[Link]

5194/nhess-2021-328
Preprint. Discussion started: 16 November 2021
c Author(s) 2021. CC BY 4.0 License.

Different drought types and the spatial variability in their hazard,

Erik Tijdeman1, Veit Blauhut2, Michael Stoelzle2, Lucas Menzel1, and Kerstin Stahl2
1
5 Professorship of Hydrology and Climatology, Institute of Geography, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany
2
Faculty of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany

Correspondence to: [Link]@[Link]

Abstract

10 Droughts often have a severe impact on environment, society, and economy. Only a multifaceted assessment of such droughts
and their impacts can provide insights in the variables and scales that are relevant for drought management. Motivated by this
aim, we compared hazard and propagation characteristics as well as impacts of major droughts between 1990-2019 in
Southwestern Germany. We bring together high-resolution datasets of air temperature, precipitation, soil moisture simulations,
streamflow and groundwater level observations, as well as text-based information on drought impacts. Various drought
15 characteristics were derived from the hydrometeorological and drought impact time series and compared across variables and
spatial scales. Results revealed different drought types sharing similar hazard and impact characteristics. The most severe
drought type identified is an intense multi-seasonal drought type peaking in summer, i.e. the events in 2003, 2015 and 2018.
This drought type appeared in all domains of the hydrological cycle and coincided with high air temperatures, causing a high
number and variability of drought impacts. The regional average drought signals of this drought type exhibit typical drought
20 propagation characteristics such as a time lag between meteorological and hydrological drought, whereas propagation
characteristics of local drought signals are variable in space. This spatial variability in drought hazard increased when droughts
propagated through the hydrological cycle, causing distinct differences among variables, and regional average and local
drought information. Accordingly, single variable or regional average drought information is considered to be not sufficient
to fully explain the variety of drought impacts that occurred. In addition to large-scale drought monitoring, drought
25 management needs to consider local drought information from different hydrometeorological variables and could be type
based.

1 Introduction

The Central and Northern European drought and heatwave of 2018 revealed once more the large spatial-temporal footprint
and severe impacts of this natural hazard (e.g. Bakke et al., 2020; Brunner et al., 2019; Schuldt et al., 2020). Similar or worse
30 episodes are expected to occur more often in the future, given the increasing atmospheric water demand and human pressure

1
 [Link]
Preprint. Discussion started: 16 November 2021
c Author(s) 2021. CC BY 4.0 License.

on fresh-water resources (e.g. Samaniego et al., 2018; Wanders and Wada, 2015). This prospect raises the importance of short-
and long-term drought management to better cope with both ongoing drought as well as to be better prepared for future drought
episodes (Wilhite et al., 2019). Good planning for drought requires information about the different components of drought
risk: hazard, impacts, exposure, and vulnerability. The analysis of past droughts at different scales can provide this information.
35 On the one hand, locally relevant drought management benefits from detailed information, which considers different
hydrometeorological variables and drought related impacts and their spatiotemporal variability (e.g., Van Lanen et al., 2016).
On the other hand, higher-level administrative decision-making often requires drought information in a more generalized form,
e.g., indexed information aggregated to administrative regions indicating whether there is drought or not. Generalizing drought
information simplifies its interpretation but may come at the cost of a loss of information, as the hazard and its impacts may
40 be highly variable in space and time (Stahl et al., 2016).
The multifaceted nature of drought results in the impracticability of a unique drought definition (Lloyd-Hughes, 2014). From
a hazard perspective, drought is often defined as a below normal hydrometeorological anomaly, where the normal depends on
space, time, and the variable of interest (e.g., Tallaksen and Van Lanen, 2004). Accordingly, a wealth of drought hazard indices
has been developed to express the flux or state of a certain domain of the hydrological cycle, or the combined states and fluxes
45 of multiple domains, as anomaly (e.g. Hao and Singh, 2015; Zargar et al., 2011). From an impact perspective, below normal
anomalies only become droughts when they have the potential to cause drought impacts, i.e., “negative consequences of
drought for environment, society or economy” (Blauhut et al., 2015).
The above-described definitions of drought form the basis of many drought-related studies, which often focus on a specific
type of drought such as meteorological, agricultural, hydrological, or socio-economic drought (Wilhite and Glantz 1985).
50 Laaha et al. (2017) argue that our understanding of drought would benefit from a more holistic study of drought phenomena,
because specific drought impacts relate to droughts in certain domains of the hydrological cycle. In addition, the co-occurrence
of drought in different domains of the hydrological cycle may worsen drought impacts. For example, agricultural drought
impacts caused by low soil moisture can be aggravated by co-occurring streamflow droughts that limit or prohibit withdrawals
of surface water for irrigation. A holistic view on drought and its impacts might further benefit the consideration of compound
55 hazards preceding or co-occurring with drought, e.g., heat waves, as these can further worsen drought impacts (Zscheischler
et al. 2020). Finally, a temporal clustering of drought years might be worth the consideration. A second drought year in a row,
as observed for meteorological drought for Central and Northern Europe in 2018-2019 as well as for various hydrological
droughts in the UK (resp. Hari et al., 2020; Kendon et al., 2013), prevents recovery and might have an even larger impact on
already weakened systems.
60 The connection of different drought types through so-called "drought propagation" (e.g., Changnon, 1987; Van Loon, 2015)
further justifies the need for a holistic drought assessment. Drought propagation is a well-established concept on the catchment
scale (e.g. Van Loon, 2015). Rainfall deficits enhanced by meteorological conditions that favor high evapotranspiration
propagate to deficits in root zone soil moisture followed by recession and ultimately deficits in river flow and groundwater.
Catchment scale drought propagation exhibits various typical characteristics, including the order of appearance of drought in

2
 [Link]
Preprint. Discussion started: 16 November 2021
c Author(s) 2021. CC BY 4.0 License.

65 different domains of the hydrometeorological cycle and associated time-lag as well as the attenuation of the propagating
hydrometeorological signal and associated lengthening. Regional scale drought propagation is a less well-established concept.
On this regional scale, drought propagation may not happen uniformly, as the propagating drought signal is affected by
meteorological variability and further modified by geological differences in surface and sub-surface characteristics.
Differences in meteorological conditions are driven by both larger- and smaller-scale atmospheric processes. On the larger
70 (continental) scale, atmospheric circulation patterns and teleconnections play an important role, e.g., by blocking wet weather
systems (e.g., Ionita et al., 2017; Toreti et al., 2019). On the smaller regional scale, differences in meteorological conditions
appear due to the occurrence of local rainstorms or differences in topography and land cover that affect energy balance terms
and hence air temperature, evapotranspiration, and meso-scale wind systems. Differences in subsurface soil and geological
characteristics may also exert a strong control on regional drought propagation, as these affect the total amount of storage and
75 thereby influence how well meteorological dry spells can be buffered (e.g., Barker et al., 2016; Bloomfield and Marchant,
2013; Heudorfer et al., 2019; Stoelzle et al., 2014).
The variable occurrence and severity of drought in space, time, and among different domains of the hydrological cycle may
be a major precursor of when and where different types of drought impacts occur. However, drought impact occurrence is not
solely related to the hazard as drought impacts are “symptoms of vulnerability” (Knutson et al, 1998). Thus, an indicated
80 drought hazard might not necessarily lead to an impact, as the exposed system also has to be vulnerable to the hazard. For
example, certain drought impacts might not occur because of appropriate mitigation measures in place. In addition, the
considered spatially aggregated or single variable drought hazard information might not be representative for a specific type
of local drought impacts.
It is the question whether a holistic assessment of droughts enhances the understanding of the type and amount of drought
85 impacts that occur during certain types of drought events, as this could highlight the need for multivariate drought type specific
management. It is further the question whether concepts of catchments scale drought propagation also exist on the regional
scale, as these concepts could serve as guiding principles for regional drought management. For both these questions, spatial
scale, i.e., whether local or regional aggregated drought information is investigated, may play an important role. What is the
unique value of different drought information sources at different scales? And is there a benefit of using local over spatially
90 aggregated drought information in a regional drought management context? These questions have not yet been systematically
explored as often data is lacking for such comprehensive analyses. To fill this gap, this study aims to shed more light on
regional drought (propagation) characteristics with a multivariate view on recent droughts to enhance the understanding of
drought impacts. Focusing on Southwestern Germany, we aim to:
1. identify drought episodes for the period 1990-2019 and investigate if these episodes can be grouped into different
95 types with similar hazard characteristics and impacts,
2. evaluate the propagation of drought over the region for the most prominent (highest impact) type's drought episodes,
and
3. assess the agreement among drought hazard and impact information across variables and scales.

3
 [Link]
Preprint. Discussion started: 16 November 2021
c Author(s) 2021. CC BY 4.0 License.

2 Data and methods

100 2.1 Study area

Baden-Württemberg is the most Southwestern federal state of Germany (Fig. 1). According to the Nomenclature of Units for
Territorial Statistics (NUTS) of the European Union, Baden-Württemberg is a NUTS-1 region, which is separated into four
NUTS-2 regions: Stuttgart, Karlsruhe, Freiburg and Tübingen. In this case, these NUTS regions also have their own
governmental water authorities. Hydrologically important, the river Rhine flows along the southern and western border of the
105 state and provides an important waterway for navigation. The region encompasses both flat and lowland areas such as the
Rhine Valley in the West as well as more mountainous regions such as the Black Forest and the Swabian Alb. The topography
of the region affects both precipitation (annual average sum between 600 and >2000 mm year -1) and air temperature (annual
average between 4.5 and 11.6 °C). The landscapes of Baden-Württemberg are diverse, with agricultural (43%) and urban (7%)
areas mostly located in the lower elevated regions and forested (38%) and meadow areas (10%) in the higher elevated regions.
110 Equally diverse are the region’s lithological and geological characteristics. A variety of soils with different root-zone depths
and water holding capacities exist, ranging from thick loess layers to shallow Leptosols. Below these soils, the geology varies
from metamorphic rock to porous limestone and unconsolidated rock, resulting in a hydrogeology with different aquifer types
that have different storage capacities (Stoelzle et al., 2015). Aquifers also vary in size, with some larger porous aquifers in e.g.,
the Rhine Valley and smaller valley fill aquifers among fractured sedimentary or crystalline bedrock in e.g., the Black Forest.

115
Figure 1. Data basis for the study in the federal state of Baden-Württemberg (NUTS-1) with its four different administrative regions
(NUTS-2).

4
 [Link]
Preprint. Discussion started: 16 November 2021
c Author(s) 2021. CC BY 4.0 License.

2.2 Data and temporal aggregation

The study assembled multiple variables for the region: air temperature, precipitation, simulated soil moisture and observed
120 streamflow and groundwater levels. These daily hydrometeorological observations and simulations for the period 1990-2019
stem from different sources. Air temperature data come from own climate station interpolations over a 1-km resolution grid
covering Baden-Württemberg (Tijdeman and Menzel 2021a). Precipitation data stem from the gridded REGNIE data product
(Rauthe et al., 2013) and was sourced from the Climate Data Center of the German Weather Services (DWD, 2020). Gridded
simulated soil moisture data over a 1-km resolution grid were derived using the TRAIN model (described in Tijdeman and
125 Menzel 2021a) and were obtained from Tijdeman and Menzel (2021b). Daily streamflow observations at gauging stations of
54 catchments with flow unaffected by major human disturbances at the timescale relevant for our analyses were provided by
the Ministry of Environment of Baden-Württemberg (LUBW). Groundwater level observations of 43 wells were obtained from
the Environmental Data and Maps archive of the LUBW (UDO, 2020). We only considered those groundwater wells currently
in use in the reference network of the groundwater storage assessment application of the LUBW (LUBW, 2020), given their
130 relevance for drought monitoring. This does not mean that all groundwater level time series are completely free of human
influences. Nevertheless, Baden-Wurttemberg is a water rich country, and visual inspection of the groundwater level time
series did not show any sharp changes associated with changes in (nearby) abstractions.
All above-described variables are continuous daily observations, except for groundwater level observations, which are
available at (ir)regular intervals, e.g., at certain days of the week. To obtain a common temporal resolution, we aggregated
135 daily hydrometeorological data to a monthly resolution by taking the mean of the daily observations or simulations. This
resulted in monthly time series of precipitation (P1), air temperature (T1) simulated soil moisture (SM) streamflow (Q) and
groundwater levels (GW) for either each grid cell (P1, T1, SM), catchment (Q), or well (GW). Precipitation was further
aggregated to a seasonal and annual resolution (resp. P3 and P12), one value for each calendar month, to account for both
short- and long- term meteorological deficits relevant for e.g., hydrological systems with resp. a low- and high- buffering
140 capacity of meteorological deficits. Air temperature was also aggregated to an annual resolution (T12), one value for each
year, to depict the general changes in climate. Daily time series of precipitation, air temperature and simulated soil moisture
did not contain any missing values, whereas daily time series of streamflow and groundwater level observations contained
occasional gaps. In the case of gaps in daily streamflow, a certain month was set to missing whenever five or more days in that
month did not have an observation. For groundwater, we used less stringent missing data requirements, given that groundwater
145 levels were not available at a continuous daily resolution. GW in a certain month was set to "missing" when there were no
observations in that month. In the end, we only selected the monthly Q and GW level time series with less than 10% of
“missing” months, respectively all of the 54 streamflow time series and 28 out of 43 of the groundwater level time series (Fig.
1).
Drought impact information stems from the European Drought Impact report Inventory (EDII; Stahl et al., 2016); a database
150 of textual drought impact information from different sources, e.g., newspaper articles, governmental reports etc. These reports

5
 [Link]
Preprint. Discussion started: 16 November 2021
c Author(s) 2021. CC BY 4.0 License.

are manually collected, temporally and spatially referenced, and classified to one of 15 impact categories (Blauhut et al., 2015).
The timestamp of an entry indicates at a minimum the year of occurrence, but where available also information on the
beginning and in some cases the end date of a reported impact. For this study, we considered impacts for the period 2000-2019
(n = 792), given the more limited availability of impact information prior to this date. The EDII has recently been updated for
155 the greater alpine region (Stephan et al., 2021). For the study region of Baden-Württemberg this dataset was also supplemented
with additional impact information gathered from questionnaires of a survey of the hydropower sector (Siebert et al. 2021;
until 2017) and a survey of the public water supply sector (Blauhut et al. 2020; until 2018). Categorical impact information
was grouped by start year, season, where available start month (n = 359), and NUTS-1 and NUTS-2 region. The grouping over
NUTS regions was used as these regions coincide with administrative boundaries relevant for decision-making according to
160 the state's Water Act.

2.3 Drought hazard information at different spatial scales

We derived drought hazard information from all meteorological and hydrological variables at three spatial scales: local, NUTS-
2 average, and NUTS-1 average. Local drought information was derived for each individual grid cell, catchment or well by
transferring their time series to anomaly space (percentiles; p) using Weibull plotting positions (Weibull 1939, eq. 1).
165
Rank(𝑉u )
𝑝V,u = (eq. 1)
(𝑛+1)

Where V is the variable of interest, n the sample size (in this study: n = 30) and u the location identifier referring to either a
grid cell, catchment, or groundwater well. The rank of V in a specific year and month is relative to historical observations in
170 that month, e.g., P1 for August 2018 compared to P1 for all other Augusts. To derive anomalies from air temperature time
series (T1, T12), we used an inverse ranking to make the percentile classification of above normal air temperature comparable
with below normal hydrometeorological conditions. The derived percentiles express the historical non-exceedance frequencies
of different variables for the considered reference period 1990-2019 (Tijdeman et al., 2020). This reference period differs from
the standard reference period of the WMO (e.g., 1961-1990). However, using the period 1990-2019 as reference was preferred
175 given the lower availability of continuous observations for the earlier period.
For the NUTS-1 region as a whole and for the four NUTS-2 sub-regions, regional average drought hazard information was
derived by ranking the average of all available local percentile data within the region; for a given hydrometeorological or
hydrological variable, the regional average p is then (eq. 2).

̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅)
Rank(𝑝 V,NUTS
180 𝑝V,NUTS = (𝑛+1)
(eq. 2)

6
 [Link]
Preprint. Discussion started: 16 November 2021
c Author(s) 2021. CC BY 4.0 License.

Where NUTS refers to either all grid cells, catchments or wells located within either the NUTS-1 or NUTS-2 region of interest.
The rank of ̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
𝑃V,NUTS thus compares average local percentile values for a specific NUTS-1 or NUTS-2 region, variable, year,
and month to average percentile values for the same NUTS-1 or NUTS-2 region, variable, and month in all other years.
185 The percentile time series of all hydrometeorological variables and scales were classified into five different groups: pV ≤ 0.1
(severe drought or much above normal air temperature), 0.1 < pV ≤ 0.25 (moderate drought or above normal air temperature),
0.25 < pV < 0.75 (normal conditions), 0.75 ≤ pV < 0.9 (moderately wet or below normal air temperatures) and, pV ≥ 0.9 (severely
wet or much below normal air temperatures). For ease of notation, we move the location identifier outside of the subscript and
use the variable abbreviation to refer to its percentiles where applicable, e.g., local P1 when referring to monthly precipitation
190 percentiles at individual locations (cells) or NUTS-1 average P1 when referring to regional average monthly precipitation
percentiles.

2.4 Typing hazard characteristics and impacts

We characterized past drought episodes over the period of 1990-2019 and the impacts of recent events from 2000-2019. First,
we identified drought episodes from the NUTS-1 average percentile time series of all hydrometeorological variables. These
195 episodes were classified into different types considering timing and length of the episode as well as the affected domains of
the hydrological cycle. These aspects of drought episodes were considered as we hypothesize that they influence the type and
amount of related drought impacts that occur.
In a next step, we quantified whether different types of drought episodes also differ in hazard and impact characteristics. We
first divided the NUTS-1 average percentile time series (p) of all hydrometeorological variables (v) into drought (pV ≤ 0.25)
200 and non-drought events (pV > 0.25). We then derived the duration (D, months) and severity (S, -) of each event j (eq. 3 & 4,
respectively):
𝐷PV (j)

𝐷pV ,total [ j] = ∑ 1 (eq. 3)

𝐷PV (j)

𝑆pV ,total [ j] = ∑ 0.25 − 𝑝V (t) (eq. 4)

205
S hence incorporates both the duration of the event and the deviation from the threshold but has no physical relation to water
quantity. S should be seen as a relative metric that only enables comparison among other variables' severity values. With regard
to drought impact characteristics, we considered the number and categories that happened during the different types of drought
episodes. The number of impacts gives an indication of the severity and perception of the drought events, whereas impact
210 categories provide insight in the (diversity of) affected sectors.

7
 [Link]
Preprint. Discussion started: 16 November 2021
c Author(s) 2021. CC BY 4.0 License.

2.5 Regional drought propagation

We introduce regional drought propagation, i.e., the propagation of drought through the hydrological cycle in space and time
over a larger region. Focusing on the most prominent and also highly impacted drought episodes, it was investigated whether
regional drought propagation exhibited typical characteristics known from catchment scale drought propagation such as
215 ordering, time-lag, and lengthening. We first inspected whether these drought propagation characteristics were present in
NUTS-1 average, NUTS-2 average, and local percentile time series. We then quantified the initiation time (I, months) and
maximum duration (M, months) of each drought episode from both NUTS-1 average and all local percentile time series of all
hydrometeorological variables (pV), where:
- 𝐼pV is the initiation time, i.e., the time between an arbitrary set starting point (e.g. start of drought development) and
220 the first time the percentile time series reached drought (pV ≤ 0.25), and
- 𝑀pV is the maximum time (months) the percentile time series was continuously in drought (pV ≤ 0.25) during the
drought episode.
From 𝐼pV and 𝑀pV of all local percentile time series of each variable, we derived the 5th and 95th quantile to differentiate
between quick (𝐼pV, Quick ) and slow (𝐼pV ,Slow ) developing drought conditions as well as short (𝑀pV, Short ) and prolonged
225 (𝑀pV, Long ) local drought conditions.
The ordering and difference of 𝐼pV among variables is indicative for resp. the ordering and time lag between drought events
appearing in different domains of the hydrological cycle. An amplification in M when drought events propagate through the
hydrological cycle is indicative of lengthening. We hypothesize that the order of appearance, time lag, and lengthening of
drought are generally visible in the NUTS-1 average and local drought signals such that:
230 - 𝐼P1 ≤ 𝐼SM ≤ 𝐼Q ≤ 𝐼GW
- 𝑀P1 ≤ 𝑀SM ≤ 𝑀Q ≤ 𝑀GW
However, we also speculate that regional differences in climate, soil, catchment, and aquifer characteristics can modify the
order of appearance and lengthening of local drought conditions over a larger region such that:
- 𝐼SM,Slow ≥ 𝐼Q,Quick ; 𝐼Q,Slow ≥ 𝐼GW,Quick
235 - 𝑀SM,Long ≥ 𝑀Q,Short ; 𝑀Q,Long ≥ 𝑀GW,Short

2.6 Agreement among different drought information sources

The usefulness of different levels and sources of drought information was assessed based on their agreement (A; between 0
and 1). The lower A among two different drought information sources, the higher the unique value of each individual source.
For this analysis, one prominent drought episode was chosen. For this episode, we derived A by comparing the fraction of
240 cases each individual drought (pV<0.25) information source (different variables and different scales) was in drought for all
months in which:

8
 [Link]
Preprint. Discussion started: 16 November 2021
c Author(s) 2021. CC BY 4.0 License.

- The NUTS-1 average percentile time series of P1, SM, Q or GW was in drought, or
- at least one drought impact started.
To gain more insight in the variability in hydrometeorological conditions beyond agreement metric A, we also derived the
245 percentile class distributions of the NUTS-1, NUTS-2, and local percentile time series for all months in which the NUTS-1
average percentile time series was in drought or all months in which at least one drought impact report started.

3 Results

3.1 Different drought episode types and their characteristics and impacts

NUTS-1 average percentile time series of different variables reveal several past drought episodes in the study region (Fig. 2).
250 Based on common characteristics, these episodes can be grouped into three distinct types and two combinations of them:
• intense multi-seasonal drought episodes peaking in summer as in 2003, 2015 and 2018 (Type I),
• long-term and less intense drought episodes in e.g., the early 1990s (Type II),
• short-term episodes as in e.g., 2011 & 2014 (Type III),
• Type I episodes that transition in Type II episodes as in e.g., 2004 & 2019 (referred to as Type I→II) and,
255 • Type III episodes that coincide with Type II episodes as in e.g., 1998 (referred to as Type III+II).

9
 [Link]
Preprint. Discussion started: 16 November 2021
c Author(s) 2021. CC BY 4.0 License.

Figure 2. Drought episode types identified from NUTS-1 average classified percentile (p) time series of monthly and annual air
temperature (resp. T1 and T12), precipitation accumulated over different periods (P1, P3 and P12), simulated soil moisture (SM)
and observed streamflow (Q) and groundwater levels (GW).

260 Type I episodes showed persistent meteorological dry spells over the growing season according to NUTS-1 average P1 and
P3 that caused severe and prolonged deficits in NUTS-1 average SM and Q. Type II and Type I→II episodes were characterized
by long-term meteorological dryness as indicated by NUTS-1 average P12 and were associated with persistent below normal
NUTS-1 average GW, occasionally interrupted by some wetter months. The shorter Type III episodes caused below normal
NUTS-1 average SM and Q. However, the impact of these shorter dry spells on NUTS-1 average GW varied among the years
265 and depended on the initial conditions of the groundwater systems at the start of the drought. The Type III+II episode of 1998
was preceded by a period of long-term dryness and coincided with below normal NUTS-1 average GW, whereas the Type III
episodes of 2011 and 2014 happened after a relatively wet period and did not cause below normal NUTS-1 average GW.
10
 [Link]
Preprint. Discussion started: 16 November 2021
c Author(s) 2021. CC BY 4.0 License.

The temperature setting in which these different types of drought occurred varied among drought years. There is a general
increasing trend towards higher annual air temperatures and NUTS-1 average T12 of four out of the last six years (2014-2019)
270 was warmer than average (relative to the period 1990-2019). Nevertheless, there can be a lot of within year monthly variability
according to NUTS-1 average T1. Type I episodes all coincided with at least a few months of extremely high air temperatures.
On the other hand, the Type II episode of the early 1990s happened in a relatively cold setting. Air temperature was below
normal for the Type III+II episode that occurred in 1998, whereas the Type III episodes in 2011 and 2014 coincided with one
or a few warmer months.
275 The duration (D) and severity (S) of past drought episodes derived from NUTS-1 average percentile time series vary among
variables and drought types (Fig. 3). D and S of meteorological dry spells was generally low (Fig. 3a-b). A notable exception
was the meteorological drought of 2018 with DT1 and DP1 of six months. For Type I droughts, D and S increased when droughts
propagated from precipitation to soil moisture and streamflow (Fig. 3c-d). Such an amplification in drought characteristics
was not visible for the other drought types. On the other hand, the DGW and SGW of type II episodes were exceptional (Fig. 3e).
280 For this drought type, multiple shorter meteorological drought events coincided with prolonged periods of groundwater
drought. DGW and SGW were also high after part of the Type I drought episodes (2004, 2018-2019).

Figure 3. Duration (D) and severity (S) of hydrometeorological drought events during different types of drought episodes derived
from monthly NUTS-1 average percentile time series with (a) air temperature (T1) (b) precipitation (P1), (c) simulated soil moisture
285 (SM), (d) streamflow (Q), and (e) groundwater (GW). Events with a duration ≥ 4 months are labeled.

The total number of reported drought impacts varied among drought years as well as drought types (Fig. 4a). Most impacts
were reported for the Type I episodes, lesser for the Type III episodes and least for the Type I→II episodes. The categorical
composition of drought impacts revealed that the largest shares of impacts related to the energy and industry sector, agriculture
and livestock farming, public water supply, and freshwater ecosystems (Fig. 4b). The most frequently reported impact type in
290 the category of energy and industry was reduced hydropower production. Agricultural impacts include the reduction in harvest
quantity and quality or the restriction in irrigation. Public water supply impacts are often related to water use restrictions or
the need to allocate water from other sources, whereas freshwater ecosystem impacts e.g., related to fish die-off. In addition
to the more commonly reported impacts, a large variety of other impacted sectors became visible, including forestry, water

11
 [Link]
Preprint. Discussion started: 16 November 2021
c Author(s) 2021. CC BY 4.0 License.

quality, waterborne transportation, tourism and recreation, and drought related conflicts. The categorical distribution of
295 reported impacts for Baden-Württemberg further reveals drought-type specific differences (Fig. 4b). In general, the highest
diversity in impact categories was reported for the Type I drought episodes, whereas drought impacts of Type I→II and Type
III episodes were less diverse. A comparison by years further shows event-specific differences. In 2015 and 2018, a relatively
large share of impacts on agriculture were reported. The drought of 2011 was dominated by impacts attributed to hydrological
drought, i.e., anomalies in streamflow and groundwater levels, such as energy and industry, waterborne transportation, and
300 public water supply. However, no impacts on forestry and agriculture were observed. In contrast, the year 2019 showed a large
share of forestry related issues, especially related to the dieback of spruce and bark beetle infestations.

Figure 4. Reported impacts of drought episodes from 2000 to 2019. (a) Annual number of impacts in the European Drought Impact
Inventory by drought type, and (b) reported drought impact categories for different drought years, sorted descending by total
305 number of reports. Black dots indicate impact categories that account for more than 10% of all impact reports in a specific year.

3.2 Regional drought propagation characteristics of prominent Type I and Type I→II episodes

A similarity for the prominent Type I and Type I→II drought episodes is their common start from relatively wet initial
conditions in winter (Fig. 5). From that point, several months with below normal P clustered together in prolonged periods of
below normal SM and Q, and eventually reached a state of below normal GW. Another similarity is that local drought signals
310 become more variable in space when propagating through the hydrological cycle, as is shown by the increasing ranges in local
drought conditions. A further similarity among prominent drought years is the occurrence of some relatively wet months in
the following winter. In 2003 and 2018, these single wet months generally recovered drought for SM and Q, but only had a
small impact on GW, which often stayed low or continued to decline. The wet January in 2004 was not sufficient for a full
recovery of GW, which meant that part of the groundwater levels dropped again to below normal conditions that would persist
315 for the remainder of 2004 and the first part of 2005. The same was observed for the drought starting in 2018; some relatively
wet winter months had little effect on most of the groundwater levels, which stayed below normal throughout the year 2019.

12
 [Link]
Preprint. Discussion started: 16 November 2021
c Author(s) 2021. CC BY 4.0 License.

On the other hand, the drought of 2015 was followed by multiple wet winter and spring months, which alleviated drought
conditions by the start of the summer of 2016.

320 Figure 5. Spatiotemporal propagation of prominent droughts (Type I and Type I→II) according to (ranges in) NUTS-1, NUTS-2
and local percentile timeseries relative to the reference period 1990-2019 (Sect. 2.4). Dashed line indicates the moderate drought or
above normal air temperature threshold.

Various typical drought propagation characteristics, i.e., ordering, time-lag, and lengthening, can be recognized from the
(ranges in) NUTS-1, NUTS-2, and local percentile time series (Fig. 5). The occurrence of these drought propagation
325 characteristics is partly confirmed when comparing initiation time (IV) and maximum duration (MV) among the different
variables (Fig. 6). For all three drought episodes, the hypothesized ordering and time lag is visible in NUTS-1 IV and local
IV,Quick (Fig. 6a; i.e., 𝐼P1 ≤ 𝐼SM ≤ 𝐼Q ≤ 𝐼GW , e.g., for 2003: 2 ≤ 3 ≤ 6 ≤ 10 months). Local IV,Slow shows this expected ordering for
P, SM and Q. However, not all local GW observations reached drought during the drought episodes of 2003 and 2015. The

13
 [Link]
Preprint. Discussion started: 16 November 2021
c Author(s) 2021. CC BY 4.0 License.

lengthening of drought is visible when P1 droughts propagate to SM droughts (MP1 ≤ MSM). However, MQ is occasionally
330 lower than MSM (e.g., 2003) and MGW is occasionally lower than MQ (e.g., 2015; Fig. 6b).
The ranges in Figure 5 indicate that local drought conditions within a region according to the same variable may vary strongly
at one moment in time. The variation also suggests that the temporal sequencing of different drought types was not uniform
over a larger region. This is confirmed when comparing local IV,Quick and IV,Slow (diagonal arrows in Fig. 6a). For example, GW
of some responsive aquifers reached below normal conditions prior to Q of some less responsive catchments (𝐼Q,Slow ≥ 𝐼GW,Qucik
335 e.g. for 2003: 12 ≥ 4 months). This is also confirmed when comparing MV,Short and MV,Long. For example, the longest time local
SM was continuously in drought exceeds the shortest time local Q was continuously in drought (𝑀SM,Long ≥ 𝑀Q,Short e.g. for
2003: 11 ≥ 2 months).

Figure 6. Typical NUTS-1 average and local drought propagation characteristics (a) initiation time (IV, IV,Quick & IV,Slow; in months
340 after the start of the indicated year), and (b) maximum duration (MV, MV,Short & MV,Long; months) derived from the and local
percentile time series of monthly precipitation (P1) simulated soil moisture (SM) streamflow (Q) and groundwater (GW) for the
three prominent drought episodes. Colors reflect whether drought propagation characteristics are in line with our hypothesis (Sect.
2.5).

3.3 Agreement among drought information sources: the case of the drought of 2018-2019

345 The variability in propagating drought signals affects the agreement between different drought information sources. This
agreement (A) among different drought information sources is indicative of the unique value of an individual source as
indicator of drought occurrence. In general, this agreement as well as the classified percentiles of different variables at different
scales, reveal that hydrometeorological conditions can be quite variable whenever NUTS-1 average conditions of one variable
indicated drought (Fig. 7). Strongest agreement was found between NUTS-1 and NUTS-2 or local percentile time series of the
350 same variable for P1, SM and Q (Fig. 7a-c). Whenever the NUTS-1 average percentile time series of P1, SM or Q were in
drought, NUTS-2 average and local percentile time series of these variables often showed drought conditions as well (A = 75-

14
 [Link]
Preprint. Discussion started: 16 November 2021
c Author(s) 2021. CC BY 4.0 License.

90%). However, lesser agreement was observed between NUTS-1 average GW and NUTS-2 average and local GW (A = 50-
70%; Fig. 7d). Lesser agreement was also observed among NUTS-1 average and NUTS-2 average or local percentile time
series of different variables. Whenever NUTS-1 average P1 was in drought, NUTS-1 average, NUTS-2 average and local
355 percentile time series of other variables were as well for 25-60% of cases (Fig. 7a). SM and Q agree relatively well with each
other (A = 70-85%) but not so much with P1 and GW (A= 50-80%; Fig. 7b-c). NUTS-1 average GW often did not agree with
percentile time series of other variables (A = 30-50%; Fig. 7d). The agreement between impact start and drought hazard
information reflects how well different drought hazard information sources can predict the start date of an impact. In general,
it can be seen that hydrometeorological conditions can be quite variable at the start date of an impact (Fig. 7e). Strongest
360 agreement between impact start and drought hazard occurrence was found for SM and Q (A = 60-75%). Lesser agreement was
found between impact start and drought hazard occurrence according to P and GW (A = 30-55%).

Figure 7. Classified percentile (p) distributions of different variables (x-axis) at different scales (bar triplets: NUTS-1, NUTS-2 and
local) during the drought episode of 2018-19 for all months with NUTS-1 average drought conditions (pV<0.25) according to (a)
365 monthly precipitation (P1), (b) simulated soil moisture (SM), (c) streamflow (Q), (d) groundwater (GW), or (e) all months in which
at least one impact started.

The medium agreement between various drought hazard information sources (Fig. 7a-d) and the fact that not one single drought
information source fully agreed with the start of drought impacts (Fig. 7e) motivates a further exploration of the advantages of
using local multivariate over single variable regional average drought information (Fig. 8). Characterizing the drought of 2018-
370 2019 by single variable NUTS-1 average drought information provides an incomplete picture and fails to predict part of the
drought impacts (Fig. 8a,c). For example, NUTS-1 average P1 picked-up the peak of the drought in 2018 (Fig. 8a). However,
NUTS-1 average P1 missed the prolonged duration of the NUTS-1 average GW drought in 2019 and associated impacts, i.e.,
NUTS-1 average P1 does indicate drought recovery in winter 2018-2019. In contrast, NUTS-1 average GW missed the
occurrence of drought in the summer of 2018 and fails to predict the manifold of impacts that occurred. NUTS-1 average P1
375 also missed the occurrence of some NUTS-1 average SM and Q drought months and associated impacts in the summer of
2019. The difference between NUTS-1 average and local drought information revealed that average drought information

15
 [Link]
Preprint. Discussion started: 16 November 2021
c Author(s) 2021. CC BY 4.0 License.

missed the early onset and delayed recovery of part of the local hydrological drought conditions. According to the regional
average drought signal, the drought of 2018 started in April-May (Fig. 8a). However, local drought information revealed that
drought conditions developed earlier for part of the study region, which matches with the earlier start of impacts related to
380 public water supply in winter as reported for some NUTS-2 regions (Fig. 8b,c). The same was observed for GW, i.e., the
NUTS-1 average GW drought of 2018 started in autumn, whereas local GW conditions reached drought much earlier, which
matches with the earlier occurrence of local summer impacts in 2018 that described wells running dry.

Figure 8. Differences among drought information sources displayed for the drought of 2018-2019 ranging from regional average
385 single variable information to local multivariate drought information of precipitation (P1), simulated soil moisture (SM), streamflow
(Q) and groundwater (GW): (a) NUTS-1 average and (b) local monthly drought hazard information expressed as the percentage of
grid cells, catchments, or wells in drought. (c) Start of drought impacts by impact category and season, with numbers indicating for
how many NUTS-2 regions impacts were reported (maximum 4).

16
 [Link]
Preprint. Discussion started: 16 November 2021
c Author(s) 2021. CC BY 4.0 License.

4 Discussion

390 4.1 Typical droughts and their hazard and impact characteristics

Our first objective was to identify and characterize past drought episodes in Baden-Württemberg based on a multi-variable
assessment. The analyses revealed different types of drought, of which the intense multi-seasonal dry spells peaking in summer
(Type I) that occurred in 2003, 2015 and 2018 were most prominent according to the duration and severity of the drought
hazard and the amount and variety in drought related impacts (Fig. 2-4). The episodes of 2003 and 2015 are relatively well
395 known and documented (e.g., Ionita et al., 2017; Laaha et al., 2017; Van Lanen et al., 2016). Compared to these episodes, the
drought of 2018 in the study area was generally more extreme in terms of the duration and severity of precipitation, soil
moisture and river flow deficits, which is in line with findings for Northern Europe and Switzerland (resp. Bakke et al., 2020;
Brunner et al., 2019). Our study further revealed a multi-year nature of the drought of 2018 that made the event more impactful,
which is in line with findings for the groundwater drought in the Netherlands (Brakkee et al., 2021). Hydrological droughts
400 for part of the catchments and wells persisted far into 2019. This delayed development and prolonged recovery of hydrological
drought has been reported for previous drought episodes in various studies (e.g., Parry et al., 2016; Peters et al., 2005).
The Type I drought episodes of 2003, 2015 and 2018 all coincided with some months in the growing season with above normal
air temperatures. These above normal air temperatures revealed to have a compounding effect on drought impacts, contributed
to soil moisture- or hydrological-drought development (e.g., Brunner et al., 2021) and could have caused a more rapid
405 intensification of drought conditions also known as "flash droughts" (e.g., Nguyen et al., 2019). The generally increasing air
temperatures will exacerbate drought and its impacts and present a challenge for future drought management (Brunner et al.,
2021; Markonis et al., 2021; Pendergrass et al., 2020). The type I events studied here might be seen as a precursor of intense
warm-climate drought events and their typical impacts.
The impacts of Type I episodes in the study area were severe and diverse and thanks to the data collection in impact databases
410 such as the EDII well documented. Reported impacts in the sector "agriculture and livestock farming" were related to e.g.,
reduced crop yield and quality, a lack of food for livestock, or increased cost for irrigation water. Losses in agriculture are
mostly attributed to low soil water availability and heat (see also e.g. Peichl et al., 2019), whereas the increased cost in irrigation
relate to low (sub-)surface water levels and the consequent need to use alternative water sources. Impacts on forestry relate to
tree growth and vitality and were associated with low soil moisture and groundwater levels in the impact reports, depending
415 on the kind and age of the tree (e.g. Skiadaresis et al., 2019). Energy and industry impacts relate to reduced hydropower
production due to low surface water availability or the shutdown of hydropower plants for technical or ecological reasons, e.g.,
a lack of cooling water or the exceedance of ecological thresholds (see also e.g. Van Vliet et al., 2016). Furthermore, streams
with a number of hydropower plants experienced hydropeaking and emerging water conflicts among users with different
interests, e.g., energy production versus ecology (see also e.g. Bruder et al., 2016). Public water supply presented challenges
420 during drought, e.g. resulting in the use of alternative resources such as other wells or rivers. Nevertheless, water security was
strong thanks to regional water exchange networks and long-distance water transfers (Blauhut et al., 2020). Merely few high-

17
 [Link]
Preprint. Discussion started: 16 November 2021
c Author(s) 2021. CC BY 4.0 License.

altitude settlements had to be supported with deliveries. Impacts on aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems and ecology were also
diverse, ranging from fish die-off to the spreading of plant diseases favored by drought conditions. We found that the drivers
of these impacts were above normal temperatures (heat stress) and below normal water availability. Overall, the manifold of
425 causes of a large variety of drought impacts highlights the need for multivariate drought management.
Lesser known and studied are the other drought types. However, these drought types can also be associated with a variety of
impacts and, therefore, deserve more attention and awareness. Type I→II droughts are mainly characterized by prolonged
drought conditions in less responsive hydrological systems that develop after intense Type I droughts (Fig. 3, 5). Notable is
their asynchronous development and recovery, i.e., hydrological drought can develop and recover long after meteorological
430 and soil moisture drought. This behavior might not be accurately represented in hydrological models, particularly some of the
large-scale ones (Tallaksen and Stahl 2014). This asynchronous development meant that the slowly developing hydrological
drought did not necessarily coincide with droughts in other domains of the hydrological cycle or with heatwaves. This meant
that the impacts of Type I→II droughts were different compared to e.g. Type I droughts (Fig. 4). First, the number of reported
impacts and categories is lower suggesting that Type I→II are less impactful and visible. Second, different impact categories
435 comprise larger shares in the overall impact category distribution. For example, impacts starting in the year 2019 mostly relate
to forestry, as prolonged hydrological (groundwater) drought episodes might be especially critical for some tree species (Tegel
et al. 2020). Furthermore, the effects of drought on trees can be creeping and accumulating; drought weakened trees can be
affected by a variety of pests and diseases which can result in delayed diebacks (Schuldt et al. 2020). We further expect
hydrologically induced impacts on e.g., public water supply that started during the Type I droughts to continue. However, this
440 needs to be further investigated, as most impacts only report a start and no end date, which aligns with the general challenge
of identifying when a drought and its impacts are fully recovered (e.g. Parry et al., 2016). In addition, the survey to gather
additional impacts on the public water supply sector for the impact database ended in 2018. Altogether, a relatively wet winter
after a Type I drought episode might give a false sign of drought recovery, as some less visible hydrological deficits and
consequent impacts linger on.
445 The Type II groundwater droughts of the early 1990s exceeds other groundwater droughts in both duration and severity (Fig.
3). These prolonged groundwater drought conditions might be associated with the long-term meteorological water deficits and
the absence of distinct wet periods (Fig. 2), as also reported for parts of central Europe (e.g. Hannaford et al., 2011; Spinoni et
al., 2015). Nevertheless, (changes in) groundwater abstraction cannot be ruled out for all wells and might have had an influence.
Groundwater related impacts for this period were not available in the EDII for Baden-Württemberg. This absence of impact
450 reports in the EDII mostly relates to the lower research attention towards droughts in this period as well as to the lower impact
data availability prior to the digital era. Nevertheless, neighboring NUTS-1 regions show evidence of impacts of this episode
in the EDII related to e.g., cargo transport on the river Rhine or tree vitality.
Type III droughts describe shorter meteorological dry spells mainly affecting soil moisture and streamflow (Fig. 3). These
meteorological dry spells were not intense enough to cause a strong decline in groundwater but could nevertheless coincide
455 with and worsen ongoing groundwater droughts (Type III+II). The Type III episode of 2011 and 2014 occurred before the

18
 [Link]
Preprint. Discussion started: 16 November 2021
c Author(s) 2021. CC BY 4.0 License.

summer season. Their timing in occurrence, together with their relatively short duration, affected the impact categories that
occurred, which were mostly related to energy (hydropower) and water use conflicts. Typical summer impacts enhanced by
high air temperatures related to e.g., water quality or agriculture were absent. Remarkable about the drought of 2011 was the
large share of impacts related to waterborne transportation, which related to low water levels in the Rhine towards the end of
460 spring but also in a very dry November (see also Kohn et al., 2014). The Type III+II episode of 1998 revealed the joint
occurrence of soil moisture, streamflow, and groundwater drought. There is not much evidence in the EDII on the impacts of
this episode given the general lower impact availability prior to the year 2000. Nevertheless, we hypothesize that such Type
III+II episodes provide extra stress for e.g., irrigated agriculture or tree vitality, given the joint occurrence of limited soil
moisture, streamflow, and groundwater supply.
465 Overall, different drought types share common characteristics and impacts. This similarity among drought types highlights the
potential of drought type specific management and research (Markonis et al., 2021). Our results imply that such a typology
should not only consider the timing of drought, but also the domain of the hydrological cycle in which the drought appeared,
and whether droughts in different domains of the hydrological cycle as well as high temperatures coincided or not. Most well-
known and impactful were the Type I drought episodes, and these episodes can be adopted as worst-case benchmarks for
470 drought management. However, the Type I drought episodes of the past decades never coincided with persistent long-term
hydrological (groundwater) drought. An important question remains what would have happened when a drought episode like
2018 started when storages in hydrological systems were low, i.e., a Type I+II episode. Stress tests or scenario studies can be
used to explore the impacts of such worst-case episodes as well as to prepare drought management for the future (e.g Grecksch,
2019; Hellwig et al., 2021; Stoelzle et al., 2020).

475 4.2 Regional drought propagation characteristics

Our second aim was to evaluate the (variability in) regional drought propagation signals. We showed that drought propagation
of Type I droughts of 2003, 2015 and 2018 generally followed the hypothetical order and time lag of drought propagation as
described in e.g., Van Loon (2015). This suggests that the concept of drought propagation could be a general guiding principle
for regional drought management. However, we also found several deviations from the general concept of drought propagation
480 that need to be considered.
First, drought propagation does not have to complete the full cycle, which means that the expected ordering and lengthening
is not always observed (Fig. 2, 5-6). For example, the relatively short meteorological droughts of 2011 and 2014 propagated
to below normal soil moisture and river flow but groundwater levels often stayed in the normal range, especially for the less
responsive aquifer types. On the other hand, short dry spells can severely threaten groundwater systems when the initial
485 conditions are low at the start of the dry spell as occurred in, e.g., summer 1998. This implies the importance of tracking non-
drought conditions (approaching drought) in a drought management context, especially for the more slowly responding rivers
and aquifers. For these slowly responding hydrological systems, the initial conditions can be an important precursor for the
likelihood of future drought conditions (e.g. Parry et al., 2018). Another deviation from the general drought propagation

19
 [Link]
Preprint. Discussion started: 16 November 2021
c Author(s) 2021. CC BY 4.0 License.

concept is the occasional absence of lengthening in propagating drought signals, which relates to the time-lag in the
490 development of deficits and consequent chances of having drought-recovering wet conditions prior to drought reaching its full
extent. For example, we showed for the prominent drought episode of 2015 that groundwater reached drought conditions after
a prolonged meteorological dry spell and associated persistent soil moisture and river flow droughts (Fig. 5-6). However, a
very wet period followed soon after the development of the still relatively small groundwater deficits, which meant a quick
recovery. Finally, the spatial variation in drought conditions revealed that local drought propagation over a larger region does
495 not necessarily follow the expected sequencing of different drought types (Fig. 6). For example, a responsive groundwater
aquifer with a low amount of storage reached below normal conditions before a less responsive river underlain by a high
storage aquifer (see also Stoelzle et al., 2014). The spatially variable response time was also visible in the impacts, e.g., the
start dates of local impacts on public water supply in 2018 ranged from early to late in the year (Fig. 8c). These variable
hydrological responses to meteorological dry spells underpin the need for the consideration of local differences in response to
500 meteorological drought among different (hydrological) systems at different timescales (Vicente-Serrano et al. 2021; Wu et al.,
2021).

4.3 Disagreement among drought information sources

Our third aim was to assess the variability in drought hazard signals and consequent disagreement among drought information
sources. The found variability in propagating drought signals across variables and scales implies complexities in the use of
505 single variable or regional average (composite) drought information for comprehensive drought assessments, as relevant
variations are lost (Fig. 7-8). Single variable or regional average drought hazard information, especially of soil moisture and
streamflow, could predict the start of part of the drought impacts (Fig. 7e). However, regional average single variable drought
hazard information was not sufficient to predict the start of all drought impact occurrences. Part of the reason in the mismatch
between drought hazard information and the start of drought impacts might be related to inaccuracies in reporting. However,
510 another explanation might be the mismatch between drought hazard information sources, e.g., regional single variable
information might miss the earlier onset or delayed recovery of some (hydrological) systems (Fig. 8). This suggests, together
with the variety of causes of drought impacts (Sect. 4.1), that the joint consideration of different variables at a local rather than
regional scale is needed to predict the full range of impacts during different stages of drought. Drought monitoring and
management would benefit from future efforts towards joint portals that include near real-time multivariate drought hazard
515 and impact information at different scales. Such portals might be used to design or implement operational definitions of
drought, paving the way towards more targeted, sector and location specific, drought management.

5 Conclusion

Past drought episodes and their impacts in southern Germany ranged from intense multi-seasonal drought episodes with severe
soil moisture and streamflow deficits and compounding heat waves to less intense but more prolonged multi-year drought

20
 [Link]
Preprint. Discussion started: 16 November 2021
c Author(s) 2021. CC BY 4.0 License.

520 episodes and associated low groundwater levels. The identified drought types each share common hazard, propagation, and
impact characteristics, which suggests that drought-type specific management options could be designed. Of the different
drought types, intense multi-seasonal drought episodes with compounding heat waves (as in 2003, 2015 and 2018) caused the
largest number and variety of impacts. This drought type might become a challenge for future drought management in a
warming climate. The drought of 2018, as an example, stood out by the length of the meteorological dry spell and consequent
525 prolonged and severe soil moisture and river flow deficits. Groundwater deficits in 2018 generally developed slower but lasted
well beyond the end of 2018. This multi-year nature of drought highlights the need of long-term drought management beyond
the peak of the drought in summer.
Drought risk management components such as monitoring and early warning often rely on drought propagation assumptions
and concepts such as sequencing, time lag and lengthening. Studying the regional propagation of droughts mostly confirmed
530 the existence of these concepts on a regional scale and can thereby guide regional drought management. However, we also
found deviations from the general drought propagation concept as drought propagation did not always affect the full
hydrological cycle and the length of the dry spell did not always increase. Further, the order of appearance and lengthening
was not necessarily visible in local drought conditions e.g., streamflow drought in a less responsive river might develop later
and persist longer compared to groundwater drought in a more responsive aquifer.
535 Regional average single variable drought hazard information favors easy interpretation. However, drought information derived
from different variables at different scales can show a low agreement. Therefore, a drought assessment based on regional
average single variable drought information can vary significantly from a multivariate assessment of local drought conditions
and might consequently fail to predict the occurrence of some of the impacts. Overall, comprehensive drought management
and assessments benefit from the appraisal of local multivariate drought signals.
540
Competing interests. The authors declare no competing interests.

Data availabillity. Data are available from sources mentioned in Section 2.2 or upon request from the providers cited in this
Section.
545
Acknowledgements. This work contributes to the DRIeR project supported by the Wassernetzwerk Baden-Württemberg
(Water Research Network), which is funded by the Ministerium für Wissenschaft, Forschung und Kunst Baden-Württemberg
(Ministry of Science, Research, and the Arts of the State Baden-Württemberg) (grant no. AZ. 7532.21/2.1.6). We further
acknowledge the DWD and LUBW for providing data. Financial support of the German Research Foundation (DFG) for
550 SDS@hd - Scientific Data Storage is acknowledged. All analyses were carried out with the open-source software R
([Link]

21
 [Link]
Preprint. Discussion started: 16 November 2021
c Author(s) 2021. CC BY 4.0 License.

Author contributions. Conceptualization (all), formal analyses and writing of first draft (ET), review and editing (VB, MS,
LM & KS), visualization (ET, VB, MS), funding acquisition (LM, KS).

555 References

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., 24, 5621–5653, [Link] 2020.
Barker, L. J., Hannaford, J., Chiverton, A., Svensson, C.: From Meteorological to Hydrological Drought Using Standardised
Indicators. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 2483–2505, [Link] 2016.
560 Blauhut, V., Stahl, K., Falasca, G.: Dürre Und Die Öffentliche Wasser- Versorgung in Baden-Württemberg: Folgen, Umgang
Und Wahrnehmung. Wasserwirtschaft, 11, 31-36, 2020.
Blauhut, V., Gudmundsson, L., Stahl, K.: Towards Pan-European Drought Risk Maps: Quantifying the Link between Drought
Indices and Reported Drought Impacts. Environ. Res. Lett., 10, 014008, [Link] 2015.
Bloomfield, J. P. Marchant, B. P.: Analysis of groundwater drought building on the standardised precipitation index approach.
565 Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 4769–4787, [Link] 2013.
Brakkee, E., van Huijgevoort, M., and Bartholomeus, R. P.: Spatiotemporal development of the 2018–2019 groundwater
drought in the Netherlands: a data-based approach, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Disc., [Link] 2021.
Bruder, A, Tonolla, D., Schweizer, S. P., Vollenweider, S., Langhans, S. D., Wüest, A.: A Conceptual Framework for
Hydropeaking Mitigation. Sci. Tot. Environ., 568, 1204-1212, [Link] 2016.
570 Brunner, M. I., Liechti, K., Zappa, M.: Extremeness of Recent Drought Events in Switzerland: Dependence on Variable and
Return Period Choice. Nat. Hazard Earth Sys. Sci., 19, 2311–2323, [Link] 2019.
Brunner, M. I., Swain, D. L., Gilleland, E., Wood, A. W.: Increasing Importance of Temperature as a Contributor to the Spatial
Extent of Streamflow Drought. Environ. Res. Lett., 16, 024038, [Link] 2021.
Changnon, S. A.: Detecting Drought Conditions in Illinois. Illinois State Water Survey Champaign, Illinois, US, 1987.
575 DWD: Climate and Environment Observations, [Link] last access: 04.03.2021,
2020.
Erfurt, M., Glaser, R., Blauhut, V.: Changing impacts and societal responses to drought in southwestern Germany since 1800.
Reg. Environ. Change, 19, 2311-2323, [Link] 2019.
Erfurt, M., Skiadaresis, G., Tijdeman, E., Blauhut, V., Bauhus, J., Glaser, R., Schwarz, J., Tegel, W., and Stahl, K.: A
580 multidisciplinary drought catalogue for southwestern Germany dating back to 1801, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 2979–
2995, [Link] 2020.
Grecksch, K.: Scenarios for Resilient Drought and Water Scarcity Management in England and Wales. International Journal
of River Basin Management, 17, 219-217, [Link] 2019.

22
 [Link]
Preprint. Discussion started: 16 November 2021
c Author(s) 2021. CC BY 4.0 License.

Hannaford, J., Lloyd-Hughes, B., Keef, C., Parry, S., Prudhomme, C.: Examining the Large-Scale Spatial Coherence of
585 European Drought Using Regional Indicators of Precipitation and Streamflow Deficit. Hydrol. Process., 25, 1146-1162, 10.1
[Link] 2011.
Hao, Z., Singh, V. P.: Drought Characterization from a Multivariate Perspective: A Review. J. Hydrol., 527, 668-678,
[Link] 2015.
Hari, V., Rakovec, O., Markonis, Y., Hanel, M., Kumar, R.: Increased Future Occurrences of the Exceptional 2018–2019
590 Central European Drought under Global Warming. Sci. Rep., 10, 12207, [Link] 2020.
Hellwig, J., Stoelzle, M., Stahl, K.: Groundwater and baseflow drought responses to synthetic recharge stress tests, Hydrol.
Earth Syst. Sci., 1053–1068, [Link] 2021.
Heudorfer, B., Haaf, E., Stahl, K., Barthel, R.: Index-Based Characterization and Quantification of Groundwater Dynamics.
Water Resour. Res., 55, 5575-5592, [Link] 2019.
595 Ionita, M., Tallaksen, L. M. Kingston, D. G., Stagge, J. H., Laaha, G., Van Lanen, H. A. J., Scholz, P., Chelcea, S. M.,Haslinger,
K.: The European 2015 Drought from a Climatological Perspective. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 1397–1419,
[Link] 2017.
Kendon, M., Marsh, T., Parry, S.; The 2010-2012 Drought in England and Wales. Weather, 68, 88–95,
[Link] 2013.
600 Knutson, C., Hayes, M., Phillips, T.: How to Reduce Drought Risk, Western Drought Coordination Council, Preparedness and
Mitigation Working Group, National Drought Mitigation Center, Nebraska, USA, 1998.
Kohn, I., Rosin, K., Freudiger, D., BeIz, J. U., Stahl, K., Weiler, M.: Niedrigwasser in Deutschland 2011. Hydrologie Und
Wasserbewirtschaftung, 58, 4-17, [Link] 2014.
Laaha, G., Gauster T., Tallaksen, L. M. Vidal, J. P., Stahl, K., Prudhomme, C., Heudorfer, B., Vlnas, R., Ionita, M., Van Lanen,
605 H. A. J., Adler, M. J., Caillouet, L., Delus, C., Fendekova, M., Gailliez, S., Hannaford, J., Kingston, D. Van Loon, A. F.
Mediero, L., Osuch, M., Romanowicz, R., Sauquet, E., Stagge, J. H. and Wong, W. K.: The European 2015 Drought from a
Hydrological Perspective. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 3001–3024, [Link] 2017.
Lloyd-Hughes, B.: The Impracticality of a Universal Drought Definition. Theor. Appl. Climatol., 117, 607–611,
[Link] 2014.
610 LUBW: Bewertungsmessnetz Grundwasservorräte. [Link] last access: 04.03.2021, 2020.
Markonis, Y., Kumar, R., Hanel, M., Rakovec, O., Máca, P., AghaKouchak, A.: The Rise of Compound Warm-Season
Droughts in Europe. Sci. Adv., 7, eabb9668, [Link] 2021.
Nguyen, H., Wheeler, M. C., Otkin, J. A., Cowan, T., Frost, A., & Stone, R.: Using the evaporative stress index to monitor
flash drought in Australia. Environ. Res. Lett., 14, 064016, [Link] 2019.
615 Parry, S., Wilby, R. L., Prudhomme, C., Wood, P. J.: A Systematic Assessment of Drought Termination in the United
Kingdom. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 4265–4281, [Link] 2016.

23
 [Link]
Preprint. Discussion started: 16 November 2021
c Author(s) 2021. CC BY 4.0 License.

Parry, S., Wilby, R. L., Prudhomme, C., Wood, P., McKenzie, A.: Demonstrating the Utility of a Drought Termination
Framework: Prospects for Groundwater Level Recovery in England and Wales in 2018 or Beyond. Environ. Res. Lett., 13,
064040, [Link] 2018.
620 Peichl, M., Thober, S. Samaniego, L., Hansjürgens, B., Marx, A.: Climate Impacts on Long-Term Silage Maize Yield in
Germany. Sci. Rep., 9, 7674, [Link] 2019.
Pendergrass, A. G., Meehl, G. A., Pulwarty, R., Hobbins, M., Hoell, A., AghaKouchak, A., …, and Woodhouse, C. A.: Flash
droughts present a new challenge for subseasonal-to-seasonal prediction. Nat. Clim. Change, 10, 191-199, 10.1038/s41558-
020-0709-0, 2020.
625 Peters, E., Van Lanen, H. A. J. , Torfs, P. J. J. F., Bier., G.: Drought in Groundwater - Drought Distribution and Performance
Indicators. J. Hydrol., 306, 302–317, [Link] 2005.
Rauthe, M., Steiner H., Riediger, U., Mazurkiewicz, A., Gratzki, A.: A Central European Precipitation Climatology - Part I:
Generation and Validation of a High-Resolution Gridded Daily Data Set (HYRAS). Meteorol. Z., 22, 235-256,
[Link] 2013.
630 Samaniego, L., Thober, S., Kumar, R., Wanders, N., Rakovec, O., Pan, M., Zink, M., Sheffield, J., Wood, E. F., Marx, A.:
Anthropogenic Warming Exacerbates European Soil Moisture Droughts. Nat. Clim. Change, 8, 421–426,
[Link] 2018.
Schuldt, B., Buras, A., Arend, M., Vitasse, Y., Beierkuhnlein, C., Damm, A., Gharun, M., Grams, T. E. E., Hauck, M., Hajek,
P., Hartmann, H., Hiltbrunner, E., Hoch, G., Holloway-Phillips, G., Körner, C., Larysch, E., Lübbe, T., Nelson, D. B., Rammig,
635 A., Rigling, A., Rose, L., Ruehr, N. K., Schumann, K., Weiser, F., Werner, C., Wohlgemuth, T., Zang, C. S., Kahmen, A.: A
First Assessment of the Impact of the Extreme 2018 Summer Drought on Central European Forests. Basic Appl. Ecol., 45, 86-
103, [Link] 2020.
Schwarz, J. A., Skiadaresis, G., Kohler, M., Kunz, J., Schnabel, F., Vitali, V., Bauhus, J.: Quantifying Growth Responses of
Trees to Drought—a Critique of Commonly Used Resilience Indices and Recommendations for Future Studies. Current
640 Forestry Reports, 6, 185-200, [Link] 2020.
Skiadaresis, G., Schwarz, J. A., Bauhus, J.: Groundwater Extraction in Floodplain Forests Reduces Radial Growth and
Increases Summer Drought Sensitivity of Pedunculate Oak Trees (Quercus Robur L.). Frontiers in Forests and Global Change,
[Link] 2019.
Spinoni, J., Naumann, G., Vogt, J. V., Barbosa, P.: The Biggest Drought Events in Europe from 1950 to 2012. J. Hydrol.:
645 Regional Studie, 3, 509-524, [Link] 2015.
Stahl, K., Kohn, I., Blauhut, V., Urquijo, J., De Stefano, L., Acácio, V., Dias, S., Stagge, J. H., Tallaksen, L. M., Kampragou,
E., Van Loon, A. F., Barker, L. J., Melsen, L. A., Bifulco, C., Musolino, D., de Carli, A., Massarutto, A., Assimacopoulos, D.,
and Van Lanen, H. A. J.: Impacts of European drought events: insights from an international database of text-based reports.
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 16, 801–819, [Link] 2016.

24
 [Link]
Preprint. Discussion started: 16 November 2021
c Author(s) 2021. CC BY 4.0 License.

650 Stephan, R., Erfurt, M., Terzi, S., Žun, M., Kristan, B., Haslinger, K., and Stahl, K.: An Alpine Drought Impact Inventory to
explore past droughts in a mountain region, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., [Link]
2021.
Stoelzle, M., Stahl, K., Morhard, A., Weiler, M.: Streamflow sensitivity to drought scenarios in catchments with different
geology. Geophys. Res. Lett., 41, 6174-6183, [Link] 2014.
655 Stoelzle, M., Staudinger, M., Stahl, K., and Weiler, M.: Stress testing as complement to climate scenarios: recharge scenarios
to quantify streamflow drought sensitivity, Proc. IAHS, 383, 43–50, [Link] 2020.
Stoelzle, M., Weiler, M., Stahl, K., Morhard, A., Schuetz, T.: Is There a Superior Conceptual Groundwater Model Structure
for Baseflow Simulation? Hydrol. Process., 29, 1301-1313, [Link] 2015.
Tallaksen, L. M., Van Lanen, H. A. J.: Hydrological Drought, Processes and Estimation Methods for Streamflow and
660 Groundwater. In: Developments in Water Science, vol. 48., Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 2004.
Tallaksen, L. M., Stahl, K.: Spatial and Temporal Patterns of Large-Scale Droughts in Europe: Model Dispersion and
Performance. Geophys. Res. Lett., 41, 429–434, [Link] 2014.
Tegel, W., Seim, A., Skiadaresis, G., Ljungqvist. F. C., Kahle, H. P., Land, A., Muigg, B., Nicolussi, K., Büntgen, U.: Higher
Groundwater Levels in Western Europe Characterize Warm Periods in the Common Era. Sci. Rep., 10, 16284,
665 [Link] 2020.
Tijdeman, E., Stahl, K. Tallaksen, L. M.: Drought Characteristics Derived Based on the Standardized Streamflow Index – a
Large Sample Comparison for Parametric and Nonparametric Methods. Water Resour. Res., 56, e2019WR026315,
[Link] 2020.
Tijdeman, E. and Menzel, L.: The development and persistence of soil moisture stress during drought across southwestern
670 Germany, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 2009–2025, [Link] 2021a.
Tijdeman, E., Menzel, L.: Daily Gridded Soil Moisture Simulations on a 1 Km Resolution Grid Covering Baden-Württemberg.
Heidata repository, version 1, [Link] 2021b.
Toreti, A., Belward, A., Perez-Dominguez, I., Naumann, G., Luterbacher, J., Cronie, O., Seguini, L., Manfron, G., Lopez-
Lozano, R., Baruth, B., Van den Berg, M., Dentener. F., Ceglar, A., Chatzopoulos, T., Zampieri, M.: The Exceptional 2018
675 European Water Seesaw Calls for Action on Adaptation. Earth’s Future, 7, 652-663, [Link]
2019.
UDO: Umwelt-Daten Und -Karten Online. [Link] last access: 04.03.2021, 2020.
Vicente-Serrano, S. M., Peña-Angulo, D., Murphy, C., López-Moreno, J. I., Tomas-Burguera, M., Domínguez-Castro, F.,
Tian, F., Eklundh, L., Cai, Z., Alvarez-Farizo, B., Noguera, I., Camarero, J. J., Sánchez-Salguero, R., Gazol, A., Grainger, S.,
680 Conradt, T., Boincean, B., El Kenawy, A.: The Complex Multi-Sectoral Impacts of Drought: Evidence from a Mountainous
Basin in the Central Spanish Pyrenees. Sci. Total Environ., 769, 144702, [Link]
2021.

25
 [Link]
Preprint. Discussion started: 16 November 2021
c Author(s) 2021. CC BY 4.0 License.

Van Lanen, H. A. J., Laaha, G., Kingston, D. G., Gauster, T., Ionita, M., Vidal, J.-P., Vlnas, R., Tallaksen, L. M., Stahl, K.,
Hannaford, J., Delus, C., Fendekova, M., Mediero, L., Prudhomme, C., Rets, E., Romanowicz, R. J., Gailliez, S., Wong, W.
685 K., Adler, M.-J., Blauhut, V., Caillouet, L., Chelcea, S., Frolova, N., Gudmundsson, L., Hanel, M., Haslinger, K., Kireeva, M.,
Osuch, M., Sauquet, E., Stagge, J. H., and Van Loon, A. F.: Hydrology Needed to Manage Droughts: The 2015 European
Case. Hydrol. Process., 30, 3097–3104, [Link] 2016.
Van Loon, A. F.: Hydrological Drought Explained, WIRES Water, 2, 359–392, [Link] 2015.
Van Loon, A. F., Gleeson, T., Clark, J., Van Dijk, A. I., Stahl, K., Hannaford, J., Di Baldassarre, G., Teuling, A. J., Tallaksen,
690 L.M., Uijlenhoet, R., Hannah, D. M., Sheffield, J., Svoboda, M., Verbeiren, B., Wagener, T., Rangecroft, S., Wanders N., Van
Lanen, H. A.: Drought in the Anthropocene. Nat. Geosci., 9, 89-91, [Link] 2016.
Van Vliet, M. T. H., Sheffield, J., Wiberg, D., Wood, E. F.: Impacts of Recent Drought and Warm Years on Water Resources
and Electricity Supply Worldwide. Environ. Res. Lett., 11, 124021, [Link] 2016.
Wanders, N., Wada Y.: Human and Climate Impacts on the 21st Century Hydrological Drought. J. Hydrol., 526, 208–220,
695 [Link] 2015.
Weibull, W.: A Statistical Theory of Strength of Materials. Ing. Vet. Ak. Handl., Stockholm, Sweden, 1939.
Wilhite, D. A., Easterling, W. E., Wood, D. A.: Planning for Drought: Toward a Reduction of Societal Vulnerability.
Routledge, New York, USA, 2019.
Wilhite, D. A., Glantz, M. H.: Understanding: The Drought Phenomenon: The Role of Definitions. Water Int., 10, 111–120,
700 [Link] 1985.
Wu, J., Chen, X., Yao, H., Zhang, D.: Multi-timescale assessment of propagation thresholds from meteorological to
hydrological drought. Sci. Total Environ., 765, 144232, [Link] 2021.
Zargar, A., Sadiq, R., Naser, B., Khan, F. I.: A Review of Drought Indices. Environ. Rev., 19, 333–349,
[Link] 2011.
705 Zscheischler, J., Martius, O., Westra, S., Bevacqua, E., Raymond, C., Horton, R. M., Van den Hurk, B., AghaKouchak, A.,
Jézéquel, A., Mahecha, M. D., Maraun, D., Ramos, A. M., Ridder, N. N., Thiery, W., Vignotto, E.: A Typology of Compound
Weather and Climate Events. Nat. Rev. Earth & Environment, 1, 333-347, [Link] 2020.

26