the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 12 Aug 2022
Assessing agriculture’s vulnerability to drought in European pre-Alpine regions
Abstract. Droughts are natural hazards that lead to severe impacts in the agricultural sector. Mountain regions are thought to have abundant water, but have experienced unprecedented drought conditions as climate change is affecting their environments more rapidly than other places. The effect radiates by reducing water availability well beyond the mountains’ geographical locations. This study aims to improve the understanding of agriculture’s vulnerability to drought in Europe’s pre-Alpine region, considering two case studies that have been severely impacted in the past. We applied a mixed-method approach combining the knowledge of regional experts with quantitative data analyses in order to define region-specific vulnerability based on experts’ identified factors. We implemented two aggregation methods by combining the vulnerability factors that could be supported with subregional data. Whereas the equal weighting method combines all factors with the same weight, the expert weighting method combines the factors with varying weight based on expert opinion. These two methods resulted in vulnerability maps with the expert weighting showing in general higher vulnerability, and partly relocating the medium and lower vulnerabilities to other subregions within the case study regions. In general, the experts confirmed the resulting subregions with higher vulnerability. They also acknowledged the value of mapping vulnerability by adopting different aggregation methods confirming that this can serve as a sensitivity analysis. The identified factors contributing most to the regions’ vulnerability point to the potential of adaptation strategies decreasing the agriculture’s vulnerability to drought that could enable better preparedness. Apart from region-specific differences, in both study regions the presence of irrigation infrastructure and soil texture are among the most important conditions that could be managed to some extent in order to decrease the regions’ vulnerability. Throughout the analyses, the study benefited from the exchange with the experts by getting an in-depth understanding of the regional context with feedback-relations between the factors contributing to vulnerability. Qualitative narratives provided during the semi-structured interviews supported a better characterization of local vulnerability conditions and helped to better identify quantitative indicators as proxies to describe the factors. Thus, we recommend to apply this mixed-method approach to close the gap between science and practitioners.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(8363 KB)
-
Supplement
(1901 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(8363 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1901 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-744', Anonymous Referee #1, 16 Oct 2022
Review of egushpere-2022-744 Assessing agriculture’s vulnerability to drought in European pre-Alpine regions by Stephan et al.
Overview
The manuscript deals with the estimation of drought vulnerability for agricultural activities in pre-Alpine climates. The authors propose a so-called “mixed method” approach which consists in taking several vulnerability factors, normalizing them and making a weighted sum of them to derive an empirical vulnerability index. The approach is “mixed” because the choice of the factors and their weighting (in the “expert weighting” method) take into account expert advice (interviews, questionnaires, …). Indeed data availability limits significantly the applicability of the approach, as the experts can recommend factors without taking into account the real availability of datasets for the factors.
Overall, the manuscript is well written and methodologically sound. The main issue I see is that the structure of the manuscript needs improvements (in particular the discussion section), as it is not sufficiently concise. An improvement in this sense will increase the potential impact of the manuscript, if published. Hence, I suggest major revisions.
Specific comments
L23-25 - I agree that climate change is an issue. However, I believe that one should always mention uncertainties of the climate projections which are at the basis the IPCC reports and conclusions (see e.g., https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017JD027463, https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/20/3057/2020/)
L204 - Perhaps explain a bit what “political conservative vote” is.
L224 - the factor “distance to large water bodies” may not take into account the presence of water transfers between the bodies. Is this a relevant issue for the area? Perhaps a comment on this could be added, in that case
Sect. 4.1 - The vulnerability factors may be somehow statistically dependent (collinearity). I am thinking, e.g., at soil texture and water holding capacity. A comment on this is desirable. Also, how this can be prevented when involving the experts for suggesting vulnerability factors?
Sect. 5 - Discussion repeats many concepts already presented in methodology and results sections, and thus must be shortened. An important point that could be more discussed is how the approach/results can be somehow extended to other regions with different climate and socio-economic conditions.
Minor points
Equations are in unusual notation: the definition intervals of the variables are mixed with operators. Perhaps separate the two things as commonly done
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-744-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Ruth Stephan, 09 Nov 2022
We would like to thank you for your constructive comments and feedback on this manuscript. We think that the suggested revisions based on the Referee’s comments will certainly improve the article. Please find our responses in the attached pdf.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Ruth Stephan, 09 Nov 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-744', Anonymous Referee #2, 17 Oct 2022
Review of egushpere-2022-744 Assessing agriculture’s vulnerability to drought in European pre-Alpine regions by Stephan et al.
General Overview:
The paper entitled “Assessing agriculture’s vulnerability to drought in European pre-Alpine regions” aims at evaluate and understand agriculture’s vulnerability to drought in two different case studies in the pre-Alpine region. The methodological approach, based on recent literature on impact chains (IC) aims at integrate quantitative and qualitative information for assessing frought risk condition. It is applied in this manuscript on two case studies in Switzerland and Slovenia.
Overall, the manuscript is well written, even if:
-The results section is too much dispersive (many of the information in the text of the results paragraphs should be syntetized in tables);
-The conclusion section is too much concise, poorly explaining the practical impacts and benefits of this approach. In conclusion section, it would be also interesting to read future developments of this methodology in relaction with the “non-linearities” the authors are referring to.
My main concern about this manuscript lies in the application of the methodology. Identifying Vulnerability factors through semi-structurated interviews, produces highly site-specific results. Even in the usage of equal weighting method, vulnerability factors are different between two case studies. In expert weighting method, this difference is clearly more evident, highlighting that for some of the specific vulnerability factors (Figure 3), as reported (in Figure S1) unfortunately are not available information (such as regarding irrigation infrastructures).
In order to built a strenght methodology based on semi-structurated interviews, information should be collected on a wider data sample (with numerous case studies) otherwise findings are too site-specific, as it is understandable that for their specific characteristics, the two case studies have different vulnerability factors, but without a wider comparison it is difficult to identify main common ones. This represents a weakness of the manuscript.
In addiction, lack of data regarding the management strategies doesn’t help, as they can represent a key point for testing the methodology.
From this perspective, scientific soundess of the whole manuscript should be improved, even if it represents an interesting an useful piece of knowledge specifically for both case studies.
Some Minor Remarks:
- Figure S1 in supplmement material: please, improve the quality of this figure.
- Figure S2 – S3: Text in legend is too small, please plot it bigger.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-744-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Ruth Stephan, 09 Nov 2022
We would like to thank you for your constructive comments and feedback on this manuscript. We think that the suggested revisions based on the Referee’s comments will certainly improve the article. Please find our responses in the attached pdf.
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-744', Anonymous Referee #1, 16 Oct 2022
Review of egushpere-2022-744 Assessing agriculture’s vulnerability to drought in European pre-Alpine regions by Stephan et al.
Overview
The manuscript deals with the estimation of drought vulnerability for agricultural activities in pre-Alpine climates. The authors propose a so-called “mixed method” approach which consists in taking several vulnerability factors, normalizing them and making a weighted sum of them to derive an empirical vulnerability index. The approach is “mixed” because the choice of the factors and their weighting (in the “expert weighting” method) take into account expert advice (interviews, questionnaires, …). Indeed data availability limits significantly the applicability of the approach, as the experts can recommend factors without taking into account the real availability of datasets for the factors.
Overall, the manuscript is well written and methodologically sound. The main issue I see is that the structure of the manuscript needs improvements (in particular the discussion section), as it is not sufficiently concise. An improvement in this sense will increase the potential impact of the manuscript, if published. Hence, I suggest major revisions.
Specific comments
L23-25 - I agree that climate change is an issue. However, I believe that one should always mention uncertainties of the climate projections which are at the basis the IPCC reports and conclusions (see e.g., https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017JD027463, https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/20/3057/2020/)
L204 - Perhaps explain a bit what “political conservative vote” is.
L224 - the factor “distance to large water bodies” may not take into account the presence of water transfers between the bodies. Is this a relevant issue for the area? Perhaps a comment on this could be added, in that case
Sect. 4.1 - The vulnerability factors may be somehow statistically dependent (collinearity). I am thinking, e.g., at soil texture and water holding capacity. A comment on this is desirable. Also, how this can be prevented when involving the experts for suggesting vulnerability factors?
Sect. 5 - Discussion repeats many concepts already presented in methodology and results sections, and thus must be shortened. An important point that could be more discussed is how the approach/results can be somehow extended to other regions with different climate and socio-economic conditions.
Minor points
Equations are in unusual notation: the definition intervals of the variables are mixed with operators. Perhaps separate the two things as commonly done
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-744-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Ruth Stephan, 09 Nov 2022
We would like to thank you for your constructive comments and feedback on this manuscript. We think that the suggested revisions based on the Referee’s comments will certainly improve the article. Please find our responses in the attached pdf.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Ruth Stephan, 09 Nov 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-744', Anonymous Referee #2, 17 Oct 2022
Review of egushpere-2022-744 Assessing agriculture’s vulnerability to drought in European pre-Alpine regions by Stephan et al.
General Overview:
The paper entitled “Assessing agriculture’s vulnerability to drought in European pre-Alpine regions” aims at evaluate and understand agriculture’s vulnerability to drought in two different case studies in the pre-Alpine region. The methodological approach, based on recent literature on impact chains (IC) aims at integrate quantitative and qualitative information for assessing frought risk condition. It is applied in this manuscript on two case studies in Switzerland and Slovenia.
Overall, the manuscript is well written, even if:
-The results section is too much dispersive (many of the information in the text of the results paragraphs should be syntetized in tables);
-The conclusion section is too much concise, poorly explaining the practical impacts and benefits of this approach. In conclusion section, it would be also interesting to read future developments of this methodology in relaction with the “non-linearities” the authors are referring to.
My main concern about this manuscript lies in the application of the methodology. Identifying Vulnerability factors through semi-structurated interviews, produces highly site-specific results. Even in the usage of equal weighting method, vulnerability factors are different between two case studies. In expert weighting method, this difference is clearly more evident, highlighting that for some of the specific vulnerability factors (Figure 3), as reported (in Figure S1) unfortunately are not available information (such as regarding irrigation infrastructures).
In order to built a strenght methodology based on semi-structurated interviews, information should be collected on a wider data sample (with numerous case studies) otherwise findings are too site-specific, as it is understandable that for their specific characteristics, the two case studies have different vulnerability factors, but without a wider comparison it is difficult to identify main common ones. This represents a weakness of the manuscript.
In addiction, lack of data regarding the management strategies doesn’t help, as they can represent a key point for testing the methodology.
From this perspective, scientific soundess of the whole manuscript should be improved, even if it represents an interesting an useful piece of knowledge specifically for both case studies.
Some Minor Remarks:
- Figure S1 in supplmement material: please, improve the quality of this figure.
- Figure S2 – S3: Text in legend is too small, please plot it bigger.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-744-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Ruth Stephan, 09 Nov 2022
We would like to thank you for your constructive comments and feedback on this manuscript. We think that the suggested revisions based on the Referee’s comments will certainly improve the article. Please find our responses in the attached pdf.
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 321 | 122 | 17 | 460 | 32 | 4 | 5 |
- HTML: 321
- PDF: 122
- XML: 17
- Total: 460
- Supplement: 32
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 5
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Cited
Ruth Stephan
Stefano Terzi
Mathilde Erfurt
Silvia Cocuccioni
Kerstin Stahl
Marc Zebisch
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(8363 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1901 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper