4.5 Article

Changing impacts and societal responses to drought in southwestern Germany since 1800

期刊

REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE
卷 19, 期 8, 页码 2311-2323

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s10113-019-01522-7

关键词

Drought impacts; Documentary data; Societal responses; Drought indices

资金

  1. Wassernetzwerk Baden-Wurttemberg (Water Research Network) - Ministerium fur Wissenschaft, Forschung und Kunst Baden-Wurttemberg (Ministry of Science, Research and the Arts of the Land of Baden-Wurttemberg)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Drought directly and indirectly affects the entire socio-economic and environmental sectors in southwestern Germany. Such impacts are a result of the drought hazard and an underlying vulnerability of the systems. With respect to climate change and the dynamics of vulnerability over time, it becomes crucial to investigate the preceding components, in order to understand possible future magnitudes of the hazard and drivers of drought impacts. Therefore, drought indices were generated from the early nineteenth century in order to identify exceptional meteorological summer droughts. Documentary evidence and historical yield statistics were used to contextualise historical drought events by drought impacts and responses. Considering both, selected summer drought events were analysed and mutually compared based on the impact on society and ecology, as well as societal responses to these. The derived standardised indices highlight differences between severe droughts in duration and temporal peculiarity and put into perspective the current understanding of the intensity of recent drought hazards. The discourse analysis reveals that the propagation of drought and the kinds of impacts have remained rather similar through time, only shifting to modern livelihood assets. However, vulnerability, which strongly depends on the societal contexts, has changed over time and lowered severity of impacts, especially with regard to food and water supply, as well as human health.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据