reading

Cover
Series Preface
The Series Editor – Philippe Quevauviller
List of Contributors
Part One: Understanding Drought as a Natural Hazard
1. Chapter 1.1: Diagnosis of Drought‐Generating Processes
  1. 1.1.1 Introduction
  2. 1.1.2 Background
  3. 1.1.3 Climate drivers of drought
  4. 1.1.4 Soil moisture drought processes
  5. 1.1.5 Hydrological drought processes (Groundwater and streamflow)
  6. 1.1.6 Drought propagation
  7. 1.1.7 Concluding remarks and outlook
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. References
2. Chapter 1.2: Recent Trends in Historical Drought
  1. 1.2.1 Introduction
  2. 1.2.2 Trend analysis and data
  3. 1.2.3 Trends in river flow across Europe
  4. 1.2.4 Discussion
  5. 1.2.5 Conclusions – Future needs
  6. Acknowledgements
  7. References
3. Chapter 1.3: Historic Drought from Archives: Beyond the Instrumental Record
  1. 1.3.1 Introduction
  2. 1.3.2 Methodology
  3. 1.3.3 United Kingdom
  4. 1.3.4 France: Ile‐de‐France
  5. 1.3.5 Valley of the Upper Rhine (Germany, Switzerland, France)
  6. 1.3.6 Conclusions
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. References
4. Chapter 1.4: Future Drought
  1. 1.4.1 Introduction
  2. 1.4.2 Overview of studies
  3. 1.4.3 Assessment of future hydrological drought
  4. 1.4.4 Human influences on future drought
  5. 1.4.5 Uncertainties in future drought
  6. 1.4.6 Conclusions – Future needs
  7. 1.4.6.2 Future needs
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. References
Part Two: Vulnerability, Risk, and Policy
1. Chapter 2.5: On the Institutional Framework for Drought Planning and Early Action
  1. 2.5.1 Introduction
  2. 2.5.2 Drought planning and water resources planning
  3. 2.5.3 A code for best practices: early action and risk management plans
  4. 2.5.4 Institutions involved in drought planning
  5. 2.5.5 Conclusions
  6. Acknowledgements
  7. References
2. Chapter 2.6: Indicators of Social Vulnerability to Drought
  1. 2.6.1 Introduction
  2. 2.6.2 Theoretical framework
  3. 2.6.3 Selection of policy‐relevant variables
  4. 2.6.3.2 Composite indicator of drought vulnerability (weighting and aggregation)
  5. 2.6.4 Application: Drought risk assessment in Latin America
  6. References
3. Chapter 2.7: Drought Vulnerability Under Climate Change: A Case Study in La Plata Basin
  1. 2.7.1 Introduction
  2. 2.7.2 Methods
  3. 2.7.3 Results and discussion
  4. 2.7.4 Conclusions
  5. Acknowledgements
  6. References
4. Chapter 2.8: Drought Insurance
  1. 2.8.1 Introduction
  2. 2.8.2 Main difficulties and challenges in developing drought insurance
  3. 2.8.3 Types of drought insurance
  4. 2.8.4 Drought indemnity–based insurance
  5. 2.8.5 Drought index–based insurance
  6. 2.8.6 Conclusions
  7. Acknowledgements
  8. References
Part Three: Drought Management Experiences and Links to Stakeholders
1. Chapter 3.9: Drought and Water Management in The Netherlands
  1. 3.9.1 General context
  2. 3.9.2 Drought risk and mitigation
  3. 3.9.3 Conclusions – Future needs
  4. References
2. Chapter 3.10: Improving Drought Preparedness in Portugal
  1. 3.10.1 Local context
  2. 3.10.2 Current approach to drought monitoring and management
  3. 3.10.3 Improving drought preparedness and drought management
  4. 3.10.4 Conclusions
  5. Acknowledgements
  6. References
3. Chapter 3.11: Drought Management in the Po River Basin, Italy
  1. 3.11.1 General context
  2. 3.11.2 Drought risk and mitigation
  3. 3.11.3 Conclusions
  4. References
4. Chapter 3.12: Experiences in Proactive and Participatory Drought Planning and Management in the Jucar River Basin, Spain
  1. 3.12.1 Introduction
  2. 3.12.2 Droughts characterisation
  3. 3.12.3 Methods for drought vulnerability and risk assessment
  4. 3.12.4 Proactive and participatory drought management
  5. 3.12.5 Conclusions
  6. Acknowledgements
  7. References
5. Chapter 3.13: Drought Risk and Management in Syros, Greece
  1. 3.13.1 Introduction
  2. 3.13.2 Droughts in Syros
  3. 3.13.3 Drought risk and mitigation
  4. 3.13.4 Lessons learnt – the need for participatory drought management
  5. Acknowledgements
  6. References
Index
End User License Agreement

List of Tables

Chapter 03
1. Table 1.3.1 Description of HSDS (sixteenth–eighteenth centuries).
Chapter 04
1. Table 1.4.1 Changes in median of drought characteristics (% relative to control period, 1971–2000, including standard deviation) in the near future (2021–2050) and far future (2071–2100) for climate types: equatorial (A), arid (B), warm temperate (C), snow (D), and polar climates (E).
Chapter 05
1. Table 2.5.1 Legal provisions related to water scarcity and drought in Spain. Source of data: Iglesias and Moneo (2005).
2. Table 2.5.2 Summary of the drought management actions in selected Mediterranean countries. Source: Adapted from Iglesias et al. (2009).
Chapter 06
1. Table 2.6.1 Vulnerability factors and components included in the DVI used in Naumann et al. (2014).
Chapter 07
1. Table 2.7.1 Annual mean precipitation and evapotranspiration (mm) for each sub‐basin and climate scenario.
2. Table 2.7.2 List of proposed variables for drought characterisation.
3. Table 2.7.3 Values of the selected variables to characterise the dry periods, comparing the different climate scenarios for each SPEI 12‐month timescale for the current climate and 2071–2099 timescale.
Chapter 08
1. Table 2.8.1 Types of drought insurance and implemented examples. Source: Own elaboration.
2. Table 2.8.2 Types of drought indicators, examples, variables used, and applications.
3. Table 2.8.3 Hydrological drought index insurance for irrigation.
Chapter 09
1. Table 3.9.1 Key elements of policy and regulatory framework for drought in the Netherlands (De Stefano et al., 2012).
Chapter 10
1. Table 3.10.1 Measures and processes that contributed most to minimising drought impacts during the 2004–2006 drought. Source: Adapted from De Stefano et al. (2012).
2. Table 3.10.2 Changes in crop production for SPI = −1 (severe droughts) and SPI = −2 (extreme droughts), predicted with regression modelling (GLM). When the most parsimonious model selected two variables, the effect of each is presented separately. Source: Adapted from Rego et al. (2015).
3. Table 3.10.3 Main policy and management instruments that cover drought planning in Portugal. Source: Adapted from Do Ó (2011).
Chapter 11
1. Table 3.11.1 Annual water demand volume by use (Autorità di bacino del fiume Po, 2009).
2. Table 3.11.2 Evaluation of the quality of strategic measures and operational demand–supply management measures in the Po River Basin (De Stefano et al., 2012).
Chapter 13
1. Table 3.13.1 Water supply and demand in Syros (Hellenic Ministry of Development, 2008).
2. Table 3.13.2 Frequency of drought and wet periods in Syros for 1970–2010, based on SPI.
3. Table 3.13.3 Trend analysis results for Syros: Precipitation.
4. Table 3.13.4 Drought management framework in Syros.
5. Table 3.13.5 List of measures for the past two episodes.

List of Illustrations

Chapter 01
1. Figure 1.1.1 Water stores and fluxes affected by drought.
2. Figure 1.1.2 Correlation of May SPI‐6 with December–May mean 500 hPa geopotential height. Source: From Kingston et al. (2015). (See colour plate section for the colour representation of this figure.)
3. Figure 1.1.3 Monthly SST anomalies: (a) May 2015; (b) June 2015; (c) July 2015; and (d) August 2015; computed relative to the 1971–2000 period. Source: From Ionita et al. (2017). (See colour plate section for the colour representation of this figure.)
4. Figure 1.1.4 Spatial distribution of the correlation between DD and DSMD events for the period 1958–2001. Source: From Van Loon et al. (2014). (See colour plate section for the colour representation of this figure.)
5. Figure 1.1.5 Summary statistics (box: 25, 50 and 75 deciles; whiskers: 5 and 95 deciles) of the number of hydrological droughts of all drought events (1495 grid cells) for three different groundwater systems. The circles represent extreme events beyond 95 decile. Source: Derived from Van Lanen et al. (2013).
6. Figure 1.1.6 Anomalies in groundwater level in Upper Guadiana during the period 1980–1997 (disturbed period), using a variable 80% monthly threshold, and derived from the observed and naturalised groundwater levels. Blue areas can be attributed to climate, and grey areas to humans. Source: Derived from Van Loon and Van Lanen (2013). (See colour plate section for the colour representation of this figure.)
7. Figure 1.1.7 Propagation of drought through the terrestrial hydrological cycle, from meteorological drought to soil moisture drought to hydrological drought, showing pooling, delay, lengthening, and attenuation. (See colour plate section for the colour representation of this figure.)
8. Figure 1.1.8 Relationships between the climate system, hydrological system, ecosystem, and societal system. Top: pristine conditions (representing a unidirectional drought propagation). Bottom: global change conditions (representing a multi‐directional drought propagation characterised by feedbacks).
Chapter 02
1. Figure 1.2.1 (a) The month of the regime minimum; (b) trend for mean monthly streamflow for the month of the regime minimum; (c) trend for AM(7) during May–November; (d) trend for the timing of AM(7) during May–November. All trends are for the period 1962–2004 and given in standard deviations per year. . (See colour plate section for the colour representation of this figure.)
2. Figure 1.2.2 Trends in summer hydroclimate and modelled low flows in Europe over the period 1962–2000. Left: precipitation and temperature trends from the WATCH Forcing Dataset (www.eu‐watch.org/data_availability) for June (upper), July (middle) and August (lower). Right: Low flow (AM(7)) trends for the summer half‐year from the WATCH multi‐model ensemble (from Stahl et al., 2012). Crosses: Less than three‐quarters of the models agree on the sign of the trend. . (See colour plate section for the colour representation of this figure.)
3. Figure 1.2.3 Spatial distribution of 7‐day summer low flow trends from observed streamflow records (left) and from the model ensemble mean (right). As with Figure 1.2.2, crosses denote that less than three‐quarters of the models agree on the sign of the trend. . (See colour plate section for the colour representation of this figure.)
4. Figure 1.2.4 Interdecadal variability of streamflow records using LOESS smoothing. Grey lines show individual station series; black line shows the cluster average smoothed series for each cluster (region). Red lines show the 5th and 95th percentiles of the combined cluster member series. . (See colour plate section for the colour representation of this figure.)
5. Figure 1.2.5 Multi‐temporal trend analysis for annual mean and annual 7‐day minimum flow, with x‐axis showing start year and y‐axis showing end year of the period for which the displayed trend statistic is shown. The Mann‐Kendall test applied to all start and end years, and the corresponding pixel is coloured according to the resulting Z statistic, with red representing negative trends and blue representing positive trends. . (See colour plate section for the colour representation of this figure.)
6. Figure 1.2.6 Trends in frequency and severity of meteorological droughts. . (See colour plate section for the colour representation of this figure.)
Chapter 03
1. Figure 1.3.1 Extract of Thomas Barker’s meteorological journal (Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom) for the summer of the big European drought of 1785. The page details the temperatures and precipitation, as well as the state of the sky, during August..
2. Figure 1.3.2 Cover of the Ephemerides Societatis Meteorologicae Palatinae Observationes (1783), Mannheim.
3. Figure 1.3.3 Chronology and severity of droughts in the United Kingdom between 1500 and 2014 according to HSDS (total 42 droughts).
4. Figure 1.3.4 Distribution and severity of UK droughts by periods of 50 years between 1500 and 2014 according to HSDS. (See colour plate section for the colour representation of this figure.)
5. Figure 1.3.5 Comparison of HSDS and the rainfall data from Oxford for UK droughts between 1767 and 2012. . (See colour plate section for the colour representation of this figure.)
6. Figure 1.3.6 Meteorological observations made by the English philosopher John Locke in Oxford during the 1666 drought and the Great Fire of London..
7. Figure 1.3.7 Temperatures and rainfall recorded by John Locke during the drought of 1666 summer..
8. Figure 1.3.8 Petition from the inhabitants and owners of lands to the Governor of the Company of Conservators of the Great Level of the Fens (Bedford Level) about the effects of the 1785 drought..
9. Figure 1.3.9 Opening credits of the Pathé News programme about the 1921 drought.
10. Figure 1.3.10 Chronology and severity of droughts in France between 1500 and 2014 according to HSDS (68 droughts).
11. Figure 1.3.11 Distribution and severity of droughts in France by periods of 50 years between 1500 and 2014 according to HSDS. (See colour plate section for the colour representation of this figure.)
12. Figure 1.3.12 Comparison of HSDS and the annual Paris rainfall during 1689–2013 for droughts in France. . (See colour plate section for the colour representation of this figure.)
13. Figure 1.3.13 Progress of the great drought of 1577–1578..
14. Figure 1.3.14 Droughts, heat waves, and annual rainfall in Ile‐de‐France in the eighteenth century.
15. Figure 1.3.15 Chronology and severity of Rhenish droughts between 1500 and 2013 according to HSDS.
16. Figure 1.3.16 Distribution and severity of Rhenish droughts by periods of 50 years between 1500 and 2014 according to HSDS. (See colour plate section for the colour representation of this figure.)
17. Figure 1.3.17 Comparison of HSDS and the annual flow of the Rhine in Basel 1808–2013 for Rhenish droughts.
18. Figure 1.3.18 Photo from January 1891 showing the mark of low water on the ‘Laufenstein’ (white circle), situated near the old bridge of Laufenburg, Baden‐Württemberg..
19. Figure 1.3.19 Sketch by Walter (1901) before the destruction of the Laufenstein in 1909. The historic marks of the droughts of 1541, 1750, 1823, 1858 and 1891 are clearly visible.
Chapter 04
1. Figure 1.4.1 Change in the ensemble average in the 20‐year return period deficit volumes due to climate change, left: 2020s and right: 2080s relative to the control period.
2. Figure 1.4.2 MME mean change in drought occurrence (in %) between control (1976–2005) and future (2070–2099) simulations under RCP 8.5 forcing for northern winter (December–February, left) and summer (June–August, right). . (See colour plate section for the colour representation of this figure.)
3. Figure 1.4.3 Relative change in low flows ( Q₈₀ ) between future period (2071–2100) and control period (1971–2000), given as percentage of low discharge in the control period for representative river basins. Red indicates a decrease in Q₈₀ in the future period, blue indicates an increase in Q₈₀ . Transparency of colours indicates model agreement. (See colour plate section for the colour representation of this figure.)
4. Figure 1.4.4 Impact of human water use and reservoir management on drought severity for the twenty‐first century (2070–2099 relative to 1971–2000). (See colour plate section for the colour representation of this figure.)
5. Figure 1.4.5 Future water use and impact on streamflow drought in the 2080s5 (relative to the control period, 1961–1990). Left: change of total annual water use aggregated to river basin scale for the EcF scenario; right: change in the ensemble average in the 20‐year return period deficit volumes due to human water use.
6. Figure 1.4.6 Projected change (signal) in mean annual runoff (top left); mean annual 7‐day minimum runoff, MAM7 (top right); average drought duration in runoff (bottom left); deficit volume in runoff (right) for three GCMs, two emission scenarios (A2 and B1), and the intermediate and far future. ‘CTRL’ specifies the difference between runoff (top)/drought characteristics (bottom) simulated with the GCM and the runoff/drought characteristics simulated with re‐analysis data (WFD), that is, the noise. Results are shown for the average change of all 244 grid cells..
Chapter 05
1. Figure 2.5.1 Overview of the coordination between basin and drought policy to derive legislation.
Chapter 06
1. Figure 2.6.1 Summary of methodological framework proposed in Naumann et al. (2014).
2. Figure 2.6.2 Computation of a performance frontier in a simulated DEA for six regions and two variables. Red: observed indicators’ values; and blue: projected indicators’ values in the frontier of maximum exposure. Source: From Carrão et al. (2016).
3. Figure 2.6.3 Latin American map of drought risk by combining hazard, exposure, and vulnerability.
Chapter 07
1. Figure 2.7.1 General conceptual framework of the applied methodology.
2. Figure 2.7.2 Sub‐basins that constitute La Plata Basin. Continuous red line represents borders between sub‐basins; discontinuous line represents international borders; coloured backgrounds represent different country areas; and light grey line represents the main fluvial network from La Plata Basin. Acronyms of each sub‐basin are defined.
3. Figure 2.7.3 Temporal distribution of the mean monthly P and PET in mm for the different sub‐basins and climate scenarios.
4. Figure 2.7.4 Characterisation of dry periods for the current scenario at the annual timescale and based on rainfall historical data. Figure 2.7.4A shows the average time between dry years using the whole series from the rainfall stations; Figure 2.7.4B shows the average time between dry years using the series from 1961–2005; and Figure 2.7.4C shows the ratio of the average time (years) between dry years, considering the 1961–2005 period and the whole series for each station. Dots show the locations of the rainfall stations used for this analysis.
5. Figure 2.7.5 Comparison of SPEI – 12 months for all sub‐basins and scenarios. (See colour plate section for the colour representation of this figure.)
6. Figure 2.7.6 Percentage from the total cells of each sub‐basin that was affected by dry periods (% coverage) per each month of the analysed time series for SPEI – 12 months, for all scenarios. (See colour plate section for the colour representation of this figure.)
7. Figure 2.7.7 P and PET changes compared to the control scenario. The values show the mean changes of P and PET in mm for the whole sub‐basin and the total time series for each scenario. (See colour plate section for the colour representation of this figure.)
8. Figure 2.7.8 Variations in the situation of dry periods in the different sub‐basins and time scenarios as compared to the control scenario (1961–2005). (See colour plate section for the colour representation of this figure.)
9. Figure 2.7.9 GUI tool main page.
10. Figure 2.7.10 Output: SPEI – 1 month (February 2000) for the whole basin.
11. Figure 2.7.11 Interactive map interface. Graphic information or a data file can be obtained by clicking in a cell on the map.
Chapter 08
1. Figure 2.8.1 Payoff distribution by peril for the period 1980–2014 in Spain.
2. Figure 2.8.2 Structure of index contract (own elaboration).
Chapter 09
1. Figure 3.9.1 Maximum potential precipitation deficit in summer months over the period 1981–2010. Left: median; right: 95th percentile. . (See colour plate section for the colour representation of this figure.)
2. Figure 3.9.2 The four scenarios developed after considering climate change and socioeconomic development..
3. Figure 3.9.3 Priority ranking of water allocation at the national scale in the Netherlands under drought conditions.
4. Figure 3.9.4 Surface water system that is used to supply freshwater in the Netherlands (left), and the six regions for regional drought platforms (right).
5. Figure 3.9.5 Flow of the Rhine and the threshold that triggers LCW meetings.
6. Figure 3.9.6 Procedure for drought management in the Netherlands.
7. Figure 3.9.7 The precipitation deficit throughout the year 2015 until August. Top: Precipitation deficit in The Netherlands, August 2015; Bottom: Cumulative Potential Rainfall Surplus (1 April 2015–3 August 2015).
Chapter 10
1. Figure 3.10.1 Elevation map of mainland Portugal; main features and land use composition. . (See colour plate section for the colour representation of this figure.)
2. Figure 3.10.2 Share of distributed water (%) consumed by the main sectors in each of the hydrographic regions (ARH) in Portugal (map on the left). Negligible amounts (na) for livestock were included in the agriculture sector, for tourism included in urban supply, and golf included in tourism..
3. Figure 3.10.3 Six decades of annual precipitation anomalies estimated by the standardised precipitation index (SPI) for mainland Portugal, regarding the reference period of 1970–2000 (IPMA, 2015). Major drought events are highlighted: red – extreme; yellow – moderate or severe. (See colour plate section for the colour representation of this figure.)
Chapter 11
1. Figure 3.11.1 Po River Basin: regional and provincial administrative boundaries. (See colour plate section for the colour representation of this figure.)
2. Figure 3.11.2 Annual precipitation on the Po River Basin (1923–2013). (See colour plate section for the colour representation of this figure.)
3. Figure 3.11.3 SPI‐3 values at Pontelagoscuro.
4. Figure 3.11.4 SPI‐6 values at Pontelagoscuro.
5. Figure 3.11.5 SPI‐1 values at Pontelagoscuro..
6. Figure 3.11.6 Average monthly flows of the Po river at Pontelagoscuro. Source: Elaboration by Po River Basin Authority. (See colour plate section for the colour representation of this figure.)
7. Figure 3.11.7 Average evaluation of the stakeholders’ participation (rating: 4 = very adequate; 3 = adequate; 2 = not so adequate; 1 = not adequate) – survey conducted for the FP7 DROUGHT–R&SPI project. (See colour plate section for the colour representation of this figure.)
Chapter 12
1. Figure 3.12.1 Location of the Jucar River Basin District, in Spain. Source: Self elaboration from Confederacion Hidrografica del Jucar originals, with permission. (See colour plate section for the colour representation of this figure.)
2. Figure 3.12.2 Annual precipitation over the territory of the Jucar River Basin Authority.
3. Figure 3.12.3 Evolution of the 12‐month‐lag SPI in the territory of the Jucar River Basin Authority.
4. Figure 3.12.4 Total annual inflow to the reservoirs of the Jucar river.
5. Figure 3.12.5 Standardised inflow index for the Jucar River Basin.
6. Figure 3.12.6 Drought vulnerability calculation process used in the Jucar River Basin.
7. Figure 3.12.7 Evolution of the state index of the Jucar River Basin from October 2001 to October 2009. . (See colour plate section for the colour representation of this figure.)
8. Figure 3.12.8 SODMIs for the CHJ basins corresponding to March 2006, January 2007, and March 2009 (from left to right). Source: Self elaboration from public domain information. (See colour plate section for the colour representation of this figure.)
9. Figure 3.12.9 Scheme of the risk assessment methodology used in the Jucar River Basin..
10. Figure 3.12.10 Deterministic (top) and probabilistic (bottom) forecasts for the reservoir storage evolution in 2006 campaign – without measures, and with the agreed measures. Source: Self elaboration.
Chapter 13
1. Figure 3.13.1 Location of Syros, Greece.
2. Figure 3.13.2 Drought intensity for different drought durations.
3. Figure 3.13.3 The DPSIR framework for analysing drought vulnerability and management in Syros. Source: Adapted from De Stefano et al. (2013).
4. Figure 3.13.4 Change in vulnerability to drought after the implementation of options for future drought risk mitigation (for a drought event of 5‐year return period and 20–24‐month duration, 22% probability of occurrence).
5. Figure 3.13.5 Stakeholder involvement.

Drought

Science and Policys

Copyright