the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 20 May 2025
Testing the Drought and Heat Risk Assessment (DHR) Framework for Urban Green Infrastructure: The Case of Plauen, Germany
Abstract. Urban green infrastructure (UGI) and their ecosystem services (ES) strengthen urban biodiversity and resilience—but are threatened by increasing drought and heat risks. This study applies the Drought and Heat Risk Assessment (DHR) Framework in an urban park in Plauen, Germany, using an indicator-based approach to assess multi-risks for selected ES. The risk system is first delineated by considering hazards, exposure, and vulnerability to define key endpoints and derive descriptors. Local stakeholders—experts in urban planning, UGI management, biodiversity conservation, water management, climate, meteorology, soil, and environmental science—then validate the system, select appropriate indicators, and define evaluation criteria with weights and thresholds. Risk indicators are calculated using station measurements, remote sensing, microclimate modeling, and GIS analysis. Multi-risks are evaluated with the TOPSIS method, aggregating risks for the provisioning, regulating, and cultural dimensions of ES. Empirical testing confirms that the framework is able to capture system complexity through interconnected multi-risk indicators with attributes from diverse tiers, while underscoring the need for flexible, multi-method approaches in the face of data limitations. The results, presented as sub-city spatial maps, offer decision makers valuable insights into the spatiotemporal risks affecting UGI’s ES and support efforts to safeguard their benefits for both society and the environment.
- Preprint
(3323 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 04 Jul 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2060', Anonymous Referee #1, 20 May 2025
reply
This manuscript applies the Drought and Heat Risk (DHR) Assessment Framework to evaluate the compound risks of drought and heat on urban green infrastructure (UGI) and associated ecosystem services (ES) in an urban park in Plauen, Germany. The study employs an indicator-based approach, integrating remote sensing, microclimate modeling, GIS analysis, and stakeholder input, with risk aggregation performed using the TOPSIS method. While the topic is relevant and the structure appears complete, the manuscript has several critical issues. The applied model is outdated and lacks scientific innovation. The study area is not representative, limiting the generalizability of the findings. The data used are of relatively low quality, with insufficient validation and unclear sources. Most importantly, the study lacks a fundamental investigation into the mechanisms of drought and heat impacts and their compound effects on UGI. The absence of process-based understanding undermines the scientific robustness of the risk assessment. Furthermore, the discussion is weak and fails to provide insightful interpretation or meaningful comparison with existing literature. All maps should also include latitude and longitude grids for clarity and standardization. In its current form, the manuscript does not meet the standards of scientific rigor required for publication. I recommend rejection.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2060-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Raghid Shehayeb, 27 May 2025
reply
The author thanks the reviewer for their prompt review of the manuscript. I appreciate the acknowledgment of the relevance and structure of the study. Below the main concerns raised are addressed and discussed, while outlining points to further strengthen the manuscript.
First, I would like to underline the main goal of the study, which is to contextualize and test the Drought and Heat Risk Assessment Framework to assess the risks under real-world conditions. The “Hammer Park” located in the town of Plauen, Germany is used as a single case study as drought and heat risks are site-specific in nature. The overall purpose of testing the framework in a study area is to check its principal capability to addresses the multi-risks, their spatiotemporal dimensions, and the usability for local stakeholders. The aim will be stated in more details the introduction section in a revised version of the manuscript. I fully agree with the reviewer’s comment that a single case study doesn’t lead to generic results due to methodologically reasons. Therefore, the study area was selected considering (i) a manageable size and diversity of UGIs; (ii) the occurrence of drought and heat events; and (iii) the willingness of stakeholders to contribute to the process of testing. Transfer to others areas requires site-specific data and stakeholder involvement, but can build on the successfully tested framework. This will be further elaborated on in the discussion section in a revised version.
This study follows the conceptual and methodological framework based on risk analysis and evaluation, and uses a combination of methods (e.g., models) to assess the risks. The scientific innovation lies in the ability to assess the risks not only in terms of the biophysical elements and processes of urban green infrastructure (UGI) as existing models do, but also provides a multi-risk assessment for the ecosystem services (ES) that the society receives from the UGI. More information and discussions regarding the conceptual framework and the methodology derived for its implementation can be found in:
- Shehayeb, R., Ortlepp, R., & Schanze, J. (2024). A drought and heat risk assessment framework for urban green infrastructure. Climate Resilience and Sustainability, 3(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/cli2.63
- Shehayeb, R., Ortlepp, R., & Schanze, J. (2025). An indicator-based methodology for the drought and heat risk assessment of urban green infrastructure. Ecological Indicators, 174(113461). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2025.113461
The data sources used meet scientific state-of-the-art standards, follow FAIR principles and are published in open repositories, with an overview data publication on the data flow and sources used. The author invites the reviewer to visit these data publications cited and listed within the manuscript. Namely, most data sources are from local station data and extracted from online databases (e.g., Deutscher Wetterdienst – DWD). The level of uncertainty in the models used will be more explicitly discussed in the Methods and Data section. Other sources listed include remote sensing and measured data, which are all described under:
“Shehayeb, R. (2025). Testing the Drought and Heat Risk (DHR) Assessment Framework for Urban Green Infrastructure: Overview and Data Sources (2.0). Zenodo. https://zenodo.org/records/15526315”.
The reviewer notes that the processes of how droughts and heat impact the biophysical elements and processes of UGI are not deeply investigated. The present study intentionally conducts the assessment at the level (tier) of ES due their societal relevance and to highlight the innovation compared to the existing models. Nonetheless, the underlying (physiological) processes of droughts and heat impacts are calculated based on physically based models as far as possible, for example using the ENVI-met model. The derivation of the risk indicators follows a systems approach and a cascading model to represent the risk generation from weather extremes, biophysical processes at the UGI entities to UGI functions and ESs. However, some risk indicators (e.g., for cultural ES), require the calculation of different attributes due the characteristics of these services. This is explored in-depth in the publication:
- Shehayeb, R., Ortlepp, R., & Schanze, J. (2025). An indicator-based methodology for the drought and heat risk assessment of urban green infrastructure. Ecological Indicators, 174(113461). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2025.113461
The discussion currently highlights the relevance of the risk assessment approach for ES provided compared to existing studies on impacts on UGI or specific ES, as well as underlying the spatiotemporal advances of the assessment. This can be easily amended by additional comparisons of the findings with existing literature in the revision of the manuscript. The practical suggestion about the maps is appreciated. The current version includes a consistent external latitude-longitude grid to the maps. Adding latitude-longitude grids overlapping the plot area will be implemented in the revised version.
Finally, I express my gratitude to the reviewer again for their valuable advice. The above points are assumed to address the critical arguments raised and clarify how they will be handled. I look forward to the opportunity to submit the revised manuscript that even better highlights the originality and societal relevance of the study.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2060-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Raghid Shehayeb, 27 May 2025
reply
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 130 | 28 | 9 | 167 | 5 | 5 |
- HTML: 130
- PDF: 28
- XML: 9
- Total: 167
- BibTeX: 5
- EndNote: 5
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1