the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 14 Aug 2024
The 2022 Drought Needs to be a Turning Point for European Drought Risk Management
Abstract. The 2022 European drought has underscored critical deficiencies in European water management. This paper explores these shortcomings and suggests a way forward for European drought risk management.
Data for this study was gathered through a continent-wide survey of water managers involved in this event. The survey collected 481 responses from 30 European countries and is comprised of 19 questions concerning sectorial impact in the 55 regions of the responders and drought risk management practices of their organizations. Information from the survey is enriched with climate-related information to offer a comprehensive overview of drought risk management in Europe. Our research focuses on four key aspects: the increasing risk of drought, its spatial and temporal impacts, current drought risk management approaches, and the evolution of drought risk management across the continent.
Our findings reveal a consensus on the growing risk of drought, which is confounded by the rising frequency and intensity of droughts. While the 2022 event affected most of the continent, our findings show significant regional disparities in drought risk management capacity among the various countries. Our analysis indicates that current drought risk management measures often rely on short-term operational concerns, particularly in agriculture-dominated economies, leading to potentially maladaptive practices. An overall positive trend in drought risk management, with organizations showing increased awareness and preparedness, indicates how this crisis can be the ideal moment to mainstream European-wide drought risk management. Consequently, we advocate for a European Drought Directive, to harmonize and enforce drought risk management policies across the continent. This directive should promote a systemic, integrated, and long-term risk management perspective. The directive should also set clear guidelines for drought risk management at the national level and for cross-boundary drought collaboration.
This study and its companion paper "The 2022 Drought Shows the Importance of Preparedness in European Drought Risk Management " are the result of a study carried out by the Drought in the Anthropocene (DitA) network.
Competing interests: At least one of the (co-)authors is a member of the editorial board of Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.- Preprint
(2693 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(496 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2069', Anonymous Referee #1, 02 Sep 2024
RE: "The 2022 Drought Needs to be a Turning Point for European Drought Risk Management"
This is an interesting paper, exploring a very important topic with applied research, bringing together quantitative and qualitative research on European drought management through the study of a recent drought in Europe (2022). The paper is well written and the content, findings, discussion and recommendations are of value to both academia and practitioners.
One point I would like to pick up on is, and whilst I fully agree with the need for a stronger international drought risk management approach, you state “we advocate for a European Drought Directive, to harmonize and enforce drought risk management policies across the continent" in your abstract and elsewhere, but your results really show significant regional disparities in drought impacts and drought risk management capacity among the various countries, so it might be worth also caveating more this somehow? This idea of needing a stronger, holistic plan/approach, but also recognising the varying impacts and level of management required based on the drought severity.
Throughout the paper I only have a number of minor suggestions and comments:
Abstract:
In your data & results you also include observational data analysis of the 2022 drought, as well as the survey responses, so it might be worth mentioning this quantitative/meteorological data analysis in the abstract as your study it is not just the survey responses.
“The 2022 Drought Shows the Importance of Preparedness in European Drought Risk Management” paper referred to in the abstract – different title to that mentioned in lines 88-89.
Manuscript:
1. Introduction:
Line 78-80: "In several countries, this prolonged and widespread situation led to increased water withdrawals and eventually restrictions on water use due to persistent hot and dry conditions in May, June and July (Avanzi et al., 2024; Bonaldo et al., 2023; Toreti et al., 2022)." -> Perhaps just list a few example countries in the statement somewhere to help provide this context to the reader?
Line 94: IPCCa – should this actually be IPCC, 2022a (which is how you reference it on line 146). This needs changing, and in the reference list too (line 132 & 138 - IPCC 2022a and IPCC 2022b not IPCCa and IPCCb)
Line 163: Extra bracket with references to be removed.
p.6 Was the EC Flood Directive established in 2007 or 2008? 2008 is stated on line 191, but then 2007 later on line 206.
2: Methods and data
2.1 – great coverage of SPEI and the data used, but you haven’t clarified the spatial extent of the data used? It might just be worth adding that it for completeness.
You state in Figure 3 that you use a dataset of 1950-2022, perhaps state this somewhere in section 2.1. Currently you only name the reference period (1971-2000).
Line 224 – typo: The comma after the full stop at the start of this sentence is a typo. And the comma after the time period is not needed.
Line 289: typo: “norther-western” should be northwestern or north-western
3. Results
Line 330 – potential typo in the middle of the line as it looks like there are some extra spaces in between “weather” and “imposed”?
Line 351 – consider signposting to the specific figure you are referencing to here, so: (dark brown colour, Fig. 3e & 3g).
Figure 4 – which accumulation period of SPEI is being used here (as you have shown both 3 and 6 in previous figures)?
Figure 4 - would it be possible to plot the months in the reverse order?
It feels like section 3.1.2 is not quite in the right place, or instead it actually needs to be merged more with the last part of the section above, to allow for the results of droughts 1950-2000, ranking (Fig. 3) & SPEI drought severity (Fig, 4) to be complemented with this perception of drought risk from the survey. I therefore recommend creating this subsection earlier – and having something like “Observed and perceived change in drought” as a subsection before line 360, and then allowing the current analysis of SPEI in Figure 4 to then move straight into the current text on survey results of perceived drought risk in 3.1.2. I hope this makes sense.
Figure 5: No definition of white (no impacts?) seen in NE and one or two other places.
Line 423, is it worth mentioning Figures 2 and 3 again here at the end of this section/sentence, just to link back to the observed SPEI patterns seen in Northern Europe?
Figure 6: Colour scheme on first glance makes it seem that anything with a impact severity of 3 is not as severe because it is a light, neutral colour, and instead 1 looks stronger. Is there another combination of colours that could be used here to represent the impact severity better?
Line 442 – is 2% a typo, seems very low, and from reading Fig. 7, I think you meant 27%.
Line 459 – 466: When discussing EC Blueprint (Figure 7b) %’s are low, totalling only 33% - 33% of all respondents? Any suggestions on why so low on this question/data collection?
Figure 7 – a) and b) are not defined in the figure caption.
Figure 8 figure caption feels too long. Can this be reduced down?
Figure 9 – again the caption feels slightly too long, and not in the same style as previous captions. I recommend removing line 546-548: “The respondents could answer “more”, “same”, or “less” to the three questions “How aware/prepared/effective was your organization in 2022 compared to 2018?”. The option “I don’t know” and the possibility to leave the question blank (i.e. “#N/A”) were also available.”
Section 3.4.1 Catalonia. Don’t forget that you can link the starting information with your figures earlier on SPEI-3 and 6.
Section 3.4 Regional Spotlights. These are two interesting and important case studies, however the Catalonia case study does not feel like it is really linked to the data and data analysis as much as they could be – section 3.4.2 Italy does this well. For 3.4.1 can more of the responses from this region be explored regarding water management and measures, and is there are qualitative data from these regional case studies from participants responses on open questions that can be included for a stronger link and deeper use of survey data, similar to what you have done for section 3.4.2?
4. Discussion:
Page 26 – participant quote included in a box, but for consistency would it be better integrated into the text of section 4.1.3? Although I do think that it helps highlight the qualitative data through this approach. Also, instead of stating Question 12, I recommend reframing the question in the answer using brackets to help give the context, such as: “The main issue [of the measures taken by the organisation] was high demand rather than supply shortfall - the distribution network encountered issues due to the high demand in May-July and eased off in August. All sources were utilising their peak output for 2-3months whilst planned outages were postponed.”
5. Recommendations for European drought risk governance:
Section 5.2 – in-text referencing needs to be consistent with the rest of the paper (lines 788-789).
6. Conclusion
Perhaps try to summarize one or two more key points about the 2022 European drought in the first part of your conclusion.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2069-RC1 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Riccardo Biella, 30 Jun 2025
We thank Reviewer 1 for their highly encouraging feedback and for acknowledging the scientific and practical relevance of our study. We particularly appreciate the recognition of the value of combining quantitative and qualitative data and the policy-oriented nature of our findings. We respond in detail below to the comments raised. The reviewer's feedback helped us strengthen our framing, sharpen our argumentation, and improve both methodological transparency and editorial consistency. We have revised the manuscript accordingly, and we provide below a detailed point-by-point response. All reviewer comments are reproduced in italic, followed by our response in regular text. Where applicable, we have included line numbers referring to the revised manuscript with annotations (which will to be uploaded as requested by this editorial process).
General Comment
This is an interesting paper, exploring a very important topic with applied research, bringing together quantitative and qualitative research on European drought management through the study of a recent drought in Europe (2022). The paper is well written and the content, findings, discussion and recommendations are of value to both academia and practitioners.
We are grateful for this positive assessment, which affirms the core objective of our work: to provide an empirically grounded, policy-relevant analysis of drought risk management based on the extreme 2022 drought event.Comment 1: European Drought Directive and regional disparities
You state “we advocate for a European Drought Directive…” but your results show significant regional disparities... It might be worth also caveating more this somehow?
We fully agree with this observation. While we support the idea of a harmonized European framework, we recognize the importance of allowing for regional variation in drought impact and management capacity. We have therefore clarified this in both the Introduction (Line 201-203 and Line 257) and Recommendations (Line 939) by explicitly stating that a European Drought Directive should balance harmonization with flexibility for regional adaptation needs.
Comment 2: Abstract – mention of observational data
In your data & results you also include observational data analysis… it might be worth mentioning this quantitative/meteorological data analysis in the abstract…
Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised the abstract to include the use of meteorological data, explicitly noting our application of the Standardized Precipitation-Evapotranspiration Index (SPEI) to assess drought conditions.
Comment 3: Reference inconsistency in abstract
The paper referred to in the abstract has a different title than the one mentioned in lines 88–89.
This was an oversight on our part. The reference has now been corrected throughout the manuscript.
Comment 4: Clarify countries
Perhaps just list a few example countries in the statement somewhere to help provide this context to the reader?
We have now included the countries that introduced restrictions during May–July 2022 according to the sources presented in that section. This change appears in Line 89.
Comment 5: Inconsistent reference formatting
Line 94: IPCCa – should this actually be IPCC, 2022a…?
We appreciate this catch. We corrected the formatting of these references in both the text and the reference list.
Comment 6: Remove extra bracket
Corrected as suggested.
Comment 7: EC Flood Directive year inconsistency
Was the Flood Directive established in 2007 or 2008?
We have verified and corrected the year to reflect consistent and accurate information (2007).
Comment 8: Clarify spatial extent and time range of SPEI data
We have now included a brief description of the CRU dataset, including its spatial resolution and temporal range (1950–2022), in Section 2.1 (Lines 278 – 283). We also justified the use of the 1971–2000 reference period in Lines 284 - 288.
Comment 9: Typos and formatting
Lines 224, 289, 330, 341 (old file) – Typo corrections requested.
We corrected all identified typos in these lines.
Comment 10: Figure references and figure details
Please signpost to specific figures and clarify time scales/definitions.
We have clarified the accumulation period for SPEI in Figure 4, now clearly labelled as SPEI-6, and reversed the order of the months as requested.
Comment 11: Reorganize Section 3.1.2
Consider merging or repositioning Section 3.1.2
Following your suggestion, we have moved and merged the paragraphs into a new subsection titled “Observed and Perceived Change in Drought” prior to Line 445.
Comment 12: Figures 5 and 6 – clarify legends and colour schemes
We have updated the caption of Figure 5 to explain white areas (no impacts) and revised the colour scheme of Figure 6 to better represent impact severity (see caption and figure).
Comment 13: Figure 7 and associated text
Clarify panel definitions, address 2% vs. 27% typo, low response rates, etc.
We corrected the typo to 27% (Line 540), clarified the meaning of panels a and b in the caption to Figure 7. The differences between the classification of the responses was also clarified.
Comment 14: Length of captions for Figures 8 and 9
Captions were shortened and harmonized in style. Redundant details about the survey response format was removed (see Figures 8 and 9 captions).
Comment 15: Catalonia case study – strengthen links to data
Can more of the responses from this region be explored…?
Yes. We significantly revised Section 3.4.1, explicitly linking Catalonia’s drought onset to meteorological indicators (SPEI-6) and added detailed insights from local responses while bringing the length and structure of this section in line with the other spotlight case. We also stated the criteria for case study selection in Links 659-663, emphasizing Catalonia’s and Italy’s relevance due to high number of impacts, sufficient data, and institutional diversity.
Comment 16: Boxed quote in Discussion
Integrate into text and rephrase question contextually.
We reformatted the quote as part of the narrative and added clarifying context using brackets (Section 4.1.3).
Comment 17: Referencing in Section 5.2
We ensured that referencing in this section is now consistent with journal style.
Comment 18: Conclusion – summarize key drought features
As suggested, we now begin the Conclusion with a short summary of the key characteristics of the 2022 drought, reinforcing its significance for European drought policy.Final Statement:
We thank the reviewer again for their valuable and constructive feedback. The manuscript has been significantly improved as a result. We hope that the revised version meets your expectations and look forward to your final decision.
With kind regards,
Riccardo Biella
On behalf of all co-authorsCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2069-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Riccardo Biella, 30 Jun 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2069', Christian Massari, 15 Apr 2025
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Riccardo Biella, 30 Jun 2025
We thank Dr. Massari for the thoughtful and positive comments throughout the review. We are especially grateful for your recognition of the value of combining empirical evidence with drought governance frameworks and for the detailed suggestions that helped us significantly improve the precision and clarity of our methodology and conceptual framing. Below, we provide detailed responses to the comments made. The reviewers’ feedback helped us strengthen our framing, sharpen our argumentation, and improve both methodological transparency and editorial consistency. We have revised the manuscript accordingly, and we provide below a detailed point-by-point response. All exact reviewer comments are reproduced in italic, followed by our response in regular text. Where applicable, we have included line numbers referring to the revised manuscript with annotations (which will be uploaded at this stage as requested by this editorial process).
Comment 1: Writing consistency and length - Some sections would benefit from improved clarity, cohesion, and editorial refinement…
Thank you. We undertook a full language and structural review to improve consistency. Several sections were shortened or restructured to enhance clarity, including Section 2 and Section 3.
Comment 2: Define key terms early - I recommend defining terms like drought risk and drought impact earlier…
We agree and have added clear definitions of drought risk and drought impact in the first paragraph of the Introduction.
Comment 3: Summary table of EU directives
As suggested, we created Table 1 (Line 236) that summarizes the Water Framework Directive, EC Communications (2007, 2012), and the Floods Directive — including legal status, scope, and relevance for drought governance.
Comment 4: Rename Section 2.1 and improve clarity
The section is now titled “Climate Data and Drought Assessment”. We improved the drought definition, adding SPEI threshold values (Lines 265-268), and described the CRU dataset, including the use of PET (Lines 277-283). We also clarified that PET is from pre-calculated CRU outputs.
Comment 5: Regional vs. national focus - Why center analysis on countries, when drought is a transboundary issue?
This is an important point. While drought is indeed transboundary, drought governance (e.g., plans, declarations, restrictions) is largely enacted at the national scale — making country-level analysis essential. Hence, we believe that as the focus of the study is on drought risk management, the country level information is key. However, we recognize that our current description of the regional averages may cause some confusion. Therefore, we clarified how regional aggregation was performed in Lines –343-354).
Comment 6–8: Editorial clarity, citation adjustment, sentence rewording
We have improved clarity, and relocated the citation of Avanzi et al. (2024) to Line 399, where it fits the narrative better.
Comment 9: Clarify case study selection
We now clearly state why Spain (Catalonia) and Italy were selected (Lines 659-663), based on the many impacts and impact severity, data sufficiency, and institutional variation. We also highlight how these cases illustrate broader themes from the survey.
Comment 10: Decentralization and governance systems
We expanded our discussion of governance systems in Lines 192-194, suggesting that decentralization might play a role in preparedness and coordination.
Comment 11: Simplify Figure 6
As advised, we have simplified Figure 6 to show only panel (a), focusing on impact severity. Prioritization results have been moved to a new Supplement Table S2. We also clarified the basis of the regional averages (Lines 29-342).We thank the reviewer again for their valuable and constructive feedback. The manuscript has been significantly improved as a result. We hope that the revised version meets your expectations and look forward to your final decision.
With kind regards,
Riccardo Biella
On behalf of all co-authorsCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2069-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Riccardo Biella, 30 Jun 2025
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1,394 | 354 | 45 | 1,793 | 110 | 43 | 47 |
- HTML: 1,394
- PDF: 354
- XML: 45
- Total: 1,793
- Supplement: 110
- BibTeX: 43
- EndNote: 47
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
