the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Sectoral Vulnerability to Drought: Exploring the Role of Blue and Green Water Dependency in Mid and High-Latitudes
Abstract. The European continent has experienced several large-scale drought events in recent years, and climate projections suggest an increasing drought risk in many parts of the world. As droughts can have large impacts on socio-hydrological systems, analyzing drought risk is an important part for proactive drought risk management and disaster risk reduction. Drought risk can be expressed as a product of hazard, exposure and vulnerability, where vulnerability is highly contextual and complex. As droughts can affect all parts of the hydrological system, from precipitation and soil moisture to groundwater and surface water reservoirs, drought vulnerability differs depending on what part of the system is studied. Building on previous results from a survey analyzing drought vulnerability across seven water-dependent sectors, this paper explores how vulnerability factors vary based on sectors’ dependency on blue water (surface and subsurface freshwater) or green water (soil moisture) in mid and high latitude regions. The findings reveal that drought vulnerability differs based on water type dependency, especially concerning water supply and species characteristics. Perceptions of vulnerability factors vary in number, category, and overall ranking, highlighting the importance of considering water dependency when choosing vulnerability factors for drought risk assessments and to clearly define the drought hazard types involved.
- Preprint
(1522 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1023 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2726', Mirela-Adriana Anghelache, 28 Nov 2024
This is an exhaustive research work about the vulnerability to draught of forested cold climate regions from Europe. The most respondent are from southern Sweden (84%) and the others are detalied in supplementary materials. From a risk analysis, there are assesed the vulnerability factors and the final assessment underline the factors that seem to be generally impactful for all consumer groups of: blue water, green water and univesal water, respectively.
To be published with some minor revisions:
Row 102 : pls. explain Cfb
Fig. 4, to be zoomed in, there are many details, hard to follow
Fig. 6, axis to be explained, impact score vs?
Table 2 to be centered
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2726-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Elin Stenfors, 03 Feb 2025
Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript and for your valuable input. We are happy to hear that you found our research to be thorough. We will carefully address your minor comments and suggestions upon revision of the manuscript.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2726-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Elin Stenfors, 03 Feb 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2726', Jürgen Mey, 07 Mar 2025
Review for “Sectoral Vulnerability to Drought: Exploring the Role of Blue and Green Water Dependency in Mid and High-Latitudes” by Stenfors et al.
Droughts are hydro-meteorological hazards that are thought to be strongly impacted by global climate change regarding their severity and frequency. For the efficient use of resources in mitigation/adaptation measures it is important to know where droughts have their largest impact. This contribution differentiates the vulnerabilities of different socioeconomic groups to droughts, based on their dependency on groundwater/streams/lakes or soil moisture. They analyze a survey among water-dependent sectors that was aimed at identifying and rating specific vulnerability factors for drought risk.
They first separate the respondents into green, blue and universal water consumers and then identified relevant vulnerability factors, respectively. After application of an impact score to assess the relative importance of the vulnerability factors they use statistical tests to find significant differences in ratings between the consumer groups.
They find that the importance of vulnerability factors differs among the consumer groups in particular concerning factors that relate to water supply and species characteristics. They propose universal vulnerability factors such as existing drought risk assessment, soil water holding capacity and the presence of wetlands, lakes and ponds. They finally argue that future drought risk assessments should incorporate specific vulnerability factors for the exposed consumer groups.
I think the this work has value regarding refining/designing future drought risk assessments and I agree with reviewer 1 that it should be accepted. Yet, I have some minor points that the authors should consider.
I had a hard time to figure out the sectors you have chosen and to what consumer group these belong. Figure 1 was not really helpful in that respect. It lacks the universal consumer group.
Line 167: “two groups” but above you write about three groups. please clarify
Line 404: This entire paragraph should go to results because nothing is discussed here.
Line 412: This paragraph except for the last sentence should belong to the results.
J. Mey
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2726-RC2
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
205 | 63 | 17 | 285 | 27 | 16 | 19 |
- HTML: 205
- PDF: 63
- XML: 17
- Total: 285
- Supplement: 27
- BibTeX: 16
- EndNote: 19
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|---|---|---|
United States of America | 1 | 66 | 26 |
Germany | 2 | 23 | 9 |
India | 3 | 19 | 7 |
Sweden | 4 | 19 | 7 |
France | 5 | 16 | 6 |
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 66