The ‘ Xerasia ’ processes matrix (adapted from Vlachos, 1982; Karavitis, 1992). 

Contexts in source publication

Context 1

... demands on scarce water supplies make for a highly complex socio-economic environment. The salubrious climate, fragile lands, historically contestational socio-political forces and a vulnerable ecosystem: all have been converging towards a challenging context of concern and crisis. Such a context is further exacerbated by forces of globalization and by the rapidity of change. In this emerging framework, the drought vulnerability approach has gained significant ground as an essential management tool. In the present attempt, a standardized precipitation index (SPI)-based standardized drought vulnerability index (SDVI) was developed and presented on a country scale. Greece, as part of the Mediterranean region, has been selected as a case study for the index application and demonstration. The drought phenomenon poses ubiquitous obstacles for systematic planning and management responses. One source of difficulty arises from the fact that the concept of this natural hazard remains ambiguous and elusive, since it tries to incorporate physical processes as well as highly complex interactions with the surrounding environment. Furthermore, catastrophic and widespread drought impacts prompt strong demands for immediate and effective management actions. Such demands for action become quite problematic when drought management responses have to be applied to already stressed environments (Drought Management, 1986; Karavitis, 1999b; Mishra & Desai, 2005; Andreu et al ., 2006; Barraque et al ., 2008). Drought is a frequent event that occurs in a number of regions worldwide regardless of their usual climatic conditions (Yevjevich et al ., 1983; Grigg, 1996; Karavitis, 1999b; Bordi et al ., 2006; Eriyagama et al ., 2009; Karavitis et al ., 2012a, b). Drought depends on antecedent conditions and its characteristics display great spatial and temporal variability. The severity of the recent US drought has received extensive media coverage (Grigg, 2014). The phenomenon always attracts both public and interdisciplinary scientific attention, since it causes a plethora of social, economic and environmental impacts (Yevjevich et al ., 1983; Karavitis, 1992; Rossi et al ., 1992; Wilhite et al ., 2000; Cancelliere et al ., 2005; Sheffield et al ., 2012). Hagman (1984), in one of the early drought impacts reports, pointed out that drought is a complex natural event affecting human activities more than any other natural hazard. Commenting more recently, Bruce (1994), Easterling et al . (2000) and Ding et al . (2010) also report that droughts have caused losses that are counted in billions (10 9 ) of US dollars worldwide. A precise, unambiguous definition of drought remains elusive (Yevjevich et al ., 1983; Karavitis, 1992, 1999a; Grigg, 1996; Wilhite, 1997; Cancelliere et al ., 2005; Karavitis et al ., 2012a, b; Shatanawi et al. , 2013). One source of confusion in devising an objective definition may be that drought implies a variety of things to various professionals according to the specialized field of study (meteorology, hydrology, water resources, agriculture, etc.). A second problem is elicited because the definition of drought is strongly related to the geographical, hydrological, geological, historical and cultural traits of a given locale. A third factor is the difficulty in modifying existing drought terminology according to updated techniques and practices (Drought Management, 1986; Salas, 1986; Grigg & Vlachos, 1990; Karavitis, 1992, 1999a; Karavitis et al ., 2012a, b). However, drought is usually defined as a precipitation deficit over an extended period of time (National Drought Policy Commission (NDPC), 2000; Cancelliere et al ., 2005; Wilhite et al ., 2006; Eriyagama et al ., 2009). Drought might be also defined as ‘ a usually unexpected and unpredicted time period of abnormal dryness which affects water supply ’ (Grigg, 1988). Central to this quest, a general definition of drought may evolve. Thus, a broader and possibly more operational definition of drought may be ‘ the state of adverse and wide spread hydrological, environmental, social and economic impacts due to less than generally anticipated water quantities ’ (Karavitis, 1992, 1999a). Such water deficiencies may primarily originate from precipitation decreases, usually accompanied by physical and/or management inefficiencies in water supply systems, most of the time, over a large area. It is believed that such a drought definition may lead towards linking drought characteristics such as duration and frequency to impacts and then estimating the vulnerability of an area to drought. In this regard, various concepts have been used to exemplify the prevailing confusion among terms, which signify ‘ dry environments ’ or water deficiencies. Early on, Vlachos (1982) presented four different terms that are important for some initial separation among the types of water deficiencies in relation to anthropogenic interventions, which are refined and elucidated in Figure 1. Hence, further developing such terms it may be noted that: aridity is referred to as a permanent natural condition, representing a stable climatic feature of a given region. Drought may be understood as a tem- porary mostly climatic phenomenon, regular and/or unpredicted. Water shortage is associated mainly with small areas of water deficiency created usually by human activities. Finally, desertification is prin- cipally a man-made phenomenon altering significantly the ecological regime. It has been suggested that all the above terms and definitions associated with dryness may be considered as a part of a larger process named: ‘ xerasia ’ (Figure 1). The boundaries among these four categories are gradual depicting their interdependencies and complex nature signifying, for example, that a drought may also have not only natural but also some anthropogenic connections. Nevertheless, whatever the term and the overall context, drought should be associated with its impacts at a given locale. Such association including special technological, economic and societal traits may estimate the area ’ s vulnerability to various ‘ drought ’ manifestations. Drought has short- and long-range (usually cumulative) impacts in virtually all types of activities related to water, economy and society. Two methodological approaches may be underlined in order to study and assess drought impacts. In the first one, the impact approach, a climatic event (drought) operates on a certain ‘ exposure unit ’ (activity) producing an impact. This is a cause and effect approach. The second one, the interaction approach, suggests that various processes (physical, economic or societal) may influence the ‘ exposure unit ’ and the impacts are embedded and interrelated to the ‘ exposure unit ’ . In other words, environment, policies, economy and society combined negatively on a given activity may create a crisis. In recent decades, the interaction approach started to be considered as more realistic by presenting the impacts as ‘ orders of interactions ’ (Wilhite et al ., 1987; Karavitis, 1992; Grigg, 1996). In this regard, a classic first broad categorization of impacts was in a series of first-, second- and third-order impacts (Changnon & Easterling, 1989). First-order impacts are associated with changes related to the hydrologic cycle (i.e. precipitation, runoff, stream flow and groundwater). Second-order ones usually influence human activities such as agriculture, industry, urban users and transportation. Finally, third-order impacts may be understood as adaptations to first- and second-order impacts (i.e. income losses, adjustments in life style and rationing). Such impact dis- tinctions are extremely important so as to produce a drought management methodology. At the same time, drought impacts should be categorized according to a concise and comprehensive framework. Thus, any classification scheme becomes crucial, since it may lead towards potential drought responses in an implementable decision-making process. In general, the impact ’ s magnitude on an area is affected by the density of human activities, needs, demands, level of socio-economic structure and the environmental linkages (Eriyagama et al ., 2009). The 2012 drought in the USA produced severe hydrological, economic, environmental and social impacts and may be classified as the worst since the 1930s Dust Bowl (Grigg, 2014). During the 1989 – 1990 great- est drought on record for Greece, the impacts were devastating, as losses escalated to about 1.5 billion (10 9 ) USD in 1990 prices (Karavitis, 1992, 1999b). Wu et al . (2011) provide a short but quite explanatory description of drought impacts emphasizing the great losses, mostly economic, that occur during such an event, while Ding et al . (2010) provide a more detailed one of the drought economic impacts. Impacts trigger the societal responses to drought. The more holistic the responses, the more effective the drought mitigation may be. Hence, integrated water resources management (IWRM) should be used as the general context for comprehensive drought management approaches. The articulation of marks and threshold drought conditions can measure progress, performance and products of such management approaches (Grigg, 1996, 2008; Karavitis, 1999a; Vlachos & Braga, 2001). The major challenge for any drought mitigation policy in order to confront the impacts may be the development of comprehensive and effective drought management schemes. Such schemes should be based on proactive strategies incorporating pre-drought planning, drought responses and post-drought activities (Grigg & Vlachos, 1990, 1993; Karavitis, 1992, 1999a; Karavitis et al ., 2012a, b). If impacts are anticipated, then a responses plan may be set in advance. The core of a scheme for a drought responses plan may be composed from short- and long- range responses. Short-term responses should be initiated and terminated according to the drought duration, while ...

Context 2

... on a country scale. Greece, as part of the Mediterranean region, has been selected as a case study for the index application and demonstration. The drought phenomenon poses ubiquitous obstacles for systematic planning and management responses. One source of difficulty arises from the fact that the concept of this natural hazard remains ambiguous and elusive, since it tries to incorporate physical processes as well as highly complex interactions with the surrounding environment. Furthermore, catastrophic and widespread drought impacts prompt strong demands for immediate and effective management actions. Such demands for action become quite problematic when drought management responses have to be applied to already stressed environments (Drought Management, 1986; Karavitis, 1999b; Mishra & Desai, 2005; Andreu et al ., 2006; Barraque et al ., 2008). Drought is a frequent event that occurs in a number of regions worldwide regardless of their usual climatic conditions (Yevjevich et al ., 1983; Grigg, 1996; Karavitis, 1999b; Bordi et al ., 2006; Eriyagama et al ., 2009; Karavitis et al ., 2012a, b). Drought depends on antecedent conditions and its characteristics display great spatial and temporal variability. The severity of the recent US drought has received extensive media coverage (Grigg, 2014). The phenomenon always attracts both public and interdisciplinary scientific attention, since it causes a plethora of social, economic and environmental impacts (Yevjevich et al ., 1983; Karavitis, 1992; Rossi et al ., 1992; Wilhite et al ., 2000; Cancelliere et al ., 2005; Sheffield et al ., 2012). Hagman (1984), in one of the early drought impacts reports, pointed out that drought is a complex natural event affecting human activities more than any other natural hazard. Commenting more recently, Bruce (1994), Easterling et al . (2000) and Ding et al . (2010) also report that droughts have caused losses that are counted in billions (10 9 ) of US dollars worldwide. A precise, unambiguous definition of drought remains elusive (Yevjevich et al ., 1983; Karavitis, 1992, 1999a; Grigg, 1996; Wilhite, 1997; Cancelliere et al ., 2005; Karavitis et al ., 2012a, b; Shatanawi et al. , 2013). One source of confusion in devising an objective definition may be that drought implies a variety of things to various professionals according to the specialized field of study (meteorology, hydrology, water resources, agriculture, etc.). A second problem is elicited because the definition of drought is strongly related to the geographical, hydrological, geological, historical and cultural traits of a given locale. A third factor is the difficulty in modifying existing drought terminology according to updated techniques and practices (Drought Management, 1986; Salas, 1986; Grigg & Vlachos, 1990; Karavitis, 1992, 1999a; Karavitis et al ., 2012a, b). However, drought is usually defined as a precipitation deficit over an extended period of time (National Drought Policy Commission (NDPC), 2000; Cancelliere et al ., 2005; Wilhite et al ., 2006; Eriyagama et al ., 2009). Drought might be also defined as ‘ a usually unexpected and unpredicted time period of abnormal dryness which affects water supply ’ (Grigg, 1988). Central to this quest, a general definition of drought may evolve. Thus, a broader and possibly more operational definition of drought may be ‘ the state of adverse and wide spread hydrological, environmental, social and economic impacts due to less than generally anticipated water quantities ’ (Karavitis, 1992, 1999a). Such water deficiencies may primarily originate from precipitation decreases, usually accompanied by physical and/or management inefficiencies in water supply systems, most of the time, over a large area. It is believed that such a drought definition may lead towards linking drought characteristics such as duration and frequency to impacts and then estimating the vulnerability of an area to drought. In this regard, various concepts have been used to exemplify the prevailing confusion among terms, which signify ‘ dry environments ’ or water deficiencies. Early on, Vlachos (1982) presented four different terms that are important for some initial separation among the types of water deficiencies in relation to anthropogenic interventions, which are refined and elucidated in Figure 1. Hence, further developing such terms it may be noted that: aridity is referred to as a permanent natural condition, representing a stable climatic feature of a given region. Drought may be understood as a tem- porary mostly climatic phenomenon, regular and/or unpredicted. Water shortage is associated mainly with small areas of water deficiency created usually by human activities. Finally, desertification is prin- cipally a man-made phenomenon altering significantly the ecological regime. It has been suggested that all the above terms and definitions associated with dryness may be considered as a part of a larger process named: ‘ xerasia ’ (Figure 1). The boundaries among these four categories are gradual depicting their interdependencies and complex nature signifying, for example, that a drought may also have not only natural but also some anthropogenic connections. Nevertheless, whatever the term and the overall context, drought should be associated with its impacts at a given locale. Such association including special technological, economic and societal traits may estimate the area ’ s vulnerability to various ‘ drought ’ manifestations. Drought has short- and long-range (usually cumulative) impacts in virtually all types of activities related to water, economy and society. Two methodological approaches may be underlined in order to study and assess drought impacts. In the first one, the impact approach, a climatic event (drought) operates on a certain ‘ exposure unit ’ (activity) producing an impact. This is a cause and effect approach. The second one, the interaction approach, suggests that various processes (physical, economic or societal) may influence the ‘ exposure unit ’ and the impacts are embedded and interrelated to the ‘ exposure unit ’ . In other words, environment, policies, economy and society combined negatively on a given activity may create a crisis. In recent decades, the interaction approach started to be considered as more realistic by presenting the impacts as ‘ orders of interactions ’ (Wilhite et al ., 1987; Karavitis, 1992; Grigg, 1996). In this regard, a classic first broad categorization of impacts was in a series of first-, second- and third-order impacts (Changnon & Easterling, 1989). First-order impacts are associated with changes related to the hydrologic cycle (i.e. precipitation, runoff, stream flow and groundwater). Second-order ones usually influence human activities such as agriculture, industry, urban users and transportation. Finally, third-order impacts may be understood as adaptations to first- and second-order impacts (i.e. income losses, adjustments in life style and rationing). Such impact dis- tinctions are extremely important so as to produce a drought management methodology. At the same time, drought impacts should be categorized according to a concise and comprehensive framework. Thus, any classification scheme becomes crucial, since it may lead towards potential drought responses in an implementable decision-making process. In general, the impact ’ s magnitude on an area is affected by the density of human activities, needs, demands, level of socio-economic structure and the environmental linkages (Eriyagama et al ., 2009). The 2012 drought in the USA produced severe hydrological, economic, environmental and social impacts and may be classified as the worst since the 1930s Dust Bowl (Grigg, 2014). During the 1989 – 1990 great- est drought on record for Greece, the impacts were devastating, as losses escalated to about 1.5 billion (10 9 ) USD in 1990 prices (Karavitis, 1992, 1999b). Wu et al . (2011) provide a short but quite explanatory description of drought impacts emphasizing the great losses, mostly economic, that occur during such an event, while Ding et al . (2010) provide a more detailed one of the drought economic impacts. Impacts trigger the societal responses to drought. The more holistic the responses, the more effective the drought mitigation may be. Hence, integrated water resources management (IWRM) should be used as the general context for comprehensive drought management approaches. The articulation of marks and threshold drought conditions can measure progress, performance and products of such management approaches (Grigg, 1996, 2008; Karavitis, 1999a; Vlachos & Braga, 2001). The major challenge for any drought mitigation policy in order to confront the impacts may be the development of comprehensive and effective drought management schemes. Such schemes should be based on proactive strategies incorporating pre-drought planning, drought responses and post-drought activities (Grigg & Vlachos, 1990, 1993; Karavitis, 1992, 1999a; Karavitis et al ., 2012a, b). If impacts are anticipated, then a responses plan may be set in advance. The core of a scheme for a drought responses plan may be composed from short- and long- range responses. Short-term responses should be initiated and terminated according to the drought duration, while long-term ones should be designed and implemented in advance of a drought event. Thus, impacts should be anticipated both spatially and temporally and initiate management interventions on certain vulnerability thresholds. In other words responses may also lead to impact classification. An image of a comprehensive management scheme is presented in Figure 2. Given such considerations, a drought responses plan should be classified in the following parts (Yevjevich et al ., 1983; Grigg & Vlachos, 1990, 1993; Grigg, 1996; Karavitis 1992, 1999a, 2012): Supply augmentation measures . Such measures should examine all the potential water supply resources for ...