Search

Drought events and their impacts vary spatially and temporally due to diverse pedo-climatic and hydrologic conditions, as well as variations in exposure and vulnerability, such as demographics and response actions. While hazard severity and frequency of past drought events have been studied in detail, little is known about the effect of drought management strategies on the actual impacts and how the hazard is perceived by relevant stakeholders. In a continental study, we characterised and assessed the impacts and the perceptions of two recent drought events (2018 and 2019) in Europe and examined the relationship between management strategies and drought perception, hazard, and impact. The study was based on a pan-European survey involving national representatives from 28 countries and relevant stakeholders responding to a standard questionnaire. The survey focused on collecting information on stakeholders' perceptions of drought, impacts on water resources and beyond, water availability, and current drought management strategies on national and regional scales. The survey results were compared with the actual drought hazard information registered by the European Drought Observatory (EDO) for 2018 and 2019. The results highlighted high diversity in drought perception across different countries and in values of the implemented drought management strategies to alleviate impacts by increasing national and sub-national awareness and resilience. The study identifies an urgent need to further reduce drought impacts by constructing and implementing a European macro-level drought governance approach, such as a directive, which would strengthen national drought management and mitigate damage to human and natural assets.

The 21st century has brought new challenges and opportunities and has also increased demands on the Nordic hydrological community. Our hydrological science focus and approaches need rethinking and adaptation to the changing requirements of society in response to climate change and human interventions, in search of more comprehensive and cross-disciplinary solutions. This commentary highlights new possibilities and suggests vital steps forward for the scientific discipline within Nordic hydrological research. By providing a common direction, we hope to increase awareness, accelerate progress in the hydrological community, and emphasize the importance of hydrological knowledge for serving other fields of science and society at large. We hope that our vision and the opportunities we identify will raise awareness of the scientific discipline and assist in the long-term development of the Nordic hydrological frontier in the 21st century.

The 21st century has brought new challenges and opportunities and has also increased demands on the Nordic hydrological community. Our hydrological science focus and approaches need rethinking and adaptation to the changing requirements of society in response to climate change and human interventions, in search of more comprehensive and cross-disciplinary solutions. This commentary highlights new possibilities and suggests vital steps forward for the scientific discipline within Nordic hydrological research. By providing a common direction, we hope to increase awareness, accelerate progress in the hydrological community, and emphasize the importance of hydrological knowledge for serving other fields of science and society at large. We hope that our vision and the opportunities we identify will raise awareness of the scientific discipline and assist in the long-term development of the Nordic hydrological frontier in the 21st century.

In 2018, large parts of northern Europe were affected by an extreme drought. A better understanding of the characteristics and the large-scale atmospheric circulation driving such events is of high importance to enhance drought forecasting and mitigation. This paper examines the historical extremeness of the May–August 2018 meteorological situation and the accompanying meteorological and hydrological (streamflow and groundwater) drought. Further, it investigates the relation between the large-scale atmospheric circulation and summer streamflow in the Nordic region. In May and July 2018, record-breaking temperatures were observed in large parts of northern Europe associated with blocking systems centred over Fennoscandia and sea surface temperature anomalies of more than 3 ∘C in the Baltic Sea. Extreme meteorological drought, as indicated by the 3-month Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI3) and Standardized Precipitation Evapotranspiration Index (SPEI3), was observed in May and covered large parts of northern Europe by July. Streamflow drought in the Nordic region started to develop in June, and in July 68 % of the stations had record-low or near-record-low streamflow. Extreme streamflow conditions persisted in the southeastern part of the region throughout 2018. Many groundwater wells had record-low or near-record-low levels in July and August. However, extremeness in groundwater levels and (to a lesser degree) streamflow showed a diverse spatial pattern. This points to the role of local terrestrial processes in controlling the hydrological response to meteorological conditions. Composite analysis of low summer streamflow and 500 mbar geopotential height anomalies revealed two distinct patterns of summer streamflow variability: one in western and northern Norway and one in the rest of the region. Low summer streamflow in western and northern Norway was related to high-pressure systems centred over the Norwegian Sea. In the rest of the Nordic region, low summer str

Low flows are often poorly reproduced by commonly used hydrological models, which are traditionally designed to meet peak flow situations. Hence, there is a need to improve hydrological models for low flow prediction. This study assessed the impact of model structure on low flow simulations and recession behaviour using the Framework for Understanding Structural Errors (FUSE). FUSE identifies the set of subjective decisions made when building a hydrological model and provides multiple options for each modeling decision. Altogether 79 models were created and applied to simulate stream flows in the snow dominated headwater catchment Narsjø in Norway (119 km2). All models were calibrated using an automatic optimisation method. The results showed that simulations of summer low flows were poorer than simulations of winter low flows, reflecting the importance of different hydrological processes. The model structure influencing winter low flow simulations is the lower layer architecture, whereas various model structures were identified to influence model performance during summer.

Low flows are often poorly reproduced by commonly used hydrological models, which are traditionally designed to meet peak flow situations. Hence, there is a need to improve hydrological models for low flow prediction. This study assessed the impact of model structure on low flow simulations and recession behaviour using the Framework for Understanding Structural Errors (FUSE). FUSE identifies the set of subjective decisions made when building a hydrological model and provides multiple options for each modeling decision. Altogether 79 models were created and applied to simulate stream flows in the snow dominated headwater catchment Narsjø in Norway (119 km2). All models were calibrated using an automatic optimisation method. The results showed that simulations of summer low flows were poorer than simulations of winter low flows, reflecting the importance of different hydrological processes. The model structure influencing winter low flow simulations is the lower layer architecture, whereas various model structures were identified to influence model performance during summer.

Streamflow observations from near-natural catchments are of paramount importance for detection and attribution studies, evaluation of large-scale model simulations, and assessment of water management, adaptation and policy options. This study investigates streamflow trends in a newly-assembled, consolidated dataset of near-natural streamflow records from 441 small catchments in 15 countries across Europe. The period 1962–2004 provided the best spatial coverage, but analyses were also carried out for longer time periods (with fewer stations), starting in 1932, 1942 and 1952. Trends were calculated by the slopes of the Kendall-Theil robust line for standardized annual and monthly streamflow, as well as for summer low flow magnitude and timing. A regionally coherent picture of annual streamflow trends emerged, with negative trends in southern and eastern regions, and generally positive trends elsewhere. Trends in monthly streamflow for 1962–2004 elucidated potential causes for these changes, as well as for changes in hydrological regimes across Europe. Positive trends were found in the winter months in most catchments. A marked shift towards negative trends was observed in April, gradually spreading across Europe to reach a maximum extent in August. Low flows have decreased in most regions where the lowest mean monthly flow occurs in summer, but vary for catchments which have flow minima in winter and secondary low flows in summer. The study largely confirms findings from national and regional scale trend analyses, but clearly adds to these by confirming that these tendencies are part of coherent patterns of change, which cover a much larger region. The broad, continental-scale patterns of change are mostly congruent with the hydrological responses expected from future climatic changes, as projected by climate models. The patterns observed could hence provide a valuable benchmark for a number of different studies and model simulations

The main objective of the COST Action 733 is to achieve a general numerical method for assessing, comparing and classifying typical weather situations in the European regions. To accomplish this goal, different workgroups are established, each with their specific aims: WG1: Existing methods and applications (finished); WG2: Implementation and development of weather types classification methods; WG3: Comparison of selected weather types classifications; WG4: Testing methods for various applications. The main task of Workgroup 4 (WG4) in COST 733 implies the testing of the selected weather type methods for various classifications. In more detail, WG4 focuses on the following topics:• Selection of dedicated applications (using results from WG1), • Performance of the selected applications using available weather types provided by WG2, • Intercomparison of the application results as a results of different methods • Final assessment of the results and uncertainties, • Presentation and release of results to the other WGs and external interested • Recommend specifications for a new (common) method WG2 Introduction In order to address these specific aims, various applications are selected and WG4 is divided in subgroups accordingly: 1.Air quality 2. Hydrology (& Climatological mapping) 3. Forest fires 4. Climate change and variability 5. Risks and hazards Simultaneously, the special attention is paid to the several wide topics concerning some other COST Actions such as: phenology (COST725), biometeorology (COST730), agriculture (COST 734) and mesoscale modelling and air pollution (COST728). Sub-groups are established to find advantages and disadvantages of different classification methods for different applications. Focus is given to data requirements, spatial and temporal scale, domain area, specific