not a data scientist, it was very

hard to extract data for web applications”

“For the non-technical user, the interface

is cumbersome to use.”

Users’ free text comments emphasise the utility of the service, but also barriers in accessing the services.



Q5: How useful are CAMS products and services for you, and how satisfied are you with them?

Results

Utility and satisfaction ratings remain largely unchanged compared to the previous years’ survey:

Utility is still ranked highest for solar products and global atmospheric products.

(Figure 7), for the global user base as well as the EU user base. Notably, users became more aware of the European air quality service.

Satisfaction is still raked highest for the Solar radiation service and the Global atmospheric service, and increased significantly for the Climate forcing, Anthropogenic emissions, and Fire emissions services.

Policy support products continue to stand out as being relatively unknown (49% of EU-based users are not aware of CAMS policy support products) and are ranked least

satisfactory.



Figure 7: Utility and user satisfaction with data products and services, all respondents (166 responses)



Stratified by sector, commercial users find the CAMS services for global atmospheric

composition, European air quality, and solar radiation most useful, and GHG and policy products least useful. Most commercial users are ‘very satisfied’ or ‘extremely’ satisfied

with all main services (Figure 8).

Compared to the previous year, awareness of the CAMS portfolio decreased, indicating that users access specific products rather than information about the overall portfolio.

Figure 8: Utility and user satisfaction with data products and services, Commercial and private sector

(41 responses)



In academia and research, the global atmospheric composition and solar radiation

services are considered most useful. Users in this sector are generally very satisfied with the CAMS services. (Figure 9)

Compared to the previous year, awareness increased slightly, as did satisfaction.

Figure 9: Utility and user satisfaction with data products and services, Academia and Research (90 responses)



In the public sector, global atmospheric composition data is considered most useful,

followed by data on European air quality and fire emissions. Satisfaction with all products is very high (Figure 10). Only policy support products stand out as being

known little and are even less known in the public sector than in other sectors.

Compared to the previous year, awareness of the product portfolio improved significantly, as did satisfaction. User numbers remain low though.

Figure 10: Utility and user satisfaction with data products and services, public sector (24 responses)



Recommendations

CAMS users find data products and services generally useful and are increasingly satisfied with them, indicating that CAMS has impact and is fulfilling its mandate. Policy

support products are known little and consideration should be given to promoting them more.

Q6: How useful is, and how satisfied are you with non-data services?

Results

This question covers various supporting services, like data provision mechanisms, documentation, and user interaction.

Overall, users consider these services useful, with services related to data access

ranked most useful. Notably the remote services (WMS, CSW) and CAMS communications (mailing lists and newsletter) are relatively unknown (Figure 11).

All non-data services receive high satisfaction ratings; remote data services (OGC services), documentation and validation reports lag somewhat behind.



Figure 11: Utility and user satisfaction with non-data services, all respondents (158 responses)

“Overall a good communication

for the few times we needed

support”

“The automatic way of

downloading to too complicated

to learn.”

“Data formats: grib, netcdf

formats not standard or usable

in common GIS desktop

clients.”



The most useful supporting services are the CAMS website and its product catalogue,

automated data access, the data web portals, the available data formats, and documentation (Figure 11). Remote services (OGC services) and information services

(mailing list, newsletter, helpdesk, knowledge base) are not well known and considered not very relevant. These results are similar to the previous year’s findings; the only notable difference is a much higher ranking of the utility of the CAMS product

catalogue.

Satisfaction with supporting services is high throughout (in most services fewer than

5% of users are not satisfied), only remote services (OGC services) and stand out as less satisfying.

In the previous year many users were dissatisfied with the CAMS product catalogue;

since then the catalogue did undergo redesign and satisfaction improved significantly.

EU-based users and non-EU users show almost identical response patterns.

Recommendations

Consideration should be given to improving primarily remote data services and

documentation.

Q7: If you downloaded CAMS global data using the WebAPI, how satisfied are you with the WebAPI?

Questions Q7 and Q8 were added for the 2018 survey, triggered by anecdotal evidence

of availability and usability issues with the WebAPI (the ECMWF data delivery platform for CAMS global products).

The results show that some users are indeed dissatisfied, primarily with the speed of data delivery, but also indicate that the WebAPI meets or exceeds the expectations of a clear majority of users (Figure 12).

Figure 12: Satisfaction with the WebAPI for CAMS global data (109 responses)



Recommendations

Contrary to anecdotal evidence, only a small number of users are dissatisfied with the CAMS global data API. Given that the data will eventually move to a different platform,

the numbers are too small to justify mitigation beyond case-by-case assistance.

The survey also shows that users value speedy data access; this should be considered

in the upcoming migration of CAMS data to a new platform.

Q8: If you downloaded CAMS regional data using the

WebAPI, how satisfied are you with the WebAPI?

Satisfaction with the API for regional (European) data is high throughout and almost

identical to satisfaction with the global data API (Figure 13). This is not surprising, as both platforms offer similar capabilities (NRT data with instant access, an offline

archive, programmatic access).

Figure 13: Satisfaction with the WebAPI for CAMS regional data (103 responses)

Recommendations

The access mechanisms to regional data are well established and users are mostly satisfied. If anything, speedier access could potentially improve satisfaction further.



Q9: What would you like to see in the future from CAMS?

This question aims to identify user-driven improvements to CAMS.

Results

As in the previous year, the most requested features are the ability to customize data

retrieval for specific geographical areas, time series, and vertical profiles (Figure 14Figure 14).

Figure 14: The CAMS user wish list (157 responses)

Compared to the 2017 survey, the only significant change is a reduced demand for

additional documentation. It is not clear if this reflects additional documentation becoming available, or users familiarising themselves more with the data.

Recommendations

CAMS should consider implementing tools for customised data access, in particular easy access to time series for global atmospheric composition data.

Q10: Do you have any other suggestions how we can improve the Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service for you?

This is an open question. Responses mostly reiterate points already highlighted in other questions, hence no further analysis is undertaken and no additional

recommendations are identified. See the annex for full responses.

“Enabling the extraction of

time series for the surface

wind speed and air

temperature along the solar

radiation.”

“It would be important to

have access to the

meteorological fields used

to run Air Quality

simulations”

“For an external data user it

is not obvious where to find

what data.”



Annex: Summary tables and open-ended comments

Q1. Where are you based?

Territories with <3 responses are excluded for anonymity

Answer Choices Percentage Responses

France 12.36% 32

Germany 9.27% 24

Spain 8.49% 22

Greece 6.56% 17

India 4.25% 11

Italy 4.25% 11

United Kingdom 3.86% 10

United States of America 3.86% 10

Portugal 3.09% 8

China 2.70% 7

Japan 1.93% 5

Netherlands 1.93% 5

Russian Federation 1.93% 5

Sweden 1.93% 5

Switzerland 1.93% 5

Austria 1.54% 4

Brazil 1.54% 4

Colombia 1.54% 4

Poland 1.54% 4

Other 25.59% 66

Answered: 259, Skipped: 0

Q2. Which sector does your organisation belong to?

Answer Choices % of total Responses

Public authorities (European,

National or local)

15.06% 39

University and Research 53.67% 139

Commercial or private sector 22.01% 57

International organisation, NGO 2.70% 7

Other (please specify) 6.56% 17




Q3. How do you use CAMS?

Parameters:

I usually use ...

A single parameter /

species

A few at a time Many Total

% of total Responses % of total Responses % of total Responses

26.88% 68 47.83% 121 25.30% 64 253

Dates:

I usually use ...

A single date Multiple dates Long time series Total


8.10% 20 42.11% 104 49.80% 123 247

Height levels:

I usually use ...

Surface only, or a single

specific model or

pressure level

Multiple model or

pressure levels

All model or pressure

levels

Total


55.97% 136 23.05% 56 20.99% 51 243


Q4. Overall, how satisfied are you with the Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service?

Rating,

1 to 4,

higher is

better

1 2 3 4 Total Weighted

Average

Responses % of

total

Responses % of

total

Responses % of

total

Responses % of

total

Responses % of

total

Responses

2.29% 4 5.71% 10 30.29% 53 61.71% 108 175 3.51


Comments:

1. being not a data scientist, it was very hard to extract data for web applications

2. being not a data scientist, it was very hard to extract data for web applications

3. Excelent

4. neat configuration

5. It works really nice.

6. we are satisfied because more parameters have been introduced in Copernicus and are very interesting in our

work research

7. They recently changed the web-based service to only download one month at a time. The command-based

download is a little more complicated, and I had to learn a new way of downloading after I already thought I

knew how to get the data.

8. I really appreciate that the cams service is free of charge.

9. It's really great initiative from Copernicus

10. Due to our fire wall policies i have not received any data yet ... Therefore I can't provide any further comment.

11. I think the website is a bit confusing. It is not so easy to find what you want and the information related. For

instance, the project Deliverables should have an easily accessible abstract and title. Currently you have to

download and open every document to find what it is about.

12. Products animation is not fluent.

13. good



14. We are quite satisfied but if was possible Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service provide data with higher

time resolution could be great.

15. I would wish to access more image formats via WMS

16. Perfect and powerful open data for innovation

17. From Colombia I could not obtain information about PM10, PM2.5, OC. I only could obtain information about

Black Carbon AOD550nm

18. Easy and fast to use and well documented.

19. Copernicus gets the maximum number of stars. excellent general coverage showing dust / PM1, PM2.5. Much

better general data than I get from the local Canadian / provincial services in British Columbia near Vancouver

and Kamloops. Copernicus general ground level particulates track private PM levels as reported in my cell

phone apps. Canadian government and provincial dust reports generally report far less dust than I see from

Copernicus and from private sensors reporting on apps. Local government reports are an order of magnitude

more optimistic than PM levels shown by Copernicus. Last month Copernicus showed me where there was a

fire or other large PM generator north of Pitt Lake, lasted for days and increased local PM1 levels to over

30ug/m3. Government data reported PM2.5 under 5ug/m3.

20. seems to be the only source of global co2 information

21. I did not like the change of colour coding, it transformed a bad reading (red, purples) into something that

seems to be ok (green) . The visual message is not lost on me, let's not alarm the masses .

22. The staffs working there is very helpful!

23. awesome!!!!really appreciated. Especially the air quality services.

24. You are doing a great job making all of these amazing data available to the community. Go on !

25. Very good services

26. reliable service

27. An excellent source of data for climate analysis and building simulations

28. For the non-technical user, the interface is cumbersome to use. For the European air quality monitoring

(http://www.regional.atmosphere.copernicus.eu/?category=data_access) it is irritating and time-consuming

that the latest files (for the current year) have to be downloaded as individual days rather than one netCDF for

the whole year so far.

29. Difficulty to access the CO2 analysis product. The aerosol products suffers large defects: only 5 wavelengths

amongst 20 for AOT, precision not very good. Difficult to download a large amount of data. Difficult to

understand how analysis are computed.

30. a longer data history is needed.

31. I'm so grateful for having found this database. It has allowed me to complete my End-of-Degree Project, so

thank you so much for your work.

32. Very useful and free!

33. The provided OGC services allows us work with the data in a standard way. Additional options like for example

temporal / vertical slices should be useful.

34. No guidelines/code on how to use raw data.



Q5. How useful are the following CAMS products and services for you, and how satisfied are you

with them?

How useful

Am not aware of

it

Irrelevant Somewhat useful Very useful Essential Total

% of

total

Respo

nses

% of

total

Respo

nses

% of

total

Respon

ses

% of

total

Respon

ses

% of

total

Respon

ses

Respon

ses

European air

quality

20.93

%

27 15.50

%

20 14.73

%

19 24.81

%

32 24.03

%

31 129

Global

atmospheric

composition

14.07

%

19 4.44

%

6 14.07

%

19 42.96

%

58 24.44

%

33 135

Policy support

products

47.11

%

57 16.53

%

20 14.05

%

17 17.36

%

21 4.96% 6 121

Solar radiation 16.20

%

23 9.86

%

14 9.86% 14 38.03

%

54 26.06

%

37 142

Greenhouse

gas fluxes

25.78

%

33 15.63

%

20 18.75

%

24 21.88

%

28 17.97

%

23 128

Climate

forcing

29.27

%

36 17.89

%

22 16.26

%

20 22.76

%

28 13.82

%

17 123

Anthropogenic

emissions

27.42

%

34 11.29

%

14 14.52

%

18 30.65

%

38 16.13

%

20 124

Fire emissions 28.57

%

36 11.90

%

15 16.67

%

21 28.57

%

36 14.29

%

18 126


How satisfied

Not satisfied at

all

Somewhat

satisfied

Very satisfied Extremely

satisfied

Total

% of

total

Respon

ses

% of

total

Respon

ses

% of

total

Respon

ses

% of

total

Respon

ses

Responses

European air quality 5.81

%

5 24.42

%

21 45.35

%

39 24.42

%

21 86

Global atmospheric composition 1.94

%

2 16.50

%

17 61.17

%

63 20.39

%

21 103

Policy support products 11.32

%

6 32.08

%

17 45.28

%

24 11.32

%

6 53

Solar radiation 6.00

%

6 15.00

%

15 58.00

%

58 21.00

%

21 100

Greenhouse gas fluxes 5.56

%

4 20.83

%

15 54.17

%

39 19.44

%

14 72

Climate forcing 6.45

%

4 17.74

%

11 56.45

%

35 19.35

%

12 62

Anthropogenic emissions 5.56

%

4 20.83

%

15 51.39

%

37 22.22

%

16 72

Fire emissions 4.05

%

3 22.97

%

17 56.76

%

42 16.22

%

12 74




Comments:

1. Would be convenient if data file format descriptions are made available to the users. There are reports on the

data prepared but they do not mention the specific formats of the data files. For example, I recently used CH4

flux data and a bit confused with the use of coefficients and offset values for converting integers on the file to

true values; even a short explanation/description would be a big help in saving time for data unpacking.

2. accuracy of aerosols to be improved

3. I just used the globe fire emission data. So I have no idea about the other datasets, but in the near future, I

think the globe Greenhouse gas fluxes and Anthropogenic emissions dataset is very useful.

4. We calculate the PV power generation based on direct and diffuse radiation. The regionally and temporally

dissolved data for all European NUTS3 regions is part of our energy system model.

5. The question is, are we getting the actual readings from the sat? Sometimes the graphs don't have the same

readings as NASA has, especially when it comes to Methane emissions

6. At present, I am using solar radiation data only, so I did not comment others CAMS products



Q6. How useful is, and how satisfied are you with ...

How useful

Am not aware of

it

Irrelevant Somewhat useful Very useful Essential Total

% of

total

Respon

ses

% of

total

Respo

nses

% of

total

Respons

es

% of

total

Respons

es

% of

total

Respons

es

Respo

nses

CAMS website 0.67

%

1 1.33

%

2 13.33

%

20 64.00

%

96 20.67

%

31 150

Product catalogue 7.52

%

10 2.26

%

3 17.29

%

23 57.14

%

76 15.79

%

21 133

Automated data

download

(WebAPI, FTP, ...)

6.52

%

9 5.07

%

7 11.59

%

16 34.06

%

47 42.75

%

59 138

Data download

portal

(apps.ecmwf.int)

9.38

%

12 4.69

%

6 16.41

%

21 42.97

%

55 26.56

%

34 128

Remote services

(e.g. WMS, CSW)

38.39

%

43 8.04

%

9 19.64

%

22 25.89

%

29 8.04

%

9 112

Available data

formats

5.26

%

7 0.00

%

0 12.03

%

16 60.15

%

80 22.56

%

30 133

Documentation 5.47

%

7 0.78

%

1 18.75

%

24 52.34

%

67 22.66

%

29 128

Knowledge base 22.61

%

26 3.48

%

4 17.39

%

20 41.74

%

48 14.78

%

17 115

Validation reports 20.54

%

23 0.89

%

1 24.11

%

27 35.71

%

40 18.75

%

21 112

Helpdesk /

Support

23.93

%

28 4.27

%

5 14.53

%

17 37.61

%

44 19.66

%

23 117

Mailing list 30.56

%

33 7.41

%

8 28.70

%

31 25.93

%

28 7.41

%

8 108

Newsletter 36.79

%

39 8.49

%

9 22.64

%

24 27.36

%

29 4.72

%

5 106


How satisfied

Not satisfied at all Somewhat satisfied Very satisfied Extremely satisfied Total

% of

total

Response

s

% of

total

Response

s

% of

total

Response

s

% of total Respon

ses

Respo

nses

CAMS website 3.03% 4 22.73% 30 54.55% 72 19.70% 26 132

Product catalogue 1.79% 2 22.32% 25 59.82% 67 16.07% 18 112

Automated data

download (WebAPI,

FTP, ...)

5.36% 6 21.43% 24 44.64% 50 28.57% 32 112

Data download

portal

(apps.ecmwf.int)

3.85% 4 25.00% 26 50.00% 52 21.15% 22 104

Remote services

(e.g. WMS, CSW)

13.79

%

8 31.03% 18 46.55% 27 8.62% 5 58



Available data

formats

0.91% 1 19.09% 21 57.27% 63 22.73% 25 110

Documentation 3.77% 4 35.85% 38 47.17% 50 13.21% 14 106

Knowledge base 0.00% 0 28.99% 20 53.62% 37 17.39% 12 69

Validation reports 2.56% 2 33.33% 26 50.00% 39 14.10% 11 78

Helpdesk / Support 1.27% 1 17.72% 14 54.43% 43 26.58% 21 79

Mailing list 1.69% 1 27.12% 16 52.54% 31 18.64% 11 59

Newsletter 5.45% 3 27.27% 15 56.36% 31 10.91% 6 55

Answered: 158, Skipped:101

Comments:

1. I recently looked-for Albedo data, but found no information on the spectral range of the data.

2. Still some difficulties downloading the data.

3. Overall a good communication for the few times we needed support

4. Data formats: grib, netcdf formats not standard or usable in common GIS desktop clients (ArcGIS, ArcGIS

PRO, QGIS..). OGC WMS: query/identify not supported, no external Spatial reference system supported i.e

EPSG:3857). OGC WCS: version (2.0) not supported by common GIS desktop clients. downloads see data

format

5. Thanks to the remote support by email when i meet problems.

6. We use it to follow the gases who contribute to climate change and we always hope the readings are accurate.

Case in point: any emissions over 2000 for CH4 are lumped together at the very end, so there is no way to tell

what was the MAX for a given day.... although it will eventually come from another source saying it was 2500

to 3000ppb or higher as it has been for ch4. So the question is, why hide the truth?

7. I think some more publications referring to a certain dataset are needed for a better understanding of the

dataset, also helpful for new publications

8. The output data format is a source of problems. In the industry EXCEL is the relevant format, everything may

be fun to play with for scientist but in the commercial sector a direct data download in Excel format (ideally

adapting automatically to country settings in Excel) would be a bliss.

9. The automatic way of downloading to too complicated to learn. Examples are the only way to use them.



Q7. If you downloaded CAMS global data using the WebAPI, how satisfied are you with the

WebAPI?

How satisfied

Not satisfied Somewhat satisfied Mostly satisfied Very satisfied Total

% of

total

Response

s

% of

total

Response

s

% of

total

Response

s

% of total Respon

ses

Respo

nses

In terms of speed 4.59% 5 18.35% 20 46.79% 51 30.28% 33 109

In terms of

availability (24/7)

0.94% 1 13.21% 14 45.28% 48 40.57% 43 106


Comments:

1. speed is very different from download to download

2. For gases (O3, NO2, CO) I would like to download lighter NetCDF files, I am forced to download bigger file

even if I use only a model or a pressure band

3. We use PythonAPI. Download used to be much faster in the past

4. not an active user

5. Speed is somewhat slow when downloading from the US, but this is understandable.

6. Not using that format

7. Stale data. Cumbersome methods to access.

Q8. If you downloaded CAMS regional data using the WebAPI, how satisfied are you with the

WebAPI?

How satisfied

Not satisfied Somewhat satisfied Mostly satisfied Very satisfied Total

% of

total

Response

s

% of

total

Response

s

% of

total

Response

s

% of total Respon

ses

Respo

nses

In terms of speed 2.91% 3 18.45% 19 39.81% 41 38.83% 40 103

In terms of

availability (24/7)

1.00% 1 12.00% 12 40.00% 40 47.00% 47 100


Comments:

1. I am not using regional data.

2. Map access via WMS tiles is sometimes slow

3. not an active user

4. i don't know how to use the product

5. Gave up.



Q9. What would you like to see in the future from CAMS?

Not important Nice-to-have Important Very important Total Weig

hted

Avera

ge

% of

total

Respon

ses

% of

total

Respon

ses

% of

total

Respon

ses

% of

total

Respon

ses

Resp

onses

Interactive web maps 9.40

%

14 36.24

%

54 30.20

%

45 24.16

%

36 149 2.69

Subset data to a specific

geographical area

6.00

%

9 19.33

%

29 37.33

%

56 37.33

%

56 150 3.06

Time series at custom

locations

3.27

%

5 20.26

%

31 32.03

%

49 44.44

%

68 153 3.18

Vertical profiles at

custom locations

10.74

%

16 28.19

%

42 28.86

%

43 32.21

%

48 149 2.83

Epsgrams for custom

locations

21.21

%

28 40.15

%

53 24.24

%

32 14.39

%

19 132 2.32

Additional parameters

and chemical

species(Please provide

details in box below)

29.84

%

37 33.06

%

41 16.13

%

20 20.97

%

26 124 2.28

More OGC services

(WMS, WCS)

25.00

%

31 40.32

%

50 21.77

%

27 12.90

%

16 124 2.23

More documentation

(Please provide details in

box below)

17.05

%

22 34.11

%

44 27.13

%

35 21.71

%

28 129 2.53

Additional data

formats(Please provide

details in box below)

36.51

%

46 26.19

%

33 24.60

%

31 12.70

%

16 126 2.13


Other or further details:

1. It would be important to have access to the meteorological fields used to run Air Quality simulations

2. Data availability in NetCDF formats.

3. more documentation about errors

4. Enabling the extraction of time series for the surface wind speed and air temperature along the solar radiation.

5. "Fire emissions essential: HCN, acetonitrile. Fire emissions that would be nice: ethyne, monoterpenes, formic

acid, acetic acid"

6. Would be nice to have a better idea of which species combine to impact health and/or vis from wildfires

(realizing that this is several different species).

7. chemical compounds of aerosol (sea salt, dust, organic matter, elemental carbon, etc), some biogenic and

anthropogenic volatile compounds

8. perhaps some overview documentation on cams would nice (cams for beginners)

9. More greenhouse and ozone depleting gas species, e.g. N2O. The documentation isn't necessarily poor but it

often difficult to locate.

10. For an external data user it is not obvious where to find what data. if you click on ""select data set"", there is

a long list of abbreviations or acronyms. This might be a bit more structured, this structure should be reflected

in the help. Sometimes the data are stored at non intuitive links, eg, in the near real time data I found the



"logarithm of the surface pressure" neither in the pressure levels nor in the surface data only in the model

levels, why not at all places.

11. More aerosol optical parameters, e.g: extinction coefficient, aerosol index (similar with MODIS product)

12. I would like to have some information about particulate nitrate. Maybe there is no need for more information,

but the information available should be easier to find.

13. for formats: Esri format

14. Perhaps other species indicated by CAFE Directive, aerosols for example: sulphates, nitrates, BC. More

methodology papers

15. Could be great if CAMS provide Mercury and other persistent pollutants

16. It would be nice to have a documentation about CAMS data format and how some specifications about altitude

levels

17. More data formats: image/jpg for the WMS service

18. It would be great to have more documents (reference to papers for example) for each product.

19. JSON or something easily consumable

20. OGC web services & Netcdf in standard formats

21. Improved forecasts of aerosol AOT

22. A service like earth.nullschool.net, with PM1 surface verification in or around major cities in British Columbia. 'd

like to see anthropogenic emissions in a similar format to nullschool,

https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/particulates/surface/level/overlay=pm1/orthographic=-

121.26,51.98,3000/loc=-122.051,49.283

23. more pollen species (even though this is very difficult)

24. Now I can only download monthly datasets. It would be great to allow us select the data for user defined time

period.

25. Concerning the format the grib format, even historical, is not very convenient. Fortunately netcdf is available

for download. I would suggest to keep netcdf / hdf5 or other ready to read with python.

26. EXCEL data format PLEASE!!! Who needs txt or csv?

27. Additional parameters. Instantaneous solar irradiance at step forecast. Aerodynamic surface roughness. Better

documentation on the differences in models and parameters with other ECMWF products (e.g. ERA5, Interim,

operational forecast, ...)

28. Excel

29. CO2! And all data in netCDF format please. "

30. Should you decide to add interactive map using an external contractor, we would be keen to participate in the

tender.

31. Parameters: vertical profiles of AOT at different wavelengths. Documentation: be more explicit on how the

analysis are produced, when they are available, what is their time step."

32. geoJson output format should be useful

33. .csv; .xlsx; .json

34. Other pollen types.

35. More pollen types



Q10. Do you have any other suggestions how we can improve the Copernicus Atmosphere

Monitoring Service for you?


1. No at this moment

2. having more tools to request webAPI to have just basic datas for regions

3. If it is possible, it would be very useful provide the validation reports for more sites.

4. How can I link up local available services with the CAMS outputs? I see that this has been completed for Riga,

where a local model coupled with the CAMS regional information is yielding something very useful. I would like

to explore that possibility within our own national context.

5. It would like to have contact with you as a group of person /non having status as a NGO or similiar/ with

relevant experience in this field, noone from Serbia contact you so far, when I realized that I have to organize

some kind of NVO I gave up

6. It would be nice to enlarge the API calls limit to 250-300 per email account.

7. No

8. not yet

9. Increased length of forecasts would be of value - extending from 5 days to, say, 7 or 10.

10. Sometimes the download of data is unavailable, please send us a notice of what happens, the reasons of the

interrupted service.

11. Possibility to download observations as in The Copernicus Marine Environment Monitoring Service. Possibility to

compare as time series measurements and models.

12. NetCDF data format is required for spatial analysis software like ArcGIS

13. I'm very satisfied with the CAMS for now, and I have no ideas that could improve the service as is it now

14. I would be interested in temperature and precipitation data from the regional CAMS models.

15. Not being an atmospheric modeller, it would be useful to have more documentation on the product parameters

16. Nothing else. Thank you for your interest in improving!

17. you are doing a very good job

18. If available, I would like to have the a priori flux data sets used for the optimization of CH4 and CO2 fluxes.

19. Bring the grib library to more platforms

20. not at this time.

21. I find a problem about the dataset of GFAS. the monthly statistical value of emission does not agree with each

other when I use daily data and monthly data.

22. No, you are doing an amazing job. Please keep up the excellent work.

23. Have longer pre-notice of implementation of new versions. We tend to discover them when they are

implemented. Maybe, do we not follow the appropriate communication channel.

24. Some people from Portland Oregon to Vancouver Canada report serious allergy type symptoms due to

particulates blown over the Pacific Ocean from China. The symptoms happen from time to time of course

depend on the weather, jet stream etc. It would be nice if Copernicus could track the transport of particulates

(PM1 maybe) from centres of heavy industry and show where the particulates go and where they fall to earth.

Tracking the bloom of heavy industry instead of forest fires.

25. Yes, expand the colour scheme to go all the way to max readings. Example ch4 again, over 3000ppb soon over

4000 ....thanks

26. it will be helpful to have more data assimilation with satellite products

27. higher resolution for CAMSGLOBAL!

28. I don't know if it is possible but I would suggest to try to reach a better spatial resolution (1km) in particular

for air quality.

29. No. very satisfied

30. reanalysis before 2003

31. Extend the area of all sky solar radiation data

32. Continue to help researchers by providing technical supports



33. Please ease the scripts, by giving examples. The choice of the grid (ex gaussian) is not obvious when selecting

data, and how to select it by script. THe definition of grids is not clear.

34. FTP delivery times could be improved. Sometimes files are ready at 4 a.m. other times at 9:30 a.m., as an

example

35. please change the color legend for "pollens" on your Maps : they are incorrect :)

36. No

37. github repository to make access easier for non-scientists.


atmosphere.copernicus.eu copernicus.eu ecmwf.int

ECMWF Shinfield Park Reading RG2 9AX UK

Contact: [email protected]

results of the cams user satisfaction survey 2018 · about the survey target audience the purpose...

Documents