Developing drought impact functions for drought risk management

55Citations
Citations of this article
149Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Drought management frameworks are dependent on methods for monitoring and prediction, but quantifying the hazard alone is arguably not sufficient; the negative consequences that may arise from a lack of precipitation must also be predicted if droughts are to be better managed. However, the link between drought intensity, expressed by some hydrometeorological indicator, and the occurrence of drought impacts has only recently begun to be addressed. One challenge is the paucity of information on ecological and socioeconomic consequences of drought. This study tests the potential for developing empirical drought impact functions based on drought indicators (Standardized Precipitation and Standardized Precipitation Evaporation Index) as predictors and text-based reports on drought impacts as a surrogate variable for drought damage. While there have been studies exploiting textual evidence of drought impacts, a systematic assessment of the effect of impact quantification method and different functional relationships for modeling drought impacts is missing. Using Southeast England as a case study we tested the potential of three different data-driven models for predicting drought impacts quantified from text-based reports: Logistic regression, zero-altered negative binomial regression ( hurdle model), and an ensemble regression tree approach ( random forest). The logistic regression model can only be applied to a binary impact/no impact time series, whereas the other two models can additionally predict the full counts of impact occurrence at each time point. While modeling binary data results in the lowest prediction uncertainty, modeling the full counts has the advantage of also providing a measure of impact severity, and the counts were found to be reasonably predictable. However, there were noticeable differences in skill between modeling methodologies. For binary data the logistic regression and the random forest model performed similarly well based on leave-one-out cross validation. For count data the random forest outperformed the hurdle model. The between-model differences occurred for total drought impacts and for two subsets of impact categories (water supply and freshwater ecosystem impacts). In addition, different ways of defining the impact counts were investigated and were found to have little influence on the prediction skill. For all models we found a positive effect of including impact information of the preceding month as a predictor in addition to the hydrometeorological indicators. We conclude that, although having some limitations, text-based reports on drought impacts can provide useful information for drought risk management, and our study showcases different methodological approaches to developing drought impact functions based on text-based data.

References Powered by Scopus

Random forests

94856Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

A multiscalar drought index sensitive to global warming: The standardized precipitation evapotranspiration index

6594Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Decomposition of the mean squared error and NSE performance criteria: Implications for improving hydrological modelling

3751Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Impact Forecasting to Support Emergency Management of Natural Hazards

148Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Evaluating the performance of random forest for large-scale flood discharge simulation

125Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Regional variations in the link between drought indices and reported agricultural impacts of drought

97Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Bachmair, S., Svensson, C., Prosdocimi, I., Hannaford, J., & Stahl, K. (2017). Developing drought impact functions for drought risk management. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 17(11), 1947–1960. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-17-1947-2017

Readers over time

‘17‘18‘19‘20‘21‘22‘23‘24010203040

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 52

62%

Researcher 18

21%

Professor / Associate Prof. 7

8%

Lecturer / Post doc 7

8%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Environmental Science 31

41%

Earth and Planetary Sciences 20

26%

Engineering 20

26%

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5

7%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0