the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 04 Apr 2024
From insufficient rainfall to livelihoods: understanding the cascade of drought impacts and policy implications
Abstract. A cascade of drought impacts refers to a series of interconnected events that trigger a chain reaction of impacts, extending beyond water scarcity, to affect agricultural production, socio-economic factors, and the environment. This paper aims to understand the role of society in mitigating drought impacts, particularly through policy responses. Conducting a case study in Ceará state, northeast Brazil, we used a global rare dataset of continuously drought monitoring, complemented by interviews with smallholder farmers and agricultural extension technicians. Additionally, we analyzed policy documents related to public policies implemented at the local level. Employing a classification of drought impacts as our analytical framework, our findings indicate that socio-environmental-economic impacts of drought are less frequently reported, suggesting that development policies are mitigating cascading effects on livelihoods. Most impacts are associated with hydrological impacts of drought, suggesting unintended consequences of investments in increasing water supply. We emphasize the significant contribution of public policies to mitigating the cascading effects of drought, which do not necessarily involve increasing water availability, but strengthen the local economy.
- Preprint
(826 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(219 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 23 May 2024)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-650', Anastasiya Shyrokaya, 29 Apr 2024
reply
Review of Cavalcante et al., manuscript number egusphere-2024-650
"From insufficient rainfall to livelihoods: understanding the cascade of drought impacts and policy implications"1. Summary
This research article explores the cascading impacts of drought as a chain reaction across drought-sensitive sectors, and the role of policy responses in mitigating these cascading effects. Focusing on Ceará state in northeast Brazil, the study utilizes a comprehensive dataset on drought impacts and analyzes local public policy documents. By investigating how different policy measures alleviate drought impacts, the authors demonstrate effective strategies for drought management.
2. General comment
I find this work highly relevant for advancing our understanding of how policies shape impacts. One aspect I particularly appreciate is the use of a unique continuously monitored drought impacts dataset, complemented by stakeholder interviews and the review of relevant policy documents. Furthermore, the study sheds light on socio-environmental-economic impacts that are often overlooked. It also delves into the intersection of drought management and policy sciences, providing insights into the role of public policies in mitigating drought impacts. While the text is well-written and the manuscript is generally well-structured and delivers its messages, I believe that the manuscript can be improved by addressing the minor aspects outlined below.
3. Specific comment
1. Introduction
Line 53-65: This paragraph introduces different types of droughts. I wonder why environmental/ecosystem type of drought is not included among meteorological, agricultural and hydrological types, which is still a physical manifestation of impact before introducing the socio-economic drought? (pls refer to AghaKouchak et al. 2021). If the reason for this is the limited number of impact reports for environmental drought (as shown in Wildfires category in S1 Table 3), leading to its merging with socio-ecological-economic impact category, I would suggest first introducing the environmental drought and its physical impacts, and then explaining why they were merged.
Line 114-116: I assume you focused on smallholders, because “they are one of the most vulnerable group to climate extreme impacts” and they are also called “family agriculture”? I would slightly rephrase these 2 sentences to make this clear. Also would replace “group” with “groups”.
2. Methodology
Point 2.1: A map could help a reader to locate Ceara state and visually compare it to other states.
Line 125-126: “The state has various economic activities, mainly the industrial, textile and automotive sectors, and tourism related to its tropical beaches and wind sports". Aren't textile and automobile industries part of the industrial sectors?
Table 1: I would leave a space before “July 2019, November and December 2021 and April 2022” to make it more clear that it indicates the period of Field work data.
2.2.3. Policy documents data
Line 192-193: "Policy documents were collected to understand the objectives and strategies of relevant policies and programs in the study area". I would advise specifying more what is meant by “relevant”. E.g. policies related to supporting farmers and their families etc.
3. Results
Line 215-216: "These impacts include: (8), high production costs (9), and socioeconomic impacts* (11)". Is there an impact type missing in front of (8)? Should be “Wildfires” based on Fig.2?
Figure 2: I would add “impacts” to socio-env-eco and start with the capital letter “Socio-env-eco”. Could potentially move these titles to the top within each box and place them horizontally.
Figure 3: It's a bit difficult to read the sentence “Socio-environmental-economical impacts of drought” within the last box, would recommend making the contrast more visible. Same for Figure 6 as Figure 3 is part of it.
Figure 3: “illustration illustrating” in the Figure’s caption.
Line 291: "Policy response path C, from insufficient rainfall to agricultural impacts of drought". However, the “C” is currently placed between agricultural and socio-envi-eco impacts in Figure 4? I would even keep the “C” where it is and change the description of this policy response to “from agricultural and socio-envi-eco impacts” because this “Garantia Safra” helps agricultural impacts not to cascade into socio-economical ones since the crop losses already occurred and the policy provides cash transfers to alleviate the economic losses.
Line 308-310: "The data analysis indicates that socio-environmental-economic impacts have the lowest frequency of reporting, suggesting that public policies have been effective in alleviating the cascade of impacts". I would not generalize this conclusion for environmental impacts – the farmers/observers might not report on the state of ecosystems incl forest, freshwater ecosystem, water quality in lakes/rivers etc. Also, there were no policies mentioned that were alleviating specifically environmental impacts.
4. Discussion
Line 413: "On drought related policies, they remain reactive, such as the crop insurance implement after drought impacts are experienced". This presents an opportunity to mention an example of moving from reactive to proactive policies by e.g. using cash transfers based on forecasted impacts rather than responding to those that have already occurred, highlighting the importance of forecasting and associated proactive drought management.
Supplementary
S1. Table 2: A little unclear with the headings: I'm guessing that "Survey Questions", "Alleviating Factor" shouldn't have a circle in front since they're the same level as the rest of the headings?
S1.3 Policy documents data "The selected documents were about the public policies reported by both farmers and observers in the interviews": have you considered checking other relevant documents that were not mentioned by farmers/observers, just generally from legislative repositories? In case there are some policy documents that potentially help alleviate prevailing hydrological impacts, but are not used by farmers for some reason?
References:
AghaKouchak, A., Mirchi, A., Madani, K., Di Baldassarre, G., Nazemi, A., Alborzi, A., et al. (2021). Anthropogenic drought: Definition, challenges, and opportunities. Reviews of Geophysics, 59, e2019RG000683. https://doi. org/10.1029/2019RG000683
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-650-RC1
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 105 | 37 | 8 | 150 | 17 | 6 | 5 |
- HTML: 105
- PDF: 37
- XML: 8
- Total: 150
- Supplement: 17
- BibTeX: 6
- EndNote: 5
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1