Analyzing the informative value of alternative hazard indicators for monitoring drought hazard for human water supply and river ecosystems at the global scale
-
Published:2023-06-15
Issue:6
Volume:23
Page:2111-2131
-
ISSN:1684-9981
-
Container-title:Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.
Author:
Herbert ClaudiaORCID, Döll PetraORCID
Abstract
Abstract. Streamflow drought hazard indicators (SDHIs) are mostly lacking in
large-scale drought early warning systems (DEWSs). This paper presents a new
systematic approach for selecting and computing SDHIs for monitoring drought
for human water supply from surface water and for river ecosystems. We
recommend considering the habituation of the system at risk (e.g., a
drinking water supplier or small-scale farmers in a specific region) to the
streamflow regime when selecting indicators; i.e., users of the DEWSs should
determine which type of deviation from normal (e.g., a certain
interannual variability or a certain relative reduction of streamflow) the
risk system of interest has become used to and adapted to. Distinguishing four
indicator types, we classify indicators of drought magnitude (water anomaly
during a predefined period) and severity (cumulated magnitude since the
onset of the drought event) and specify the many relevant decisions that
need to be made when computing SDHIs. Using the global hydrological model
WaterGAP 2.2d, we quantify eight existing and three new SDHIs globally. For
large-scale DEWSs based on the output of hydrological models, we recommend
specific SDHIs that are suitable for assessing the drought hazard for (1) river ecosystems, (2) water users without access to large reservoirs, and (3) water users with access to large reservoirs, as well as being suitable for
informing reservoir managers. These SDHIs include both drought magnitude and
severity indicators that differ by the temporal averaging period and the
habituation of the risk system to reduced water availability. Depending on
the habituation of the risk system, drought magnitude is best quantified
either by the relative deviation from the mean or by the return period of
the streamflow value that is based on the frequency of non-exceedance. To
compute the return period, we favor empirical percentiles over the
standardized streamflow indicator as the former do not entail uncertainties
due to the fitting of a probability distribution and can be computed for all
streamflow time series. Drought severity should be assessed with indicators
that imply habituation to a certain degree of interannual variability, to a
certain reduction from mean streamflow, and to the ability to fulfill human
water demand and environmental flows. Reservoir managers are best informed
by the SDHIs of the grid cell that represents inflow into the reservoir. The
DEWSs must provide comprehensive and clear explanations about the suitability
of the provided indicators for specific risk systems.
Funder
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
Publisher
Copernicus GmbH
Subject
General Earth and Planetary Sciences
Reference60 articles.
1. Bachmair, S., Stahl, K., Collins, K., Hannaford, J., Acreman, M., Svoboda,
M., Knutson, C., Smith, K. H., Wall, N., Fuchs, B., Crossman, N. D., and
Overton, I. C.: Drought indicators revisited: the need for a wider
consideration of environment and society, WIREs Water, 3, 516–536,
https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1154, 2016. 2. Barker, L. J., Hannaford, J., Parry, S., Smith, K. A., Tanguy, M., and Prudhomme, C.: Historic hydrological droughts 1891–2015: systematic characterisation for a diverse set of catchments across the UK, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 4583–4602, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-4583-2019, 2019. 3. Beguería, S.: Uncertainties in partial duration series modelling of
extremes related to the choice of the threshold value, J. Hydrol.,
303, 215–230, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.07.015, 2005. 4. Blauhut, V., Stahl, K., Stagge, J. H., Tallaksen, L. M., De Stefano, L., and Vogt, J.: Estimating drought risk across Europe from reported drought impacts, drought indices, and vulnerability factors, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 2779–2800, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-2779-2016, 2016. 5. Blauhut, V., Stoelzle, M., Ahopelto, L., Brunner, M. I., Teutschbein, C., Wendt, D. E., Akstinas, V., Bakke, S. J., Barker, L. J., Bartošová, L., Briede, A., Cammalleri, C., Kalin, K. C., De Stefano, L., Fendeková, M., Finger, D. C., Huysmans, M., Ivanov, M., Jaagus, J., Jakubínský, J., Krakovska, S., Laaha, G., Lakatos, M., Manevski, K., Neumann Andersen, M., Nikolova, N., Osuch, M., van Oel, P., Radeva, K., Romanowicz, R. J., Toth, E., Trnka, M., Urošev, M., Urquijo Reguera, J., Sauquet, E., Stevkov, A., Tallaksen, L. M., Trofimova, I., Van Loon, A. F., van Vliet, M. T. H., Vidal, J.-P., Wanders, N., Werner, M., Willems, P., and Živković, N.: Lessons from the 2018–2019 European droughts: a collective need for unifying drought risk management, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 2201–2217, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-22-2201-2022, 2022.
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|