{"title":"分析全球范围内监测人类供水和河流生态系统干旱危害的替代危害指标的信息价值","authors":"Claudia Herbert, P. Döll","doi":"10.5194/nhess-23-2111-2023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract. Streamflow drought hazard indicators (SDHIs) are mostly lacking in\nlarge-scale drought early warning systems (DEWSs). This paper presents a new\nsystematic approach for selecting and computing SDHIs for monitoring drought\nfor human water supply from surface water and for river ecosystems. We\nrecommend considering the habituation of the system at risk (e.g., a\ndrinking water supplier or small-scale farmers in a specific region) to the\nstreamflow regime when selecting indicators; i.e., users of the DEWSs should\ndetermine which type of deviation from normal (e.g., a certain\ninterannual variability or a certain relative reduction of streamflow) the\nrisk system of interest has become used to and adapted to. Distinguishing four\nindicator types, we classify indicators of drought magnitude (water anomaly\nduring a predefined period) and severity (cumulated magnitude since the\nonset of the drought event) and specify the many relevant decisions that\nneed to be made when computing SDHIs. Using the global hydrological model\nWaterGAP 2.2d, we quantify eight existing and three new SDHIs globally. For\nlarge-scale DEWSs based on the output of hydrological models, we recommend\nspecific 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\ninforming reservoir managers. These SDHIs include both drought magnitude and\nseverity indicators that differ by the temporal averaging period and the\nhabituation of the risk system to reduced water availability. Depending on\nthe habituation of the risk system, drought magnitude is best quantified\neither by the relative deviation from the mean or by the return period of\nthe streamflow value that is based on the frequency of non-exceedance. To\ncompute the return period, we favor empirical percentiles over the\nstandardized streamflow indicator as the former do not entail uncertainties\ndue to the fitting of a probability distribution and can be computed for all\nstreamflow time series. Drought severity should be assessed with indicators\nthat imply habituation to a certain degree of interannual variability, to a\ncertain reduction from mean streamflow, and to the ability to fulfill human\nwater demand and environmental flows. Reservoir managers are best informed\nby the SDHIs of the grid cell that represents inflow into the reservoir. The\nDEWSs must provide comprehensive and clear explanations about the suitability\nof the provided indicators for specific risk systems.\n","PeriodicalId":18922,"journal":{"name":"Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Analyzing the informative value of alternative hazard indicators for monitoring drought hazard for human water supply and river ecosystems at the global scale\",\"authors\":\"Claudia Herbert, P. Döll\",\"doi\":\"10.5194/nhess-23-2111-2023\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract. Streamflow drought hazard indicators (SDHIs) are mostly lacking in\\nlarge-scale drought early warning systems (DEWSs). This paper presents a new\\nsystematic approach for selecting and computing SDHIs for monitoring drought\\nfor human water supply from surface water and for river ecosystems. We\\nrecommend considering the habituation of the system at risk (e.g., a\\ndrinking water supplier or small-scale farmers in a specific region) to the\\nstreamflow regime when selecting indicators; i.e., users of the DEWSs should\\ndetermine which type of deviation from normal (e.g., a certain\\ninterannual variability or a certain relative reduction of streamflow) the\\nrisk system of interest has become used to and adapted to. Distinguishing four\\nindicator types, we classify indicators of drought magnitude (water anomaly\\nduring a predefined period) and severity (cumulated magnitude since the\\nonset of the drought event) and specify the many relevant decisions that\\nneed to be made when computing SDHIs. Using the global hydrological model\\nWaterGAP 2.2d, we quantify eight existing and three new SDHIs globally. For\\nlarge-scale DEWSs based on the output of hydrological models, we recommend\\nspecific 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\\ninforming reservoir managers. These SDHIs include both drought magnitude and\\nseverity indicators that differ by the temporal averaging period and the\\nhabituation of the risk system to reduced water availability. Depending on\\nthe habituation of the risk system, drought magnitude is best quantified\\neither by the relative deviation from the mean or by the return period of\\nthe streamflow value that is based on the frequency of non-exceedance. To\\ncompute the return period, we favor empirical percentiles over the\\nstandardized streamflow indicator as the former do not entail uncertainties\\ndue to the fitting of a probability distribution and can be computed for all\\nstreamflow time series. Drought severity should be assessed with indicators\\nthat imply habituation to a certain degree of interannual variability, to a\\ncertain reduction from mean streamflow, and to the ability to fulfill human\\nwater demand and environmental flows. Reservoir managers are best informed\\nby the SDHIs of the grid cell that represents inflow into the reservoir. The\\nDEWSs must provide comprehensive and clear explanations about the suitability\\nof the provided indicators for specific risk systems.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":18922,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"89\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-2111-2023\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"地球科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-2111-2023","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Analyzing the informative value of alternative hazard indicators for monitoring drought hazard for human water supply and river ecosystems at the global scale
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.
期刊介绍:
Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences (NHESS) is an interdisciplinary and international journal dedicated to the public discussion and open-access publication of high-quality studies and original research on natural hazards and their consequences. Embracing a holistic Earth system science approach, NHESS serves a wide and diverse community of research scientists, practitioners, and decision makers concerned with detection of natural hazards, monitoring and modelling, vulnerability and risk assessment, and the design and implementation of mitigation and adaptation strategies, including economical, societal, and educational aspects.