Next Article in Journal
Transformation of Urban Spaces: The Impact of Green Roofs in Košice, Slovakia
Previous Article in Journal
Company Perspectives on Circular Economy Management, Assessment and Reporting in the Kymenlaakso Region in Finland
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 1
10.3390/su16010021
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Heading into the Unknown? Exploring Sustainable Drought Management in the Mediterranean Region

by
Araceli Martin-Candilejo
1,*,
Francisco J. Martin-Carrasco
1,
Ana Iglesias
2 and
Luis Garrote
1
1
Departamento de Ingeniería Civil: Hidráulica, Energía y Medio Ambiente, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain
2
Departamento de Economía Agraria, Estadística y Gestión de Empresas, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(1), 21; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16010021
Submission received: 18 October 2023 / Revised: 12 December 2023 / Accepted: 14 December 2023 / Published: 19 December 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Water Management)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This paper proposes how drought management may be more sustainable in the Mediterranean region in order to face climate change. This paper collects information on the extraordinary efforts to manage drought in the region, highlighting how policies and investments in data and monitoring, as well as climate change, have defined the progress of drought management efforts. These crucial efforts may not be sustainable under highly likely short-term changes in climate and society. This paper proposes to include more explicitly lessons from managing common resources and from risk management, to guide the evolution of more sustainable drought management in the Mediterranean region. This research highlights the importance of shifting towards dynamic, proactive, and adaptive drought plans, emphasizing voluntary measures, defining responsibilities, and including future scenarios in the planification. Additionally, this paper proposes the establishment of a Technical Secretariat to centralize information, coordination, and collaboration in drought management efforts.

1. Introduction

The Mediterranean region has the unique characteristic of being a semi-arid region with crucial water scarcity and social water imbalances and, at the same time, dramatically affected by intensified drought [1,2]. Drought policies are booming in the Mediterranean region since the early 2000s. The policies have also diversified and now include societal aspects of drought risk, alongside the traditional meteorological-based risk analysis [3]. Key policy components are driven by the EU Water Framework Directive, the EU Drought Observatory, and the UN Disaster Risk Management.
Governments in the Mediterranean basin have historically favored a reactive approach to address drought-related challenges [4]. This approach involves short-term responses that often lack a thorough analysis of potential consequences, unfortunately resulting in a lack of continuity in effective drought management. Furthermore, this approach is entrenched within the existing legislative and institutional frameworks. While legislative developments have occurred in the countries chosen as case studies over the past few decades, significant gaps persist within these frameworks, since governments are still struggling to implement comprehensive drought management policies. Nevertheless, international and regional studies [5,6,7,8,9,10] have increasingly highlighted a consensus among countries in the region regarding the need for policy reform and the proactive adoption of preventive measures.
Droughts are emerging as a substantial challenge to the Mediterranean region, impacting the environment and socioeconomic development [11]. Governments recognize this challenge and are striving to formulate policies to mitigate the far-reaching consequences of this natural disaster. However, the development of these national policies, as well as the legislative and institutional frameworks they rely on, often progress slowly, and remain unsatisfactory [12]. This slow pace prevents the region’s capacity to effectively address drought control issues.
The traditional reactive approach to drought management in the Mediterranean basin has demonstrated its limitations. Short-term responses, without comprehensive analysis, have proven inadequate in confronting the increasing threat of drought. While there have been legislative advancements, critical gaps persist. Recognizing the gravity of the drought challenge, a consensus is growing on the imperative need to transition towards proactive, preventive measures. This shift is vital for safeguarding the environment, promoting sustainable development, and protecting the well-being of the region’s population.
While some drought management plans have demonstrated success [13,14], their past achievements do not guarantee ongoing excellence, because social and environmental conditions may change, for example, changes in population, and views regarding environmental flow requirements and climate change, among others. Mediterranean stakeholders responsible for land and water management have heavily relied on these successes to facilitate the growth of vital sectors like agriculture, industry, and tourism. However, it is essential to acknowledge that this strategy carries significant risks, since future conditions differ from current conditions [15]. Internal factors, such as conflicting interests among water users and the noncompliance of individuals, have the potential to disrupt the existing balance. Meanwhile, external factors include the participation in policy co-development, evolving environmental regulations, and the ever-present challenges posed by climate change. Thinking about the future of water for all in the Mediterranean raises the question of how robust the current regulatory framework actually is. The objective of this study is to identify the current efforts in drought management, to build from those, and to propose a sustainable framework that takes into account the current and future challenges.

1.1. The Mediterranean Region

The area of study is the Mediterranean Region, meaning the southern land of Europe, the north of the Africa, and the western coast of the Middle East. Countries that have land in the Mediterranean region are Spain, Portugal, France, Monaco, Italy, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Albania, Greece, Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, the Palestine territories, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Malta, and Cyprus. In Figure 1, the main area of the Mediterranean Region is highlighted in green.
The lands composing the Mediterranean Region have similar climate and soil conditions. The climate is characterized [16] by hot dry summers and humid, cool winters; sudden torrential downpours, or bouts of high winds; and a diverse topography that includes tall mountains, rugged shores, dense scrub, partially dry steppes, wet coastal areas, sandy beaches, and numerous islands of different shapes and sizes. Another notable aspect of the area is its extensive history intertwined with human presence, leaving noticeable imprints across a significant portion of the landscape.

1.2. Identification of Drought Framework

The World Meteorological Organization [17] defines drought as a “period of abnormally dry weather sufficiently prolonged for the lack of precipitation to cause a serious hydrological imbalance”. However, understanding and defining drought requires knowing the usual levels of water stored for specific needs in the climate or, in the case of meteorological drought, understanding typical precipitation patterns where reservoir levels do not matter [18].

2. Methods and Data

2.1. Approach

A systematic assessment of drought management policies in the Mediterranean requires an analytical framework, a set of criteria against which performance can be evaluated. The analytical framework has two components: one institutional and one applied in the stakeholders that are affected by drought. First, Ostrom’s institutional design principles [15,19,20,21] that highlight the participatory design approach and the significance of citizens in the ‘co-delivery’ of public services and outcomes will be applied to the current drought management framework to discuss trends in drought management plans in the Mediterranean. Second, the principles of risk management [22,23] are applied to define risk categories that are operational, focusing on evaluating the benefits of implementing drought management. These two components are then combined to explore improvements in drought management.
This study has a social sciences approach since it reviews policy development and implementation. The methodical approach relies on a comprehensive analysis of published information following the framework of managing common resources. This will lead to the definition of the elements in drought managing plans that will need to be incorporated to ensure sustainability.
The data are based on the information about the development of drought management plans, the status of other regulations, and the published scientific papers related to drought management. The analytical framework of the study is outlined in Figure 1.

2.2. Data and Criteria for Selecting the Documents

The data that were used for this study have the following characteristics:
  • Institutional information: Policy documents from the European Commission, European Environment Agency, European Parliament and Council, United Nations (UN Convention to Combat Desertification, UN Development Programme, UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, UN Secretariat of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction), Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and World Meteorological Organization (WMO).
  • Time span: 10 years.
  • Peer reviewed papers: Publications with the highest number of citations have been selected from the Journal Citation Reports.
  • Sample size in bibliometric analysis: To analyze bibliometric data, a minimum of 50 documents is required [24].
  • The main criteria used in this analysis for selecting the documents are specific terms to the field of drought, publication period, document type, language, and area of knowledge.
Table 1 summarizes the key scientific and policy documents that address drought management in Mediterranean countries.
Some other documents from other regions that were used for this research are summarized in Table 2.

2.3. Limitations

The limitations of this research study are derived from (a) the limited number of studies and geographical extent taken into consideration, (b) the subjective approach in choosing the information, as well as (c) the value judgement for estimating the success and failure of the drought management plans and (d) the complexity of the drought management from a social point of view. In spite of these limitations, this study offers a robust view of the current drought management plans in the Mediterranean region, by including salient publications and policy documents published in the past ten years.

3. Results

3.1. Quantification and Analysis of the Studies

To quantify the key issues of the consulted publications and understand what scientific publications and policy documents are most concerned about, Table 3 and Figure 2 and Figure 3 show a statistical analysis of the consulted publications.

3.2. Building from the Extraordinary Efforts of Drought Management in the Mediterranean Region

Drought management plans in the Mediterranean have been the focus of attention for decades and are an example of collective efforts supported by institutions and individuals [115].
The analysis of the information is then used to explore the barriers to implementation of sustainable drought management The barriers identified are grouped into five evolving categories: societal, individual, economic, technological, and those related to the natural environment, including climate change (Figure 4).
(a)
Societal barriers: Many regulations specifically applying to the use of water are not legally binding [116]. In addition, binding rules rely on local legislation, allowing wide national interpretation. The rules cannot be policed and enforced effectively in the field, and they do not apply to many users that compete for water.
From a social point of view, the information suggests some aspects that that could be more clearly incorporated into drought management policies at the institutional level:
  • Well-defined resource system boundaries: the boundaries of the resource system lack clear and precise definition.
  • Progressive penalty system: individuals who infringe upon established rules may not receive appropriate penalties that vary in severity based on the gravity and context of their actions, whether from accountable authorities or fellow community members.
  • Efficient conflict resolution mechanisms: access to cost-effective and timely local platforms for resolving disputes among users or between users and authorities is limited.
  • Hierarchical resource management structures: resource allocation, supply, enforcement, conflict resolution, and governance functions are organized in hierarchical structures.
  • Removing incentives that make water use harmful to social and environmental targets in the long run.
  • Identifying the successful and damaging actions. The results suggest that the Mediterranean groups at risk of drought already have solutions, but in some cases, politics are getting in the way [59,117,118].
(b)
Individual barriers: The need for education on the natural and social services of water is a crucial element for moving towards more sustainable drought management. From an individual behavior point of view, the information suggests some aspects that that could be more clearly incorporated into drought management:
  • Well-defined resource ownership limits: clearly outlining the demarcations that specify which individuals or households have the authority to gather resource units.
  • Inclusive decision-making structures: a substantial portion of the individuals influenced by rules governing resource harvesting and protection are part of the collective capable of altering these rules.
  • Incremental penalty system: those who breach established operational regulations are expected to encounter graduated penalties, contingent on the gravity and circumstances of the transgression, imposed by fellow users, officials answerable to these users, or a combination of both.
  • Clearly defining the cost of using water during drought to each individual user.
  • Removing incentives that make water use harmful to social and environmental targets in the long run.
  • Accounting for the true value and true costs of water production by sector, promoting a life cycle assessment.
  • Identifying the successful actions. The results [119,120,121] suggest that the Mediterranean groups at risk of drought already have solutions, but in some cases, politics are getting in the way.
(c)
Economic barriers: The need for clearly showing the costs and benefits of sustainable drought management and poor drought management is a crucial element for moving towards a more sustainable drought management. From an economic point of view, the information suggests some aspects that that could be more clearly incorporated into drought management:
  • Balanced correlation of benefits and costs: Regulations define the quantity of resource products a user receives in line with local conditions and the prerequisites involving labor, materials, and/or financial contributions.
  • Accounting for the true value and true costs of water production by sector, promoting a life cycle assessment.
(d)
Technological barriers: The effective implementation of sound practices in water resource management can be hindered by a range of technological obstacles.
  • Monitoring. A technological impediment is the insufficiency of clean and reliable data. Accurate, current information on water resources, encompassing aspects like water quality, quantity, and usage patterns, is indispensable for competent management. Overcoming this obstacle involves committing resources to enhance data collection and monitoring technologies, alongside establishing frameworks for the sharing and collaboration of data among stakeholders. Furthermore, it is essential to build the capacity for data analysis and interpretation.
  • One of the significant challenges is outdated infrastructure. Effective water management necessitates the provision of public goods, meaning services like storage infrastructure, and amenities such as roads, electricity, and information and communication technologies. However, the cost and complexity of upgrading such infrastructure can be a barrier, especially in areas with limited financial resources.
(e)
Natural environment barriers: Overcoming natural environment barriers requires a holistic approach that considers the interconnectedness of ecosystems, climate, and water resources.
  • Climate change. Changing climate patterns, with variations in rainfall and temperature, can cause water scarcity and more frequent severe droughts, disrupting the supply of clean water. Additionally, climate change can result in intensified extreme weather phenomena like floods and storms, harming water infrastructure and polluting water sources, adding complexity to water resource management [122].
  • Deterioration of freshwater ecosystems. The degradation of wetlands, deforestation within watershed areas, and pollution from agricultural and industrial activities, as well as from extreme weather events, can undermine the natural environment’s capacity to store and cleanse water. Preserving and rehabilitating these ecosystems is of the utmost importance to uphold robust and sustainable water resources [123].

3.3. A Framework That Focuses on the Idea of Managing Common Resources

Some gaps in the extensive experience and success in drought management were identified in the previous section. In addition, the social, environmental, and climate dynamics raise new challenges that call for additional efforts to revise current drought management approaches. To address these gaps, we propose to incorporate the ideas of management of common resources that are scarce [19,20] into drought management plans. Since water during drought can be viewed as a common resource that is scarce, these ideas should include the following actions: establishing distinct group boundaries, aligning rules for common resource use with local needs, involving affected individuals in rule modification, implementing a community-led monitoring system, and developing a governance structure. From that point of view, the competition for water during drought is likely to disturb ecosystems, deteriorate the water quality, and limit its ability of being used as a production factor (i.e., for energy or food) and vital factor (i.e., for people and ecosystems). Excluding “others” from enjoying water is very difficult and is traditionally done by issuing water use permits. Consequently, water norms and legislation are highly developed in the region and unlikely to be sustainable in the future. Since water permits play a key role in the normative, the hydrological and meteorological science has played a key role in drought management, while social sciences are much less integrated into current plans.
The main actions of drought management plans are to provide limitations on the use of water, the common good. Hardin [124] proposed a constant tension between rational individual behavior and rational group behavior. The individual and collective responses when faced with drought is a clear example of this tension, resulting in the intensification of individual use of water during drought periods (for example, for additional irrigation that compensates the lack of rain, that benefits the individual), while sharing the costs of resource degradation with the other group members (i.e., the environment). Viewing the problem in this way, the only solution for drought management is to limit personal use and protect the community. Ostrom [21], among others, challenges this pessimistic view and proposes a governance scheme that ensures sustainability, based on self-organized groups of individuals for governing common resources. Mediterranean water management presents clear cases of successful self-organization driven by collective interests [58,119,120,121]. Here, the River Basin Authorities play a key role, but it would be unrealistic to think that this is the only role (Table 4).
The prevailing legislation and institutional coordination mechanisms indicate a significant deficiency in the assignment of responsibilities and an excessive involvement of public entities, rendering the drought management administrative systems convoluted. Furthermore, this complexity excludes the engagement of individuals impacted by drought. Consequently, this results in a notable inefficiency in decision making and the implementation of alternative measures.
There are few incentives for the adoption of voluntary measures. Purely voluntary pro-environmental behavior, without any financial incentives, is a long-term goal that has to be supported by extraordinary efforts in education and in determining the drivers of behavioral change, including subsidies. Some studies [88,91,94] have shown that local participation in water management planning can help achieve conservation outcomes without compromising the environment. Figure 5 summarizes the tension between individuals and social groups that challenges sustainable drought management plans.

3.4. Looking into the Future

Sustainable drought management will play a crucial role in the future of society and the environment in the Mediterranean Region. The information reviewed in Section 3.2 and Section 3.3 suggests that some key aspects need to be more clearly incorporated into the plans.
(1) Demonstrating the potential benefits. How do you measure something that is not there? To measure something that is not there, is the case of the potential benefit for implementing an action. The complexity in measuring the benefits is in part derived from the complex interacting social and environmental responses to management. Feedback processes are increasingly recognized to hinder effective solutions to social problems, such as drought. These processes are sometimes referred to as vicious cycles, whereby a self-reinforcing feedback loop makes a negative state persist or worsen [125]. Table 5 summarizes the agreement and disagreement in the value of outcomes of drought management for individual and collective stakeholders. Here, again, the role of the Basin authorities to arbiter this tension is essential.
(2) Demonstrating the risk and gain of sustainable drought management choices. Drought management decisions are made under uncertainty since the system is really complex. However, this simplistic way of looking into management decisions has limited the actions taken by the stakeholders. We need to better understand the outcomes, which corresponds to the ability of the outcome to satisfy the needs or preferences of the stakeholders (Figure 5). The review of previous work in Section 3.1 shows a clear reactive approach towards the problem, limiting the risk analysis to evaluating the probability of occurrence of the meteorological or hydrological event. Actions should provide a strategic vision of the results and, at the same time, offer short-term solutions. A plan that embodies these ideas allows for its dynamic adaptation over time to meet changing circumstances. Therefore, we propose an approach that includes the gain and loss of the actions (Figure 6).
(3) Incorporating future scenarios. We propose that drought management plans should be dynamic and adaptive. Adaptive policymaking is a theoretical approach [65] describing a planning process with different types of actions and signposts to see if adaptation is needed, such as considering different social and climate scenarios or changes in current policies. Therefore, the plan has to be dynamic, exploring and sequencing a set of possible actions based on alternative external developments over time. This allows for actions taken at different time scales, not letting the uncertainty of the larger time scale dominate the uncertainty of the decisions in a shorter time scale.
Looking at it from another angle, existing public policies primarily target short- to medium-term outcomes, which may not align with the long-term prevention approach required for drought management. Reactive strategies, which tend to prioritize short-term outcomes, sometimes involve providing financial support to alleviate the impacts of drought. Even when these subsidies may not yield environmentally favorable results, they can wield significant influence in electoral contexts. To shift away from this paradigm, the Spanish Ministry of the Environment initiated a proactive step in 2005 by creating an expert commission. This commission, composed of experts spanning diverse water-related fields, operates in an advisory and evaluative role, providing guidance to the ministry on the development of public policies related to water management in general and, notably, in the context of drought events [120].
(4) Adoption of a regional code on drought management.
The establishment of national policies is crucial in drought management, but international initiatives are equally vital due to the transboundary nature of this phenomenon. Effective international policies should build upon well-established legislation that outlines actions to be taken during drought events.
In line with these considerations, the adoption of a Mediterranean regional code for drought management becomes the most suitable approach for countries in the region. This code would take the form of soft law and serve as a complementary framework to support the development of national legislation. While encompassing aspects already covered by national laws, it would also strive to address areas not yet included at the national level.
To facilitate the process of regional legislation development and information exchange among Mediterranean countries, which is fundamental for mitigating drought impacts, we propose the establishment of a Technical Secretariat. This entity would collect information on drought events provided by the member states and process it for future use. Furthermore, the Secretariat would oversee the adherence of countries to their commitments. It could also serve as a platform for scientific and political discussions, promoting the evolution of legislation in this field.
This legislative approach aligns with the conventional progression of international environmental legislation, where states typically begin with political declarations, then move to soft laws, and eventually adopt binding agreements. Recognizing the cross-border nature of environmental issues and the urgency of improved drought management for all Mediterranean countries, the adoption of this proposed text represents a significant step forward in regional drought management.

4. Discussion

This paper looks into the future by addressing four key aspects: benefits, risks and gains, future scenarios, and a regional code for drought management. These aspects are discussed in the context of current sustainable drought management trends:
  • The potential benefits: This is the most common aspect included in the current drought management plans, since it provides a convincing argument for stakeholders to support the policy proposal.
  • The risk and gain of sustainable drought management choices: [126] Conducting a risk-gain analysis enables water stakeholders to assess and contrast various drought management approaches, aiding in the identification of options that yield the highest benefit for their systems. While stakeholders comprehend the impact of drought on aspects such as water quality, quantity, and social and environmental demand, determining the risks and evaluating the relative advantages of diverse drought management practices poses a challenge. Research is essential to equip stakeholders with tools to estimate these risks and gains, facilitating informed decisions in the selection of appropriate drought management strategies.
  • The future scenarios: [11] All efforts for sustainable drought management include unconditionally future climate change scenarios. In spite of this indisputable evidence of a future increase in drought in the Mediterranean Region, some of the current plans still lack this long-term vision of future climate change scenarios and social demands.
  • The regional code on drought management: [23,127] Although the European commission does not have a specific directive on drought management, the European Water Framework Directive encourages governments to include a framework for drought management plans for vulnerable basins.

5. Conclusions

The paper highlights the importance of sustainable drought management in the Mediterranean Region in the face of evolving challenges, especially in the face of changing climate patterns and societal dynamics. This research highlights how efforts to manage drought in the region, investments in data and monitoring, and climate change considerations have evolved over time. This paper raises concerns about the sustainability of these efforts under the short-term changes in climate and society, emphasizing the need for more sustainable drought management practices.
In the Mediterranean Region, the evolution of policies and management plans in response to these challenges has been notable, driven by EU directives and UN initiatives. However, measuring the potential benefits of drought management actions remains a complex task due to the interplay of social and environmental factors. Drought management decisions are often made under uncertainty, limiting the actions taken. Despite progress, these plans have been considered weak, with slow decision-making processes and limited enforcement.
The results generated by this study could be useful for policymakers aiming to generate voluntary participation. The results could be especially useful in cases where it is not possible to incentivize behavior through taxation, or in low-income regions where budgets may not provide for subsidies. Investing in water management is clearly a smart way forward for combatting drought. This paper identifies barriers to sustainable drought management, including societal, individual, economic, technological, and natural environment factors. This study highlights a shift from the traditional reactive approach to a more comprehensive and preventive strategy.
This paper also emphasizes the importance of measuring potential benefits and risks, incorporating future scenarios, and demonstrating the long-term gains of sustainable drought management. Additionally, it recommends the creation of a regional code on drought management, building on well-established legislation and facilitating international collaboration to effectively address the cross-border challenges. The need to manage water as a common resource is evident, but it requires a delicate balance between individual and collective interests. Drought management plans often focus on limiting water use as a primary strategy, recognizing water as a common good. Self-organization among stakeholders has demonstrated the potential for the effective governance of common resources, but the role of River Basin Authorities and other institutions is equally crucial. In this paper, the creation of a Technical Secretariat is proposed. It would provide a centralized hub for information, co-ordination, and collaboration in the realm of drought management.
Looking ahead, this paper presents a compelling argument for embracing dynamic and adaptive drought plans that offer both a strategic vision and immediate solutions. Voluntary measures, even without financial incentives, can play a significant role in water conservation. Shifting from a reactive to a proactive approach, defining responsibilities, and establishing clear definitions of drought are crucial steps in improving drought management in the region.
In conclusion, the specific measures that have been put forward in this research are as follows:
  • This paper recommends integrating lessons from managing common resources and risk, shifting from reactive to proactive strategies, and creating a regional code on drought management. It also encourages to identify barriers, including societal, economic, technological, and environmental factors that impede sustainable drought management.
  • This research emphasizes the need for measuring benefits, incorporating future scenarios, and demonstrating long-term gains to promote sustainable drought management.
  • It also advocates for a shift towards dynamic and adaptive drought plans that blend long-term strategies with immediate solutions: shifting from a reactive to a proactive approach.
  • This work highlights the importance of voluntary measures, farmer participation, clear responsibilities, defining drought, and investing in knowledge and public policies.
  • The authors propose the establishment of a Technical Secretariat to centralize information, coordination, and collaboration in drought management efforts.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.I.; methodology, A.I. and L.G.; formal analysis, A.I. and L.G. investigation, A.M.-C. and F.J.M.-C.; resources, A.M.-C. and F.J.M.-C.; writing—original draft preparation, A.I.; writing—review and editing, A.M.-C. and F.J.M.-C.; visualization, A.M.-C. supervision, F.J.M.-C.; project administration, A.I.. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was partially supported by the EU-Prima AG-WaMED project: 488 “Advancing non conventional water management for innovative climate-resilient water governance 489 in the Mediterranean Area”, funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation, call 490 PCI2022-1 and the Carlos González Cruz Foundation through the VCRUZ22AMC and VCRUZ23AMC projects. The authors also wish to acknowledge the financial support of Universidad Politécnica de Madrid through the ADAPT project.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Acknowledgments

Authors wish to acknowledge the support of the EU-Prima AG-WaMED project: “Advancing non conventional water management for innovative climate-resilient water governance in the Mediterranean Area”, funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation, call PCI2022-1; as well as the support of Universidad Politécnica de Madrid through the ADAPT project, and the Carlos González Cruz Foundation.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Tramblay, Y.; Koutroulis, A.; Samaniego, L.; Vicente-Serrano, S.M.; Volaire, F.; Boone, A.; Le Page, M.; Llasat, M.C.; Albergel, C.; Burak, S.; et al. Challenges for Drought Assessment in the Mediterranean Region under Future Climate Scenarios. Earth Sci. Rev. 2020, 210, 103348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Toreti, A.; Bavera, D.; Acosta Navarro, J.; Arias-Muñoz, C.; Barbosa, P.; De Jager, A.; Di Ciollo, C.; Fioravanti, G.; Grimaldi, S.; Hrast Essenfelder, A.; et al. Drought in the Western Mediterranean; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  3. Iglesias, A.; Assimacopoulos, V.L. Drought: Science and Policy; John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  4. Estrela, T.; Sancho, T.A. Drought Management Policies in Spain and the European Union: From Traditional Emergency Actions to Drought Management Plans. Water Policy 2016, 18, 153–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Proactive Approaches to Drought Preparedness. Where Are We Now and Where Do We Go from Here? Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  6. Garrote, L. Water Resources Management Models for Policy Assessment. Water 2021, 13, 1063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Rossi, G. European Union Policy for Improving Drought Preparedness and Mitigation. Water Int. 2009, 34, 441–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Teutschbein, C.; Lundkvist, E.; Albrecht, F.; Blicharska, M. A Culture of Proactive Drought Management? Unraveling the Perception and Management of Droughts in Swedish Municipalities. Geophys. Res. Abstr. 2019, 21, 1. [Google Scholar]
  9. Kreibich, H.; Blauhut, V.; Aerts, J.C.J.H.; Bouwer, L.M.; Van Lanen, H.A.J.; Mejia, A.; Mens, M.; Van Loon, A.F. How to Improve Attribution of Changes in Drought and Flood Impacts. Hydrol. Sci. J. 2019, 64, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Garrote, L. Managing Water Resources to Adapt to Climate Change: Facing Uncertainty and Scarcity in a Changing Context. Water Resour. Manag. 2017, 31, 2951–2963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Chapter 4: Water. In IPCC Sixth Assessment Report; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2022.
  12. Dessai, S.; Sims, C. Public Perception of Drought and Climate Change in Southeast England. Environ. Hazards 2010, 9, 340–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Blauhut, V.; Stoelzle, M.; Ahopelto, L.; Brunner, M.I.; Teutschbein, C.; Wendt, D.E.; Akstinas, V.; Bakke, S.J.; Barker, L.J.; Bartošová, L.; et al. Lessons from the 2018–2019 European Droughts: A Collective Need for Unifying Drought Risk Management. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2022, 22, 2201–2217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Stahl, K.; Kohn, I.; Blauhut, V.; Urquijo, J.; De Stefano, L.; Acácio, V.; Dias, S.; Stagge, J.H.; Tallaksen, L.M.; Kampragou, E.; et al. Impacts of European Drought Events: Insights from an International Database of Text-Based Reports. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2016, 16, 801–819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ostrom, E. Design Principles in Long-enduring Irrigation Institutions. Water Resour. Res. 1993, 29, 1907–1912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. European Commission–Directorate-General for Environment; Sundseth, K. Natura 2000 in the Mediterranean Region; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  17. World Meteorological Organization. International Meteorological Vocabulary, 2nd ed.; WMO: Geneva, Switzerland, 1992; Volume 182. [Google Scholar]
  18. Lloyd-Hughes, B. The Impracticality of a Universal Drought Definition. Theor. Appl. Clim. 2014, 117, 607–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ostrom, E. Governing the Commons; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1990; ISBN 9780521371018. [Google Scholar]
  20. Wilson, D.S.; Ostrom, E.; Cox, M.E. Generalizing the Core Design Principles for the Efficacy of Groups. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2013, 90, S21–S32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ostrom, E. A Behavioral Approach to the Rational Choice Theory of Collective Action. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 1998, 92, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Blauhut, V. The Triple Complexity of Drought Risk Analysis and Its Visualisation via Mapping: A Review across Scales and Sectors. Earth Sci. Rev. 2020, 210, 103345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030; UNDRR: Geneva, Switzerland, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  24. Rogers, G.; Szomszor, M.; Adams, J. Sample Size in Bibliometric Analysis. Scientometrics 2020, 125, 777–794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Hänsel, S.; Ustrnul, Z.; Łupikasza, E.; Skalak, P. Assessing Seasonal Drought Variations and Trends over Central Europe. Adv. Water Resour. 2019, 127, 53–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Naumann, G.; Cammalleri, C.; Mentaschi, L.; Feyen, L. Increased Economic Drought Impacts in Europe with Anthropogenic Warming. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2021, 11, 485–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Rosner, B.; Benedict, I.; van Heerwaarden, C.; Weerts, A.; Hazeleger, W.; Bissolli, P.; Trachte, K. The Long Heat Wave and Drought in Europe in 2018. In State of the Climate in 2018; American Meteorological Society: Boston, MA, USA, 2019; Volume 100, pp. 222–223. [Google Scholar]
  28. Jaagus, J.; Aasa, A.; Aniskevich, S.; Boincean, B.; Bojariu, R.; Briede, A.; Danilovich, I.; Castro, F.D.; Dumitrescu, A.; Labuda, M.; et al. Long-term Changes in Drought Indices in Eastern and Central Europe. Int. J. Climatol. 2022, 42, 225–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Garrote, L.; Iglesias, A.; Granados, A.; Mediero, L.; Martin-Carrasco, F. Quantitative Assessment of Climate Change Vulnerability of Irrigation Demands in Mediterranean Europe. Water Resour. Manag. 2015, 29, 325–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Moravec, V.; Markonis, Y.; Rakovec, O.; Svoboda, M.; Trnka, M.; Kumar, R.; Hanel, M. Europe under Multi-Year Droughts: How Severe Was the 2014–2018 Drought Period? Environ. Res. Lett. 2021, 16, 034062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Thompson, R.L.; Broquet, G.; Gerbig, C.; Koch, T.; Lang, M.; Monteil, G.; Munassar, S.; Nickless, A.; Scholze, M.; Ramonet, M.; et al. Changes in Net Ecosystem Exchange over Europe during the 2018 Drought Based on Atmospheric Observations. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2020, 375, 20190512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Büntgen, U.; Urban, O.; Krusic, P.J.; Rybníček, M.; Kolář, T.; Kyncl, T.; Ač, A.; Koňasová, E.; Čáslavský, J.; Esper, J.; et al. Recent European Drought Extremes beyond Common Era Background Variability. Nat. Geosci. 2021, 14, 190–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Rita, A.; Camarero, J.J.; Nolè, A.; Borghetti, M.; Brunetti, M.; Pergola, N.; Serio, C.; Vicente-Serrano, S.M.; Tramutoli, V.; Ripullone, F. The Impact of Drought Spells on Forests Depends on Site Conditions: The Case of 2017 Summer Heat Wave in Southern Europe. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2020, 26, 851–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Boergens, E.; Güntner, A.; Dobslaw, H.; Dahle, C. Quantifying the Central European Droughts in 2018 and 2019 with GRACE Follow-On. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2020, 47, e2020GL087285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Hari, V.; Rakovec, O.; Markonis, Y.; Hanel, M.; Kumar, R. Increased Future Occurrences of the Exceptional 2018–2019 Central European Drought under Global Warming. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 12207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Wilhite, D.A.; Svoboda, M.D.; Hayes, M.J. Understanding the Complex Impacts of Drought: A Key to Enhancing Drought Mitigation and Preparedness. Water Resour. Manag. 2007, 21, 763–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Guha-Sapir, D.; Below, R.; Hoyois, P. EM-DAT: The CRED/OFDA International Disaster Database; Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation: Seattle, WA, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  38. Spinoni, J.; Vogt, J.V.; Naumann, G.; Barbosa, P.; Dosio, A. Will Drought Events Become More Frequent and Severe in Europe? Int. J. Climatol. 2018, 38, 1718–1736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Bachmair, S.; Stahl, K.; Collins, K.; Hannaford, J.; Acreman, M.; Svoboda, M.; Knutson, C.; Smith, K.H.; Wall, N.; Fuchs, B.; et al. Drought Indicators Revisited: The Need for a Wider Consideration of Environment and Society. WIREs Water 2016, 3, 516–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Cammalleri, C.; Micale, F.; Vogt, J. A Novel Soil Moisture-based Drought Severity Index (DSI) Combining Water Deficit Magnitude and Frequency. Hydrol. Process. 2016, 30, 289–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. de Brito, M.M. Compound and Cascading Drought Impacts Do Not Happen by Chance: A Proposal to Quantify Their Relationships. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 778, 146236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Kingston, D.G.; Stagge, J.H.; Tallaksen, L.M.; Hannah, D.M. European-Scale Drought: Understanding Connections between Atmospheric Circulation and Meteorological Drought Indices. J. Clim. 2015, 28, 505–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Cenobio Cruz, O. Advancing Hydrological Modeling for Understanding Drought Dynamics in the Ebro River Basin. The Role of Land Surface Models in Coupled Natural-Human Systems. Ph.D. Thesis, L’Observatori de l’Ebre, Tarragona, Spain, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  44. United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. Drought Resilience, Adaptation and Management Policy Framework: Supporting Technical Guidelines; United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification: Bonn, Germany, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  45. Gruère, G.; Shigemitsu, M.; Crawford, S. Agriculture and Water Policy Changes: Stocktaking and Alignment with OECD and G20 Recommendations. In OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers; OECD: Paris, France, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Eurobarometer. Attitudes of European towards Water; United Nations Economic Commission for Europe: Geneva, Switzerland, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  47. European Commission–Directorate-General for Environment. Water Scarcity and Droughts. In Depth Assessment; Second Interim Report; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  48. Cammalleri, C.; Naumann, G.; Mentaschi, L.; Formetta, G.; Forzieri, G.; Gosling, S.; Bisselink, B.; Roo, D.A.; Feyen, L. Global Warming and Drought Impacts in the EU; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Erian, W.; Pulwarty, R.; Vogt, J.V.; AbuZeid, K.; Bert, F. GAR Special Report on Drought 2021; UNDRR: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  50. Water Scarcity and Droughts Expert Network. Drought Management Plan Report–Including Agricultural, Drought Indicators and Climate Change Aspects; Publications of the European Communities: Luxembourg, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  51. Directorate-General for Environment (European Commission); Mediterranean Water Scarcity and Drought Working Group. Mediterranean Water Scarcity and Drought Report; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  52. European Environmental Agency. Water Resources across Europe—Confronting Water Stress: An Updated Assessment; European Environmental Agency: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  53. European Commission. Drought in Europe March 2023; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  54. Gómez Gómez, C.M.; Pérez Blanco, C.D. Do Drought Management Plans Reduce Drought Risk? A Risk Assessment Model for a Mediterranean River Basin. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 76, 42–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Alexander, M.; Priest, S.; Mees, H. A Framework for Evaluating Flood Risk Governance. Environ. Sci. Policy 2016, 64, 38–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Vogt, J.; Barbosa, P.; Cammalleri, C.; Carrão, H.; Lavaysse, C. Drought Risk Management: Needs and Experiences in Europe. In Drought and Water Crises. Integrating Science, Managment and Policy; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2017; pp. 385–408. [Google Scholar]
  57. Blauhut, V.; Stahl, K.; Stagge, J.H.; Tallaksen, L.M.; De Stefano, L.; Vogt, J. Estimating Drought Risk across Europe from Reported Drought Impacts, Drought Indices, and Vulnerability Factors. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2016, 20, 2779–2800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Urquijo, J.; Pereira, D.; Dias, S.; De Stefano, L. A Methodology to Assess Drought Management as Applied to Six European Case Studies. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 2017, 33, 246–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Enenkel, M.; Brown, M.E.; Vogt, J.V.; McCarty, J.L.; Reid Bell, A.; Guha-Sapir, D.; Dorigo, W.; Vasilaky, K.; Svoboda, M.; Bonifacio, R.; et al. Why Predict Climate Hazards If We Need to Understand Impacts? Putting Humans Back into the Drought Equation. Clim. Chang. 2020, 162, 1161–1176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Trnka, M.; Hayes, M.; Jurečka, F.; Bartošová, L.; Anderson, M.; Brázdil, R.; Brown, J.; Camarero, J.; Cudlín, P.; Dobrovolný, P.; et al. Priority Questions in Multidisciplinary Drought Research. Clim. Res. 2018, 75, 241–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Wilhite, D.A. Combating Drought through Preparedness. Nat. Resour. Forum 2002, 26, 275–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. González Tánago, I.; Urquijo, J.; Blauhut, V.; Villarroya, F.; De Stefano, L. Learning from Experience: A Systematic Review of Assessments of Vulnerability to Drought. Nat. Hazards 2016, 80, 951–973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Hayes, M.J.; Wilhelmi, O.V.; Knutson, C.L. Reducing Drought Risk: Bridging Theory and Practice. Nat. Hazards Rev. 2004, 5, 106–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Knutson, C.; Hayes, M.; Phillips, T. How to Reduce Drought Risk. In Drought Mitigation Center Faculty Publications; Digital Commons@UNL: Lincoln, NE, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  65. Raikes, J.; Smith, T.F.; Jacobson, C.; Baldwin, C. Pre-Disaster Planning and Preparedness for Floods and Droughts: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2019, 38, 101207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Hagenlocher, M.; Meza, I.; Anderson, C.C.; Min, A.; Renaud, F.G.; Walz, Y.; Siebert, S.; Sebesvari, Z. Drought Vulnerability and Risk Assessments: State of the Art, Persistent Gaps, and Research Agenda. Environ. Res. Lett. 2019, 14, 083002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Kreibich, H.; Di Baldassarre, G.; Vorogushyn, S.; Aerts, J.C.J.H.; Apel, H.; Aronica, G.T.; Arnbjerg-Nielsen, K.; Bouwer, L.M.; Bubeck, P.; Caloiero, T.; et al. Adaptation to Flood Risk: Results of International Paired Flood Event Studies. Earth’s Future 2017, 5, 953–965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. European Union. Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the Assessment and Management of Flood Risks. Off. J. Eur. Union 2018, L288, 27–34. [Google Scholar]
  69. United Nations Development Programme. Mainstreaming Drought Risk Management: A Primer; UNDP: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  70. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction 2019; UNDRR: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  71. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. Drought Risk Reduction Framework and Practices Contributing to the Implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action; UNDRR: Geneva, Switzerland, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  72. Joint Research Centre (European Commission); Cammalleri, C.; Pischke, F.; Masante, D.; Barbosa, P.; Naumann, G.; Spinoni, J.; Erian, W.; Vogt, J.V.; Pulwarty, R. Drought Risk Assessment and Management: A Conceptual Framework; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  73. Hervás-Gámez, C.; Delgado-Ramos, F. Drought Management Planning Policy: From Europe to Spain. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Sivakumar, M.V.K.; Stefanski, R.; Bazza, M.; Zelaya, S.; Wilhite, D.; Magalhaes, A.R. High Level Meeting on National Drought Policy: Summary and Major Outcomes. Weather Clim. Extrem. 2014, 3, 126–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Martin-Candilejo, A.; Santillán, D.; Garrote, L.; Iglesias, A. Policy Scenarios for Agriculture That Enhance Soil Ecosystem Services in Europe and China. EGU Gen. Assem. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Nair, S.; Howlett, M. Scaling up of Policy Experiments and Pilots: A Qualitative Comparative Analysis and Lessons for the Water Sector. Water Resour. Manag. 2015, 29, 4945–4961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Blauhut, V.; Stahl, K.; Kohn, I. The Dynamics of Vulnerability to Drought from an Impact Perspective. In Drought: Research and Science-Policy Interfacing; Andreu, H.J., Solera, A., Paredes-Arquiola, J., Haro-Monteagudo, D., Van Lanen, H., Eds.; CRC Press: London, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  78. Kampragou, E.; Apostolaki, S.; Manoli, E.; Froebrich, J.; Assimacopoulos, D. Towards the Harmonization of Water-Related Policies for Managing Drought Risks across the EU. Environ. Sci. Policy 2011, 14, 815–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Charles, A.; Loucks, L.; Berkes, F.; Armitage, D. Community Science: A Typology and Its Implications for Governance of Social-Ecological Systems. Environ. Sci. Policy 2020, 106, 77–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Stein, U.; Özerol, G.; Tröltzsch, J.; Landgrebe, R.; Szendrenyi, A.; Vidaurre, R. European Drought and Water Scarcity Policies. In Governance for Drought Resilience; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 17–43. [Google Scholar]
  81. Estrela, T.; Vargas, E. Drought Management Plans in the European Union. The Case of Spain. Water Resour. Manag. 2012, 26, 1537–1553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Ehnert, F.; Kern, F.; Borgström, S.; Gorissen, L.; Maschmeyer, S.; Egermann, M. Urban Sustainability Transitions in a Context of Multi-Level Governance: A Comparison of Four European States. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2018, 26, 101–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Stocker, T.F.; Qin, D. The Physical Science Basis. Climate Change 2013. Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change 2013—The Physical Science Basis; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2014; pp. 1–30. [Google Scholar]
  84. Urquijo, J.; De Stefano, L.; La Calle, A. Drought and Exceptional Laws in Spain: The Official Water Discourse. Int. Environ. Agreem. 2015, 15, 273–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Bloomfield, J.; Steward, F. The Politics of the Green New Deal. Political Q. 2020, 91, 770–779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Stein, U.; Özerol, G.; Tröltzsch, J.; Landgrebe, R.; Szendrenyi, A.; Vidaurre, R. Governance for Drought Resilience; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; ISBN 9783319296692. [Google Scholar]
  87. European Commission. Energy Climate Policy Framework EU 2020–2030; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2014; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  88. European Environment Agency. European Environment–State and Outlook 2020: Knowledge for Transition to a Sustainable Europe; European Environment Agency: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  89. European Commision; Vermeulen, J.; Whiteoak, K.; Nicholls, G.; Gerber, F.; McAndrew, K.; Cherrier, V.; Cunningham, E.; Kirhensteine, I.; Wolters, H.V.W.; et al. A Blueprint to Safeguard Europe’s Water Resources; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  90. European Commission. The European Green Deal; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  91. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Agriculture and Water Policies: Main Characteristics and Evolution from 2009 to 2019; OECD: Paris, France, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  92. European Commission. European Parliament and Council Communication: Addressing the Challenge of Water Scarcity and Droughts in the European Union; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  93. European Commission. European Parliament and Council Communication: Forging a Climate-Resilient Europe–The New EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  94. European Comission. Directive (EU) 2020/2184 on the Quality of Water Intended for Human Consumption (Recast); European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  95. European Parliament and Council. Regulation (EU) 2020/741 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 2020 on Minimum Requirements for Water Reuse. Off. J. Eur. Union 2020, L177, 32–55. [Google Scholar]
  96. European Union. Directiva 2000/60/CE Del Parlamento Europeo y Del Consejo; European Union: Maastricht, The Netherlands, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  97. Dai, A. Increasing Drought under Global Warming in Observations and Models. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2013, 3, 52–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Botterill, L.C. Uncertain Climate: The Recent History of Drought Policy in Australia. Aust. J. Politics Hist. 2003, 49, 61–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Bakke, S.J.; Ionita, M.; Tallaksen, L.M. The 2018 Northern European Hydrological Drought and Its Drivers in a Historical Perspective. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2020, 24, 5621–5653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Campana, P.E.; Lastanao, P.; Zainali, S.; Zhang, J.; Landelius, T.; Melton, F. Towards an Operational Irrigation Management System for Sweden with a Water–Food–Energy Nexus Perspective. Agric. Water Manag. 2022, 271, 107734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Schuldt, B.; Buras, A.; Arend, M.; Vitasse, Y.; Beierkuhnlein, C.; Damm, A.; Gharun, M.; Grams, T.E.E.; Hauck, M.; Hajek, P.; et al. A First Assessment of the Impact of the Extreme 2018 Summer Drought on Central European Forests. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2020, 45, 86–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Turner, S.; Barker, L.J.; Hannaford, J.; Muchan, K.; Parry, S.; Sefton, C. The 2018/2019 Drought in the UK: A Hydrological Appraisal. Weather 2021, 76, 248–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Barker, L.J.; Hannaford, J.; Parry, S.; Smith, K.A.; Tanguy, M.; Prudhomme, C. Historic Hydrological Droughts 1891–2015: Systematic Characterisation for a Diverse Set of Catchments across the UK. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2019, 23, 4583–4602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Salmoral, G.; Ababio, B.; Holman, I. Drought Impacts, Coping Responses and Adaptation in the UK Outdoor Livestock Sector: Insights to Increase Drought Resilience. Land 2020, 9, 202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Hisdal, H.; Tallaksen, L.M. Estimation of Regional Meteorological and Hydrological Drought Characteristics: A Case Study for Denmark. J. Hydrol. 2003, 281, 230–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Radeva, K.; Nikolova, N.; Gera, M. Assessment of Hydro-Meteorological Drought in the Danube Plain, Bulgaria. Hrvat. Geogr. Glas./Croat. Geogr. Bull. 2018, 80, 7–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Balint, P.; Stewart, R.; Desai, A. Participatory Processes. In Wicked Environmental Problems: Managing Uncertainty and Conflict; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  108. Fontaine, M.M.; Steinemann, A.C. Assessing Vulnerability to Natural Hazards: Impact-Based Method and Application to Drought in Washington State. Nat. Hazards Rev. 2009, 10, 11–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Campana, P.E.; Zhang, J.; Yao, T.; Andersson, S.; Landelius, T.; Melton, F.; Yan, J. Managing Agricultural Drought in Sweden Using a Novel Spatially-Explicit Model from the Perspective of Water-Food-Energy Nexus. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 197, 1382–1393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Bierly, P.E.; Kessler, E.H.; Christensen, E.W. Organizational learning, knowledge and wisdom. J. Organ. Chang. Manag. 2000, 13, 595–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Fu, X.; Svoboda, M.; Tang, Z.; Dai, Z.; Wu, J. An Overview of US State Drought Plans: Crisis or Risk Management? Nat. Hazards 2013, 69, 1607–1627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Fontaine, M.M.; Steinemann, A.C.; Hayes, M.J. State Drought Programs and Plans: Survey of the Western United States. Nat. Hazards Rev. 2014, 15, 95–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Fu, X.; Tang, Z.; Wu, J.; McMillan, K. Drought Planning Research in the United States: An Overview and Outlook. Int. J. Disaster Risk Sci. 2013, 4, 51–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Fu, X.; Tang, Z. Planning for Drought-Resilient Communities: An Evaluation of Local Comprehensive Plans in the Fastest Growing Counties in the US. Cities 2013, 32, 60–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Iglesias, A.; Garrote, L.; Diz, A.; Schlickenrieder, J.; Moneo, M. Water and People: Assessing Policy Priorities for Climate Change Adaptation in the Mediterranean. Adv. Glob. Chang. Res. 2013, 51, 201–233. [Google Scholar]
  116. Howarth, W. Going with the Flow: Integrated Water Resources Management, the EU Water Framework Directive and Ecological Flows. Leg. Stud. 2018, 38, 298–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Van Loon, A.F.; Rangecroft, S.; Coxon, G.; Werner, M.; Wanders, N.; Di Baldassarre, G.; Tijdeman, E.; Bosman, M.; Gleeson, T.; Nauditt, A.; et al. Streamflow Droughts Aggravated by Human Activities despite Management. Environ. Res. Lett. 2022, 17, 044059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Di Baldassarre, G.; Viglione, A.; Carr, G.; Kuil, L.; Salinas, J.L.; Blöschl, G. Socio-Hydrology: Conceptualising Human-Flood Interactions. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2013, 17, 3295–3303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Bezzina, F.H.; Dimech, S. Investigating the Determinants of Recycling Behaviour in Malta. Manag. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 2011, 22, 463–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Briguglio, M.; Delaney, L.; Wood, A. Voluntary Recycling despite Disincentives. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2016, 59, 1751–1774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Bonney, R.; Phillips, T.B.; Ballard, H.L.; Enck, J.W. Can Citizen Science Enhance Public Understanding of Science? Public Underst. Sci. 2016, 25, 2–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Pulido-Velazquez, D.; Garrote, L.; Andreu, J.; Martin-Carrasco, F.-J.; Iglesias, A. A Methodology to Diagnose the Effect of Climate Change and to Identify Adaptive Strategies to Reduce Its Impacts in Conjunctive-Use Systems at Basin Scale. J. Hydrol. 2011, 405, 110–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Keesstra, S.; Nunes, J.; Novara, A.; Finger, D.; Avelar, D.; Kalantari, Z.; Cerdà, A. The Superior Effect of Nature Based Solutions in Land Management for Enhancing Ecosystem Services. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 610–611, 997–1009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Hardin, G. The Tragedy of the Commons: The Population Problem Has No Technical Solution; It Requires a Fundamental Extension in Morality. Science 1968, 162, 1243–1248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Oliver, T.H.; Doherty, B.; Dornelles, A.; Gilbert, N.; Greenwell, M.P.; Harrison, L.J.; Jones, I.M.; Lewis, A.C.; Moller, S.J.; Pilley, V.J.; et al. A Safe and Just Operating Space for Human Identity: A Systems Perspective. Lancet Planet. Health 2022, 6, e919–e927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Sjöstrand, K.; Lindhe, A.; Söderqvist, T.; Dahlqvist, P.; Rosén, L. Marginal Abatement Cost Curves for Water Scarcity Mitigation under Uncertainty. Water Resour. Manag. 2019, 33, 4335–4349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization; National Drought Mitigation Center, University of Nebraska. The Near East Drought Planning Manual: Guidelines for Drought Mitigation and Preparedness Planning; FAO: Cairo, Egypt; University of Nebraska: Lincoln, NE, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 16 00021 g001
Figure 1. Summary of the objectives and framework.
Figure 1. Summary of the objectives and framework.
Sustainability 16 00021 g001
Sustainability 16 00021 g002
Figure 2. Quantification of the publications consulted in the Mediterranean Region regarding each key aspect.
Figure 2. Quantification of the publications consulted in the Mediterranean Region regarding each key aspect.
Sustainability 16 00021 g002
Sustainability 16 00021 g003
Figure 3. Key aspects of the consulted documents regarding drought management in the Mediterranean Region. The inner circles show the percentages in policy documents, and the outer circles those in scientific publications.
Figure 3. Key aspects of the consulted documents regarding drought management in the Mediterranean Region. The inner circles show the percentages in policy documents, and the outer circles those in scientific publications.
Sustainability 16 00021 g003
Sustainability 16 00021 g004
Figure 4. Barriers to the implementation of sustainable drought management in the Mediterranean Region based on the analysis of information provided in Table 1 and Table 2.
Figure 4. Barriers to the implementation of sustainable drought management in the Mediterranean Region based on the analysis of information provided in Table 1 and Table 2.
Sustainability 16 00021 g004
Sustainability 16 00021 g005
Figure 5. Individual and societal factors to overcome barriers to drought.
Figure 5. Individual and societal factors to overcome barriers to drought.
Sustainability 16 00021 g005
Sustainability 16 00021 g006
Figure 6. Risk and gain associated with drought management decisions.
Figure 6. Risk and gain associated with drought management decisions.
Sustainability 16 00021 g006
Table 1. A summary of scientific and policy documents that address drought management achievements and challenges in the Mediterranean Region.
Table 1. A summary of scientific and policy documents that address drought management achievements and challenges in the Mediterranean Region.
Mediterranean Region:
Main Information Provided		Scientific Publications (SP):Policy Documents (PD):
Technical aspects (T.A):[14,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43][2,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53]
T.A. General aspects[14,30,32,34,37][2,44,46,47,49,51,52,53]
T.A. Climatic and environmental aspects[25,27,31,33,38,42,43][48]
T.A. Economic evaluation[26,29,36][45]
T.A. Indicators[28,35,39,40,41][50]
Risk management (R.M):[13,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67][68,69,70,71,72]
R.M. General aspects[13,60,63,66][69]
R.M. Environmental aspects[54,55,67][68]
R.M. Statistical analysis[56,59,62,65][70]
R.M. Conceptual framework[61,64][71,72]
R.M. Case studies[58]
R.M. Indicators[57]
Policy implementation (P.I):[1,3,4,6,7,58,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86][5,50,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96]
P.I. General aspects[3,74,77,80,83,86][50,87,88,89,92,95,96]
P.I. Environmental aspects[1,6,7,75,79,85][50,87,89,90,93,94]
P.I. Conceptual framework[4,78][5]
P.I. Evolution review[76][91]
P.I. Case studies[4,73,81,84]
Table 2. A summary of scientific and policy documents that address drought management achievements and challenges in other regions (aside from the Mediterranean Region).
Table 2. A summary of scientific and policy documents that address drought management achievements and challenges in other regions (aside from the Mediterranean Region).
Other Regions:
Main Information Provided		Area of StudyScientific Publications
Technical aspectsOECD countries[45,91]
Global[97]
Australia[98]
Europe:
Northern Europe[99,100]
Central Europe[101]
UK[102,103,104]
Denmark[105]
Bulgaria[106]
Risk managementGlobal[23,107]
USA[108]
Sweden[109]
Policy implementationGlobal[110]
USA[111,112,113,114]
Table 3. Quantification and statistics of the consulted publications in the Mediterranean Region.
Table 3. Quantification and statistics of the consulted publications in the Mediterranean Region.
Mediterranean RegionScientific PublicationsPolicy Documents
Main Information ProvidedNo. of Publications% In Each CategoryNo. of Documents% In Each Category
Technical aspectsGeneral aspects629%873%
Climatic and environmental aspects733%19%
Economic evaluation314%19%
Indicators524%19%
Total:21 11
Risk managementGeneral aspects427%120%
Environmental aspects320%120%
Statistical analysis427%120%
Indicators27%20%
Conceptual framework113% 40%
Case studies17% 0%
Total:15 5
Policy implementationGeneral aspects630%758%
Environmental aspects630%650%
Conceptual framework210%18%
Case studies120%217%
Evolution review45% 0%
Total:20 12
Overall56 28
Table 4. Actors and roles in the management of drought affecting common resources.
Table 4. Actors and roles in the management of drought affecting common resources.
Individual Actors Affected Directly by Drought ImpactsCollective Actors Influencing Drought Management PolicyActors Arbitering the Operational Decisions That Affect Individuals and Collective Groups
PositionsShort term, individualNormative actionsSupporting advice and operational decisions
Allowable actionsVery limitedLow, mostly financialVery large
Control over choiceDependent on information and cognitive barriersHighHigh
Information availableLowLowOwners, high
Cost and benefits of actions and outcomesHighLowHigh
Table 5. Outcomes from drought management decisions and stakeholders’ preferences.
Table 5. Outcomes from drought management decisions and stakeholders’ preferences.
Understanding the Outcome of the Following ChoiceIndividual Stakeholder PreferencesCollective Stakeholder Preferences
Demonstration of the effectiveness of management actionsVery highMedium
Demonstration of potential losses without management actionsMediumVery high
Capacity of the user to act upon the information givenEssential Low
Cost of management actionMediumVery high
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Martin-Candilejo, A.; Martin-Carrasco, F.J.; Iglesias, A.; Garrote, L. Heading into the Unknown? Exploring Sustainable Drought Management in the Mediterranean Region. Sustainability 2024, 16, 21. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16010021

AMA Style

Martin-Candilejo A, Martin-Carrasco FJ, Iglesias A, Garrote L. Heading into the Unknown? Exploring Sustainable Drought Management in the Mediterranean Region. Sustainability. 2024; 16(1):21. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16010021

Chicago/Turabian Style

Martin-Candilejo, Araceli, Francisco J. Martin-Carrasco, Ana Iglesias, and Luis Garrote. 2024. "Heading into the Unknown? Exploring Sustainable Drought Management in the Mediterranean Region" Sustainability 16, no. 1: 21. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16010021

APA Style

Martin-Candilejo, A., Martin-Carrasco, F. J., Iglesias, A., & Garrote, L. (2024). Heading into the Unknown? Exploring Sustainable Drought Management in the Mediterranean Region. Sustainability, 16(1), 21. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16010021

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop