No abstract

Abstract[Drought indicators are proliferating, but with little consideration of which are most meaningful for describing drought impacts. A number of recent reviews compare different drought indicators, but none assess which indicators are actually used in the many operational drought monitoring and early warning efforts, why they were selected, or whether they have been 'ground-truthed', i.e., compared with information representing local drought conditions and/or impacts. Also lacking is a comprehensive assessment of the state of monitoring of drought impacts. To help fill this gap, we combine a review of drought indicators and impacts with a survey of 33 providers of operational drought monitoring and early warning systems from global to regional scales. Despite considerable variety in the indicators used operationally, certain patterns emerge. Both the literature review and the survey reveal that impact monitoring does exist but has rarely been systematized. Efforts to test drought indicators have mostly focused on agricultural drought. Our review points to a current trend towards the design and use of composite indicators, but with limited evaluation of the links between indicators and drought impacts. Overall, we find that much progress has been made both in research and practice on drought indicators, but monitoring and early warning systems are not yet strongly linked with the assessment of wider impacts on the environment and society. To understand drought impacts fully requires a better framing of drought as a coupled dynamic between the environment and society.]

Severe drought is a recurring problem for the United States, as illustrated by widespread economic, social, and environmental impacts. Recent drought episodes and the widespread drought conditions in 1996, 1998, and 1999 emphasized this vulnerability and the need for a more proactive, risk management approach to drought management that would place greater emphasis on preparedness planning and mitigation actions. Drought planning has become a principal tool of states and other levels of government to improve their response to droughts. For example, since 1982, the number of states with drought plans has increased from 3 to 29. Many local governments have also adopted drought or water shortage plans. Unfortunately, most state drought plans were established during the 1980s and early 1990s and emphasize emergency response or crisis management rather than risk management. This paper presents a substantive revision of a 10-step drought planning process that has been applied widely in the United States and elsewhere. The revised planning process places more weight on risk assessment and the development and implementation of mitigation actions and programs. The goal of this paper is to encourage states to adopt this planning process in the revision of existing drought plans or, for states without plans, in the development of new plans.

No abstract

No abstract