<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" xml:lang="en" dtd-version="3.0"><?xmltex \makeatother\@nolinetrue\makeatletter?>
  <front>
    <journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">NHESS</journal-id><journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences</journal-title>
    <abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">NHESS</abbrev-journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.</abbrev-journal-title>
  </journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">1684-9981</issn><publisher>
    <publisher-name>Copernicus Publications</publisher-name>
    <publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
  </publisher></journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/nhess-21-1337-2021</article-id><title-group><article-title>Soil moisture and streamflow deficit anomaly index: an approach to quantify
drought hazards by combining deficit and anomaly</article-title><alt-title>Soil moisture and streamflow deficit anomaly index</alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Soil moisture and streamflow deficit anomaly index}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{E.~Popat and P.~D\"{o}ll}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Popat</surname><given-names>Eklavyya</given-names></name>
          <email>popat@em.uni-frankfurt.de</email>
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3064-163X</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1 aff2">
          <name><surname>Döll</surname><given-names>Petra</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2238-4546</ext-link></contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Institute of Physical Geography, Goethe University Frankfurt,  Frankfurt am Main, Germany</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>Senckenberg Leibniz Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre Frankfurt
(SBiK-F), Frankfurt am Main, Germany</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Eklavyya Popat (popat@em.uni-frankfurt.de)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>3</day><month>May</month><year>2021</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>21</volume>
      <issue>5</issue>
      <fpage>1337</fpage><lpage>1354</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>7</day><month>August</month><year>2020</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>23</day><month>March</month><year>2021</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>15</day><month>March</month><year>2021</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>19</day><month>August</month><year>2020</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>Copyright: © 2021 </copyright-statement>
        <copyright-year>2021</copyright-year>
      <license license-type="open-access"><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this licence, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ext-link></license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/.html">This article is available from https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract><title>Abstract</title>
    <p id="d1e96">Drought is understood as both a lack of water (i.e., a
deficit compared to demand) and a temporal anomaly in one or more
components of the hydrological cycle. Most drought indices, however, only
consider the anomaly aspect, i.e., how unusual the condition is. In this
paper, we present two drought hazard indices that reflect both the deficit and
anomaly aspects.  The soil moisture deficit anomaly index, SMDAI, is based on
the drought severity index, DSI (Cammalleri et al., 2016), but is computed in
a more straightforward way that does not require the definition of a mapping
function. We propose a new indicator of drought hazard for water supply from
rivers, the streamflow deficit anomaly index, QDAI, which takes into account
the surface water demand of humans and freshwater biota. Both indices are
computed and analyzed at the global scale, with a spatial resolution of
roughly 50 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, for the period 1981–2010, using monthly time series of
variables computed by the global water resources and the model
WaterGAP 2.2d. We found that the SMDAI and QDAI values are broadly similar to
values of purely anomaly-based indices.  However, the deficit anomaly indices
provide more differentiated spatial and temporal patterns that help to
distinguish the degree and nature of the actual drought hazard to vegetation
health or the water supply. QDAI can be made relevant for stakeholders with
different perceptions about the importance of ecosystem protection, by
adapting the approach for computing the amount of water that is required to
remain in the river for the well-being of the river ecosystem. Both deficit
anomaly indices are well suited for inclusion in local or global drought risk
studies.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <label>1</label><title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d1e116">According to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, “drought is a prolonged,
abnormally dry period when the amount of available water is insufficient to
meet our normal use” (BoM, 2018). This definition describes drought as both
an anomaly (“less water than normal”) and a deficit (“less water than
required”), reflecting general non-expert notions of drought. However, most
experts define drought only as an anomaly, for example, as “a lack of water
compared to normal conditions which can occur in different components of the
hydrological cycle” (Van Loon et al., 2016, p. 3633). Assuming that humans and
other biota are accustomed to seasonal variations in water availability in the
form of precipitation, soil moisture, streamflow or groundwater storage,
droughts are mostly defined by the deviation of a water quantity at a specific
point in time (e.g., precipitation in May 2005) from its long-term mean or
median (e.g., of all May precipitation values during the reference period
1981–2010). It is further assumed for most drought hazard indicators that
humans and other biota are used to interannual variability.  Therefore,
drought is not defined by a percentage deviation but rather by using
percentiles (e.g., precipitation in May 2005 is less than the 10th percentile
of all May precipitation values during the reference period) or by
standardized drought indicators where the anomaly is divided by the standard
deviation. <italic>Anomaly-based drought indicators</italic> that indicate less
water than normal include the standardized precipitation index (SPI) (Mckee
et al., 1993), the standardized precipitation evapotranspiration index (SPEI)
(Vicente-Serrano et al., 2010; Bergez et al., 2013), the China <inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> index (CZI)
(Wu et al., 2001) and, for streamflow drought, the<?pagebreak page1338?> standardized streamflow
index (SSFI) (Modarres, 2007) and the percentile-based low-flow index by
Cammalleri et al. (2017).</p>
      <p id="d1e129">Some researchers have quantified drought by only considering the deficit
aspect of drought, i.e., by computing the difference between an optimal water
quantity and the actual quantity (“less water than required”).
<italic>Deficit-based indicators</italic> have only been derived for assessing drought
risk for vegetation, as optimal water quantities can be defined by either the
field capacity of the soil (Sridhar et al., 2008) or potential
evapotranspiration. For the latter, the deficit is computed either as the
difference between potential evapotranspiration and precipitation (Hogg
et al., 2013) or between potential and actual evapotranspiration. A drawback
of these deficit-based drought hazard indicators is that they indicate strong
drought in arid and (semi)arid regions, even though the vegetation in these
regions is adapted to generally lower soil moisture (Cammalleri et al.,
2016). Deficit-based indicators cannot be meaningfully derived for the
variable precipitation only as the definition of an optimal precipitation
amount depends on the user of the precipitation water. It is, however,
conceptually meaningful to determine deficits for human water supply based on
the variable streamflow, defining the deficit as the difference between the
demand for water from the river and the actual streamflow. To the best of our
knowledge, streamflow drought has not, as yet, been characterized by a
deficit-based drought indicator.</p>
      <p id="d1e135">Two notable attempts in identifying and bringing together both the anomaly and
deficit aspects are the Palmer drought severity index (PDSI) (Palmer, 1965)
and the drought severity index (DSI) (Cammalleri et al., 2016). PDSI is a
standardized index developed to quantify the cumulative deficit of moisture
supply in the form of precipitation compared to demand in the form of
potential evapotranspiration. Its strengths and weakness have been well
investigated by Dai et al. (2004) and is extensively used in the USA to
indicate meteorological droughts (Heim, 2002). DSI indicates soil moisture
drought by combining the soil moisture deficit (compared to the situation
in which plant evapotranspiration is not constrained by soil moisture
availability) and the anomaly of the deficit, thus indicating rare events in
which plants suffer from water stress. An anomaly-based soil moisture drought
may, however, be unsuitable for indicating a drought hazard for vegetation as,
in areas with high soil moisture in most years, the low interannual
variability and, thus, the standard deviation would indicate a strong drought
hazard in years with unusually low soil moisture values that are,
nevertheless, still close to the optimal values and do not cause any water
stress for the plants (Cammalleri et al., 2016).</p>
      <p id="d1e138">Similar to the demand for soil water by plants, humans have a demand for water
from rivers in situations where they rely on river water for their water
supply. About three-quarters of global water withdrawals for irrigation,
cooling of thermal power plants, manufacturing and domestic use, totalling
about 3700 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the first decade of this century, are sourced
from surface water (Döll et al., 2014). Globally, irrigation is the
largest water demand sector, accounting for more than 60 % of total
surface water withdrawals (Müller Schmied et al., 2021; Döll et al.,
2014). To date, however, streamflow drought indicators only describe the
anomaly of streamflow but do not indicate whether there is enough water in the
river to meet water demand. Thus, to assess the risk of drought for human
water supply from rivers, an indicator that combines the anomaly of streamflow
conditions with a deficit, with respect to water demand, is desirable. In this
way, the locations and times where the human water supply is at risk can be
identified.</p>
      <p id="d1e162">Differently from anomaly-based streamflow drought indicators, a combined
analysis of streamflow anomaly and deficit requires time series information of
both streamflow and water demand. This information is available from global
water resources and uses models such as WaterGAP with a spatial resolution of
0.5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (55 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> by 55 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at the Equator) and a monthly
temporal resolution (Alcamo et al., 2003; Müller Schmied et al., 2021).
Up to the present time, macro-scale drought risk assessments have included the
demand for water as vulnerability indicators by using a country's average ratio of
water withdrawal to water availability (e.g., Meza et al., 2020).</p>
      <p id="d1e190">In this study, we introduce and relate two drought hazard indicators that
combine both the deficit and anomaly aspects: one for soil moisture drought
and the other for streamflow drought. In the soil moisture deficit anomaly
index (SMDAI), the deficit is calculated as the difference between the soil
moisture at field capacity (which allows optimal and non-water-limited plant
growth) and the actual soil moisture. The SMDAI slightly modifies and
simplifies the DSI introduced by Cammalleri et al. (2016). Another difference
from Cammalleri et al. (2016) is that the SMDAI is computed globally, using
the output of WaterGAP, rather than just for Europe. The streamflow deficit
anomaly index QDAI is, to our knowledge, the first ever streamflow drought
indicator that combines both the anomaly and deficit aspects of streamflow
drought. In the case of QDAI, the deficit is computed by comparing actual
streamflow to the combined human and environmental surface water demand per
grid cell. QDAI focuses on determining the drought hazard for the water supply
for humans, including domestic, industrial, and irrigation water demand. QDAI
is constructed similarly to SMDAI and computed globally using
WaterGAP. Whether QDAI should be called a drought hazard indicator, or a
combined drought hazard and vulnerability indicator, is up for
discussion. However, for global-scale drought risk assessments, gridded QDAI
values can be meaningfully combined with country-scale vulnerability
indicators of, for example, coping capacity.</p>
      <p id="d1e193">In Sect. 2, we describe (a) how water demand, streamflow, surface water use
and soil moisture are computed by WaterGAP 2.2d (Müller Schmied et al.,
2021) and (b) the methods for calculating SMDAI and QDAI. In Sect. 3, spatial
and temporal patterns of SMDAI and QDAI are presented. In Sect. 4, we analyze
the components of SMDAI and QDAI,<?pagebreak page1339?> compare SMDAI to DSI, compare QDAI to a
standardized streamflow indicator (SSFI), and discuss the limitations of the
study. Finally, we draw conclusions in Sect. 5.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <label>2</label><title>Methods and data</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <label>2.1</label><title>Global-scale simulation of soil moisture, soil water capacity,
streamflow and human water abstraction</title>
      <p id="d1e211">In this study, we use the outputs of the latest version of the global
hydrological and water use model WaterGAP 2.2d (Müller Schmied et al.,
2021). WaterGAP consists of three major components: the water use models, the
linked groundwater–surface water use (GWSWUSE) model and the global hydrological model (WGHM). The water use
models compute water use in the five sectors: household, manufacturing,
cooling of thermal power plants, livestock and irrigation. Household and
manufacturing water use is computed based on national statistics (Flörke
et al., 2013). The amount of water required for cooling of thermal power
plants is calculated based on the location, type and size of power plants and
the annual time series of thermal electricity production (Flörke et al.,
2013). Irrigation water use is computed based on information on the irrigated
area and climate for each grid cell. The irrigation model first computes
cell-specific cropping patterns and growing periods and then irrigation
consumptive water use, distinguishing only rice and non-rice crops (Döll
and Siebert, 2002). The irrigated areas change over time (Siebert
et al., 2015). The globally small amount of livestock water use is the only
temporally constant water use and is determined from the number of livestock
and livestock-specific water use values (Alcamo et al., 2003). Water use for
households, manufacturing and cooling of thermal power plants is constant
throughout the year but changes from year to year.</p>
      <p id="d1e214">The water use models themselves do not take into account the source of the
sectoral water abstractions. This is done by GWSWUSE, which computes monthly
time series of 0.5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> grid-cell values of human water abstractions from
(1) surface water bodies (river, lakes and man-made reservoirs) and (2)
groundwater, for each of the five sectors, as well as the respective net
abstractions from both sources (Döll et al., 2012). A comparison of
simulated annual sectoral water abstractions per country to independent values
from the AQUASTAT database of FAO showed a rather high similarity between the
two datasets (Müller Schmied et al., 2021).</p>
      <p id="d1e226">Taking into account the net abstractions, i.e., the difference between water
abstractions and return flows, WGHM simulates, with a daily time step, the most
relevant hydrological processes occurring on the continents and computes water
flows such as actual evapotranspiration, runoff, groundwater recharge and
streamflow, as well as the amount of water stored in diverse compartments such
as the soil and the groundwater for all land areas, excluding Antarctica
(Müller Schmied et al., 2014; Döll et al., 2003; Alcamo et al.,
2003). The soil is represented as one water storage compartment that is
characterized by (1) soil water capacity (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mtext>max</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), which is
computed as the product of land cover, specific rooting depth and soil water
capacity in the upper meter, and (2) soil texture, which affects groundwater
recharge (Müller Schmied et al., 2014). The temporal development of soil
moisture (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:mi>S</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) is computed from the balance of inflows (precipitation
and snowmelt minus interception by the canopy) and outflows (actual
evapotranspiration and total runoff from the land). Total runoff from the land
fraction of the grid cell is then partitioned into the fast surface and
subsurface runoff and the diffuse groundwater recharge. Both components are
subject to so-called fractional routing to the various other storages within
the 0.5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> grid cell, which include the groundwater as well as lakes,
wetlands, man-made reservoirs and rivers (Döll et al., 2014). Streamflow
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ant</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) in each grid cell depends on the runoff generated
within the cell, inflow from upstream grid cells as well as human water
abstractions and takes into account the impact of man-made reservoirs.</p>
      <p id="d1e267">WGHM is calibrated to match long-term annual observed streamflows at the
outlets of 1319 drainage basins that cover <inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">54</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % of the global
drainage area, following the calibration principles provided by Müller
Schmied et al. (2014), Hunger and Döll (2008), and Döll et
al. (2003). In validation studies against time series of observed streamflows,
WaterGAP has been repeatedly shown to be among the best-performing global
hydrological models (Zaherpour et al., 2019, 2018; Veldkamp
et al., 2018). Nevertheless, there can be significant mismatches between the
observed and simulated seasonality and interannual
variability.“It is found
that WaterGAP can simulate the low flow percentile (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">95</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) very well, but it can
also overestimate the return period of low streamflow” (Zaherpour et al.,
2018).</p>
      <p id="d1e291">This study uses 30 years (1981–2010) of monthly time series of WaterGAP gridded
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.5</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.5</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) outputs for 67 420 land grid cells
covering all land areas of the globe except Greenland and Antarctica. These
include (1) soil moisture <inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> [mm]; (2) streamflow
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ant</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) [<inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> per month]; (3) streamflow under
naturalized conditions <inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mtext>nat</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> [<inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> per month],
assuming there are no human water abstractions or man-made reservoirs; and (4)
total surface water abstractions [<inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> per month]. In addition,
the consistent dataset of soil water capacity (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mtext>max</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) [mm]
is utilized.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <label>2.2</label><title>Computation of deficit and anomaly components of the soil moisture
deficit anomaly index SMDAI</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2.SSS1">
  <label>2.2.1</label><title>Deficit</title>
      <?pagebreak page1340?><p id="d1e414">Soil moisture deficit (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) refers to the lack of water in the
root zone for plants compared to optimal growing conditions assumed to
occur at soil water capacity (demand for water).  <inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is
calculated as

                  <disp-formula id="Ch1.E1" content-type="numbered"><label>1</label><mml:math id="M24" display="block"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mtext>max</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>S</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mtext>max</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

            where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mtext>max</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> [mm] is the amount of water stored
in the soil between field capacity and wilting point within the plant's root
zone, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:mi>S</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> [mm] is the actual amount of soil water (soil moisture).
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ranges from 0 (no deficit/stress) to
1 (extreme deficit/stress).</p>
      <p id="d1e504">This definition of soil moisture deficit is different from the one used in
Cammalleri et al. (2016, their Eq. 1) because their definition cannot be
applied when using the global hydrological model WaterGAP to compute soil
moisture. The deficit computation according to Cammalleri et al. (2016)
requires data on soil moisture content at the wilting point and at field
capacity, which is not available in WaterGAP. With our approach, which is
consistent with the way of computing actual
evapotranspiration from potential evapotranspiration in WaterGAP, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:mi>d</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values
at low soil moisture saturation are lower than
those of Cammalleri et al. (2016), while they are much higher at high soil
moisture as Cammalleri et al. (2016) assume that deficits only occur if soil
moisture is less than 50 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">%</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of field capacity. Consequently, we identify
very few months and grid cells with a deficit of zero, likely less than we
would if we would have implemented the deficit definition of Cammalleri
et al. (2016).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2.SSS2">
  <label>2.2.2</label><title>Anomaly</title>
      <p id="d1e530">Assuming that vegetation is used to seasonal variations in soil moisture, the
anomaly of monthly soil moisture is determined separately for each calendar
month. In the case of standardized drought indicators such as the SPI, a so-called
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> score is computed separately for each calendar month (here using, for
example, 30 monthly soil moisture deficits in the 30 January months during the
period 1981–2010), by standardizing the variable using the calendar month
mean and standard deviation after translating the cumulative distribution
function that optimally fits the distribution of monthly values to a normal
distribution (McKee et al., 1993). Thus, computation of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> score assumes
that the vegetation is adapted to both seasonal and interannual
variability. Following Cammalleri et al. (2016), in this study, we express the
anomaly aspect of drought not by the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> score but by deriving a so-called
drought probability index (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) that can be combined with the deficit
indicator to a deficit anomaly drought hazard index.</p>
      <p id="d1e561">Computation of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> also starts with identifying the probability of exceedance
of a certain soil moisture deficit <inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. Sheffield et al. (2004) found that
time series of soil moisture per calendar month are best represented by the
beta distribution function. The cumulative density function <inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> of the beta
distribution function can be expressed as

                  <disp-formula id="Ch1.E2" content-type="numbered"><label>2</label><mml:math id="M37" display="block"><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>;</mml:mo><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>b</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>;</mml:mo><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>b</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

            where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mo>≥</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are the shape parameters, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is
the beta function and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>B</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>;</mml:mo><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the
incomplete beta function. In this form, the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:mi>b</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> supports the range of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>∈</mml:mo><mml:mo>[</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.25em"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>]</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. In this study, we could confirm the assumption
made by Cammalleri et al. (2016) that the beta distribution function
satisfactorily represents the distribution of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, which is the
same as that of the soil moisture itself. The beta cumulative distribution
function was fitted to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values for each calendar month and
grid cell (i.e., for each grid cell, 12 beta functions are fitted
corresponding to the 12 calendar months).</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><label>Table 1</label><caption><p id="d1e763">Relationship of the anomaly component <inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> of SMDAI and QDAI to the
non-exceedance probability of the soil moisture deficit
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> or of streamflow
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), the pertaining
return periods, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> scores and class names according to Agnew (2000) as well
as the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values by Cammalleri et al. (2016) to compute DSI. The class name
refers to the drought conditions with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-score values that are larger than
those listed in the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-score column. The equiprobability transformation
technique, first suggested by Abramowitz and Stegun (1965) and utilized in
Kumar et al. (2009) for calculation of the standardized precipitation index
(SPI), is used to back-calculate <inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values from the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-score values.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="6">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Return period</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> score</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Drought class name</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>_DSI</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M57" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">(years)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">0.8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.84</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Normal</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">0.843</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">6.4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1.00</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Mild</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.04</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.21</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">0.87</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">7.7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M60" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1.12</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Moderate</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.10</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.35</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">0.9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">10</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1.28</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Moderate</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.26</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.50</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">0.933</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">15</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1.50</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Moderate</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.54</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.68</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">0.95</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">20</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1.64</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Severe</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.72</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.75</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">0.97</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">33.3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1.88</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Severe</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.89</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.85</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">0.9775</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">40</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2.00</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Severe</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.93</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.88</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">0.99</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">99</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2.33</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Extreme</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.99</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.95</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">0.995</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">200</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2.57</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Extreme</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.997</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.97</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">0.998</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">500</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2.88</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Extreme</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.999</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.99</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">–</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.00</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Extreme</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e1326">Following Cammalleri et al. (2016), the next step was to derive from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> a
drought probability index (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) that translates the probability
that a certain soil water deficit status is drier than usual into the range
[0, 1]. As suggested by Agnew (2000), a <inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> score of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.84, which
corresponds to a return period of 5 years and a <inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of 0.8, was assumed to be the threshold for drought (Table 1), for
which <inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Then, the drought probability index is calculated
as

                  <disp-formula id="Ch1.E3" content-type="numbered"><label>3</label><mml:math id="M78" display="block"><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.8</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.8</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

            where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the beta cumulative distribution
function fitted to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. If the beta cumulative distribution
function is fitted to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M81" display="inline"><mml:mi>S</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, then (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) should be used
instead of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
      <p id="d1e1505">Cammalleri et al. (2016) calculated <inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> using the mode instead
of median as the reference for the normal status of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M85" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The
computation of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M86" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was
carried out in two steps.  First, for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values that are
greater than or equal to the mode, a new standardized cumulative distribution
function <inline-formula><mml:math id="M89" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is computed (Eq. 3 in Cammalleri et al.,
2016). Subsequently, mapping <inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values ranging from
0.6 to 1 onto the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M91" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> range of [0, 1], an exponential function
(Eq. 4 in Cammalleri et al., 2016) was employed. This exponential function was
developed to fit subjectively defined pairs of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M93" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Table 1 in Cammalleri et al., 2016). In this study, we have
simplified the more complex approach of Cammalleri et al. (2016) by relying
directly on <inline-formula><mml:math id="M94" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) for mapping <inline-formula><mml:math id="M95" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) onto
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M96" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> according to Eq. (3). In our opinion, there is no added
value in defining an arbitrary exponential mapping function for deriving an
indicator for the probability of a drought occurrence
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M97" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). Further, like most other drought researchers, we prefer
the median to the mode, as among 30 deficit values, which are rational
numbers, there is no true mode, i.e., no value that occurs most often. The
relation between the anomaly component of SMDAI (i.e., <inline-formula><mml:math id="M98" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and
the non-exceedance probability of the soil moisture deficit
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M99" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and the pertaining return periods, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M100" display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> scores and
class names, according to Agnew (2000), as well as the anomaly component of DSI
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M101" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>_DSI) are presented in Table 1. A comparison of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M102" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M103" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>_DSI
values as a function of (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M104" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> as presented in Table 1 is
shown in Fig. S1 in the Supplement, and the slight differences between
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M105" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M106" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>_DSI, as well as DSI and SMDAI, computed with WaterGAP
output for August 2003 at the global scale are presented in Fig. S2 in the
Supplement.<?pagebreak page1341?> For very few grid cells, SMDAI is much larger than DSI, and there
are some areas where DSI is slightly larger than SMDAI. For the period
1981–2010, SMDAI is, averaged over all grid cells, 0.05 larger than DSI with
according to Eq. (1).</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <label>2.3</label><title>Computation of deficit and anomaly components of the streamflow deficit
anomaly index QDAI</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3.SSS1">
  <label>2.3.1</label><title>Deficit</title>
      <p id="d1e1820">Similar to the soil moisture deficit, the streamflow deficit (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M107" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) is
calculated as the demand for water minus the supply divided by demand. It
refers to the amount of streamflow that is lacking to satisfy the surface
water demand of both humans and the river ecosystem. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M108" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is computed as

                  <disp-formula id="Ch1.E4" content-type="numbered"><label>4</label><mml:math id="M109" display="block"><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mtext>WU</mml:mtext><mml:mtext>sw</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mtext>EFR</mml:mtext><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ant</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mtext>WU</mml:mtext><mml:mtext>sw</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mtext>EFR</mml:mtext></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

            where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M110" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mtext>WU</mml:mtext><mml:mtext>sw</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> [<inline-formula><mml:math id="M111" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> per month] is water
abstraction from surface water bodies, derived as the sum of water
abstractions for irrigation, livestock, cooling of thermal power plants,
manufacturing and household use. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M112" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ant</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> [<inline-formula><mml:math id="M113" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> per month]
is the streamflow, and EFR [<inline-formula><mml:math id="M114" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> per month] is the environmental
flow requirement, i.e., the surface water demand of the river
ecosystem. Following Richter et al. (2012), EFR is calculated for each
calendar month as 80 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M115" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">%</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of the mean monthly streamflow under the
naturalized condition (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M116" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mtext>nat</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula>), assuming that 80 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M117" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">%</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
of the natural mean monthly streamflow that would have occurred in the river
without human water use and man-made reservoirs needs to remain in the river
for the well-being of the river ecosystem.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T2"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><label>Table 2</label><caption><p id="d1e1984">SMDAI and QDAI range corresponding to drought classes.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="2">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">SMDAI range/QDAI range</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Drought conditions</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">0 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M118" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> SMDAI <inline-formula><mml:math id="M119" display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.25</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Mild</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M120" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.25</mml:mn><mml:mo>≥</mml:mo><mml:mtext>SMDAI</mml:mtext><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Moderate</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M121" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.5</mml:mn><mml:mo>≥</mml:mo><mml:mtext>SMDAI</mml:mtext><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.75</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Severe</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M122" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>SMDAI</mml:mtext><mml:mo>≥</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.75</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Extreme</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e2099">Differing from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M123" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mtext>max</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, which represents the vegetation demand for
soil water, the streamflow demand is temporally variable. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M124" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is, like
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M125" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, in the range of 0 (no deficit/stress) to 1 (extreme
deficit/stress); if <inline-formula><mml:math id="M126" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is less than 0 or <inline-formula><mml:math id="M127" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mtext>WU</mml:mtext><mml:mtext>sw</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> equals
0, then <inline-formula><mml:math id="M128" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is set to 0. To explore how assumptions about EFR
and, thus, total surface water demand affect QDAI, we set EFR to be
alternatively equal to half of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M129" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mtext>nat</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, or zero (Sects. 3.2 and
4.2). These alternatives represent situations in which humans wish to protect
freshwater biota less, or not at all, so the total surface water demands and
consequently streamflow deficits are lower.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3.SSS2">
  <label>2.3.2</label><title>Anomaly</title>
      <?pagebreak page1342?><p id="d1e2188">Streamflow anomaly (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M130" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) is computed based on the interannual variability
of monthly aggregated streamflow (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M131" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ant</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) values for each calendar
month. We consider the anomaly of streamflow (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M132" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ant</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
instead of the anomaly of the streamflow deficit (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M133" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) as the temporal
variability including long-term trends of the water demand prevented us, for
most grid cells with relevant water demand, from identifying a standard
distribution function for the time series of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M134" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Furthermore, the
methodological consistency between the calculation of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M135" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M136" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is maintained, as the anomaly of soil moisture deficit
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M137" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) is equal to the anomaly of soil moisture (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M138" display="inline"><mml:mi>S</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) [mm].</p>
      <p id="d1e2289">In some regional streamflow drought studies (Langat et al., 2019; Sharma and
Panu, 2015; Lorenzo-Lacruz et al., 2010; López-Moreno et al., 2009), the
standard cumulative distribution function Pearson type III was used to fit
monthly streamflow values. However, Svensson et al. (2017) rightly pointed out
that the Pearson type III distribution function with a lower bound at zero is
reduced to the gamma distribution function. The cumulative density function
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M139" display="inline"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> of the gamma distribution function can be expressed as

                  <disp-formula id="Ch1.E5" content-type="numbered"><label>5</label><mml:math id="M140" display="block"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ant</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>;</mml:mo><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>b</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>g</mml:mi><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ant</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>;</mml:mo><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>b</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi>G</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

            where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M141" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mo>≥</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are the shape parameters, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M142" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>G</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the gamma
function and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M143" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>g</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ant</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>;</mml:mo><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the incomplete gamma function; in this
form the gamma distribution supports <inline-formula><mml:math id="M144" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> Taking into account that
streamflow drought occurs when a certain streamflow value is not exceeded,
while in the case of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M145" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> a soil moisture drought occurs when a
certain soil moisture deficit is exceeded, the drought probability index for
streamflow drought <inline-formula><mml:math id="M146" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is computed as

                  <disp-formula id="Ch1.E6" content-type="numbered"><label>6</label><mml:math id="M147" display="block"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ant</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.8</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.8</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula></p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS4">
  <label>2.4</label><title>Combining deficit and anomaly to compute SMDAI and QDAI</title>
      <p id="d1e2503">Water deficits (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M148" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M149" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and anomalies
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M150" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M151" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) are combined into single deficit anomaly
indicators (SMDAI and QDAI) based on the desired indicator characteristics as
elaborated by Cammalleri et al. (2016). The combined drought indicator should
be zero if there is either no deficit- or no anomaly-based drought. It should
be equal to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M152" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M153" display="inline"><mml:mi>d</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> if <inline-formula><mml:math id="M154" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M155" display="inline"><mml:mi>d</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> are the same, while it should have
lower values if either <inline-formula><mml:math id="M156" display="inline"><mml:mi>d</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> or <inline-formula><mml:math id="M157" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is close to zero. Thus, following Cammalleri
et al. (2016)

                <disp-formula id="Ch1.E7" content-type="numbered"><label>7</label><mml:math id="M158" display="block"><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:mtext>SMDAI</mml:mtext><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msqrt><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msqrt></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

          and accordingly

                <disp-formula id="Ch1.E8" content-type="numbered"><label>8</label><mml:math id="M159" display="block"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:mtext>QDAI</mml:mtext><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msqrt><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:msqrt><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula></p>
      <p id="d1e2647">Both SMDAI and QDAI values range from 0 to 1, where 0 corresponds to no
drought hazard and 1 corresponds to extreme drought hazard. The indicator
values are put into classes and coinciding drought classifications according
to Table 2.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS5">
  <label>2.5</label><title>Fitting standard cumulative functions</title>
      <p id="d1e2659">Out of the total 67 420 WaterGAP land grid cells, only 57 043 grid cells
were considered in this study. Grid cells with barren or sparsely vegetated
land cover, based on the MODIS-derived static land cover input map used in
WGHM (Müller Schmied et al., 2014), together with grid cells in Greenland,
were not considered. For each of these grid cells and each calendar month, we
determined the best-fitting beta and gamma cumulative distribution functions
for monthly <inline-formula><mml:math id="M160" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M161" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ant</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, respectively, by utilizing
a combination of functions from the R packages gamlss, gamlss.dist,
extremeStat and fitdistrplus. However, as tested by the one-sample
Kolmogorov–Smirnov test (KS test) at the 0.05 significance level, for
27.12 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M162" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">%</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of the grid cells in the case of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M163" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and
39.94 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M164" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">%</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the case of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M165" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ant</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, the fits were rejected for
all 12 calendar months. Examples of an accepted grid cell and a rejected
grid cell of the beta distribution function are shown in Fig. S3 in the
Supplement. In the rejected grid cells, the probability of non-exceedance <inline-formula><mml:math id="M166" display="inline"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
is determined directly from the time series of 30 monthly values using the R
function empirical cumulative distribution function (ECDF). The ECDF is a step
function that increases by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M167" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">30</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at each of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M168" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">30</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values
of SMDAI or <inline-formula><mml:math id="M169" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ant</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values of QDAI (Fig. S3 left). The computed <inline-formula><mml:math id="M170" display="inline"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>
value of a specific <inline-formula><mml:math id="M171" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> or <inline-formula><mml:math id="M172" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ant</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> value is the
fraction of all <inline-formula><mml:math id="M173" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">30</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> or <inline-formula><mml:math id="M174" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ant</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values that are less
than, or equal to, the specific <inline-formula><mml:math id="M175" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> or <inline-formula><mml:math id="M176" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ant</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
value. Figure S4 in the Supplement shows the grid cells where ECDFs had to be
used to compute <inline-formula><mml:math id="M177" display="inline"><mml:mi>F</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS6">
  <label>2.6</label><title>Standardized streamflow index</title>
      <p id="d1e2860">We compared QDAI with the well-established anomaly-based drought indicator
standardized streamflow index (SSFI) introduced by Modarres (2007). SSFI is
computed separately for each calendar month, similar to the standardized
precipitation index (SPI) (Mckee et al., 1993), as

                <disp-formula id="Ch1.E9" content-type="numbered"><label>9</label><mml:math id="M178" display="block"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:mtext>SSFI</mml:mtext><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>ant</mml:mtext><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mtext>ant</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M179" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>ant</mml:mtext><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> [<inline-formula><mml:math id="M180" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> per month] is the streamflow value at
time interval <inline-formula><mml:math id="M181" display="inline"><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M182" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mtext>ant</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the long-term mean of the
streamflow values and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M183" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the standard deviation of the streamflow
values.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 1</label><caption><p id="d1e2956">Soil moisture drought hazard: example of a time series (2000–2010)
of monthly <inline-formula><mml:math id="M184" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and mean
seasonality of soil moisture deficit,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M185" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and SMDAI for a cell in
Germany <bold>(a, c)</bold> and a cell in northeast India <bold>(b, d)</bold>. The central European (CEU)
drought in 2003 is indicated.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/21/1337/2021/nhess-21-1337-2021-f01.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <label>3</label><title>Results and discussions</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <label>3.1</label><title>SMDAI</title>
      <p id="d1e3009">The relations between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M186" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, mean monthly
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M187" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil_mean</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M188" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and SMDAI are further clarified
by the time series of these variables in Fig. 1 for two grid cells with rather different
characteristics: a grid cell in Germany (42.25<inline-formula><mml:math id="M189" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M190" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>121.75<inline-formula><mml:math id="M191" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E, left panels in
Fig. 1) and one in northeast India ( 27.25<inline-formula><mml:math id="M192" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, 88.25<inline-formula><mml:math id="M193" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E, right panels in
Fig. 1). The values of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M194" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the German grid cell show, on
average over the whole reference period, high deficits in the summer months
and low deficits only in one to two winter months (dashed grey line). According to
the definition of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M195" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, an anomaly-based drought hazard, as
indicated by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M196" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (blue line), occurs only if the actual soil
moisture deficit (green line) is much higher than the mean calendar month
values <inline-formula><mml:math id="M197" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil_mean</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; per<?pagebreak page1343?> definition, this is the case in only 1 out
of 5 years (Eq. 3 and Table 1). According to Eq. (7), SMDAI is always between
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M198" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M199" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. In the German cell, an anomaly-based
drought occurred during the unusually dry, but still low-deficit, winter
months of 2006, resulting in an SMDAI value that was much smaller than
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M200" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. During the central European (CEU) summer drought of 2003,
SMDAI was approximately equal to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M201" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Thus, SMDAI appropriately
indicates that anomalously low soil moisture during generally wet winter
months is less of a hazard to vegetation than the same anomaly would be during
generally dry summer months. The grid cell in northeast India is characterized
by a low seasonality of soil moisture and a generally very high soil water
content.  Even for some unusually dry months (with high <inline-formula><mml:math id="M202" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>),
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M203" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> almost always remains below 0.25.  Due to the low deficit,
even in cases of high <inline-formula><mml:math id="M204" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, SMDAI is much smaller than
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M205" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> during all drought events indicated by
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M206" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. When comparing temporally averaged drought hazards between
the two grid cells, SMDAI would indicate a relatively higher drought hazard
for the German grid cell than for the Indian grid cell, which would not be the
case if a purely anomaly-based indicator, such as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M207" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, were used
as the drought hazard indicator.</p>
      <p id="d1e3249">The relationship between SMDAI, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M208" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M209" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> can
be further explored by using global indicator maps for a specific month, e.g.,
August 2003 (Fig. 2). WaterGAP computes soil moisture deficits of
75 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M210" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">%</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> or more in most grid cells, while low deficits occur only in a
few areas, where August belongs to the rainy season, e.g., the Sahel region
and the monsoon areas in India (Fig. 2a).  In each grid cell,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M211" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is, per definition, zero in 80 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M212" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">%</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of all August
months. Therefore, in any month, approximately 80 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M213" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">%</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of the grid
cells indicate no drought and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M214" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> equals 0 (Fig. 2b). Only grid
cells with a non-zero <inline-formula><mml:math id="M215" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> have a non-zero SMDAI (Fig. 2c). For
example, southeast India shows extremely high <inline-formula><mml:math id="M216" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values, but as
there is no anomalously high soil moisture deficit except for a few grid cells
where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M217" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is mostly zero, SMDAI is also mostly zero. Thus, no
soil moisture drought hazard is indicated. The difference between SMDAI and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M218" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is shown in Fig. 2d. In most grid cells with differences,
SMDAI is higher than <inline-formula><mml:math id="M219" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> due to high <inline-formula><mml:math id="M220" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Focusing
on central Europe, SMDAI (in Fig. 2c) correctly indicates the summer drought
of 2003, documented in the EM-DAT International Disaster Database
(<uri>http://www.emdat.be</uri>, last access: 11 May 2020), the
European Drought Reference database
(<uri>http://www.geo.uio.no/edc/droughtdb</uri>, last access:  15 May 2020) and Spinoni et al. (2019). The location of grid cells from Fig. 1
is represented in Fig. 2a with blue points drawn at the center of each grid
cell. During Northern Hemisphere winter months, soil moisture deficits are
lower, for example, in Europe and the eastern part of North America, but high
in most snow-dominated northern high-latitude regions (as no liquid water
enters the soil), with corresponding effects for the relationship between
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M221" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and SMDAI (see Fig. S5 in the Supplement showing the drought
situation in December 1999). In Europe and the eastern part of North America,
for example, SMDAI is smaller than <inline-formula><mml:math id="M222" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. S5d).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 2</label><caption><p id="d1e3418">Global maps of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M223" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M224" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, SMDAI and the difference
between SMDAI and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M225" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for August
2003. Blue points in <bold>(a)</bold> represent the location of German and Indian grid
cells from Fig. 1, and nc denotes grid cells that are not computed due to land
cover.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=483.69685pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/21/1337/2021/nhess-21-1337-2021-f02.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?pagebreak page1344?><p id="d1e3464">Figure 3 shows the frequency of occurrence of the four SMDAI drought classes
specified in Table 2 and of the no-drought condition (SMDAI <inline-formula><mml:math id="M226" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0) during the
reference period 1981–2010. SMDAI is zero in about 80 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M227" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">%</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of the
cases, following <inline-formula><mml:math id="M228" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> as monthly soil moisture almost never
reaches the maximum soil moisture capacity. Extreme soil moisture drought
hazards occur with a relatively high frequency in the northwestern parts of
Australia and southeastern parts of Africa. Regions with mostly low soil
moisture deficits, such as central and eastern European countries and the
eastern USA, show very low occurrence frequencies of extreme drought hazards
and more often than other regions a moderate drought hazard (Fig. 3b).
Snow-dominated regions, such as parts of Russia and Canada, show a relatively
high frequency of extreme soil moisture droughts due to the high values of
simulated soil moisture deficits created by the lack of liquid water to
infiltrate the soil during the winter months and the temperature-driven
seasonal shifts of snowmelt and, thus, infiltration of water into the soil.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{3}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 3</label><caption><p id="d1e3495">Frequency of occurrence [%] of different soil moisture drought
classes during the period 1981–2010, as defined by SMDAI (Table 2), and nc
denotes grid cells which are not computed due to land cover.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=483.69685pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/21/1337/2021/nhess-21-1337-2021-f03.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <label>3.2</label><title>QDAI</title>
      <?pagebreak page1345?><p id="d1e3512">QDAI indicates the drought hazard for surface water supply required for
satisfying human water demand (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M229" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mtext>WU</mml:mtext><mml:mtext>sw</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), assuming the water
suppliers also take into consideration the water demand by freshwater biota
(EFR). The deficit component of QDAI (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M230" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) is the relative
difference between the total surface water demand and streamflow, while the
anomaly component (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M231" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) is based on the unusualness of streamflow. QDAI
depends on more individual variables (i.e., <inline-formula><mml:math id="M232" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mtext>WU</mml:mtext><mml:mtext>sw</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M233" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ant</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and EFR) than SMDAI (i.e., <inline-formula><mml:math id="M234" display="inline"><mml:mi>S</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M235" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mtext>max</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). Figure 4 shows their relation for two grid cells with
different characteristics of human surface water demand compared to
streamflow. In the grid cell in the western USA, where streamflow of the
Klamath River is observed in Keno (42.25<inline-formula><mml:math id="M236" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M237" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>121.75<inline-formula><mml:math id="M238" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E, left panels of
Fig. 4), water demand (mostly for irrigation, with a mean of
0.038 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M239" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> per month) is high compared to the relatively small
streamflow (0.105 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M240" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> per month). In the grid cell in Germany,
human surface water demand of 0.056 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M241" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> per month is small
compared to the rather high streamflow of 4.6 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M242" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>  per month of
the Rhine at Mainz (49.75<inline-formula><mml:math id="M243" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, 8.25<inline-formula><mml:math id="M244" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E, right panels of Fig. 4).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{4}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 4</label><caption><p id="d1e3679">Streamflow drought hazard: example of a time series (2000–2010)
of monthly surface water demand, surface water supply and mean seasonality
of surface water supply, as well as
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M245" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M246" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and QDAI <bold>(e, f)</bold> for a cell in
the USA <bold>(a, c, e</bold>) and Germany <bold>(b, d, f)</bold>.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=483.69685pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/21/1337/2021/nhess-21-1337-2021-f04.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e3719">In the US grid cell, the difference between the mean monthly streamflow under
the naturalized condition <inline-formula><mml:math id="M247" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mtext>nat_mean</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and mean
monthly simulated streamflow (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M248" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ant_mean</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) is high, especially in
the growing period, due to large anthropogenic abstractions of streamflow
water in the drainage basin of the grid cell (observed in the topmost
plot). While the observed (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M249" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ant_obs</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and simulated
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M250" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ant</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) streamflow shows a reasonable correlation, WaterGAP appears
to overestimate streamflow depletion by human water use in the
summers. Characterized by a high seasonality, anthropogenic surface water
demand <inline-formula><mml:math id="M251" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mtext>WU</mml:mtext><mml:mtext>sw</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (dashed grey line in center plot) and total
surface water demand (i.e., <inline-formula><mml:math id="M252" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mtext>WU</mml:mtext><mml:mtext>sw</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mtext>EFR_0.8</mml:mtext></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
orange line in center plot) result in very high deficits <inline-formula><mml:math id="M253" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (green line
of the bottom plot) during almost every summer. However, there are only a few
months with drought as identified by the anomaly-based drought hazard <inline-formula><mml:math id="M254" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
exceeding zero (dark blue line). This occurs because the decade shown in
Fig. 4 happens to be a very wet decade compared to the whole reference
period. Another reason is that more than 20 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M255" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">%</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of the years show
zero streamflow in the calendar months August and September such that <inline-formula><mml:math id="M256" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
is zero in all 30 August and September months of the reference period; i.e., no
drought is indicated even in case of zero streamflow (see left panel of
Fig. S7 in the Supplement). Due to the large deficit values, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M257" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is almost
always smaller than <inline-formula><mml:math id="M258" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in this US grid cell.</p>
      <p id="d1e3862">In the German grid cell (right panels in Fig. 4), the relatively low
anthropogenic surface water abstractions result in almost identical values of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M259" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mtext>nat_mean</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M260" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ant_mean</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (lines overlap in the top
plot), and total surface water demand is very similar to EFR (lines
overlap in the center plot). Non-zero <inline-formula><mml:math id="M261" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values (bottom plot) are mainly
computed if <inline-formula><mml:math id="M262" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ant</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is lower than EFR, such as during the
central European drought of 2003. It is reasonable to consider this type of
situation as a drought hazard as water supply companies would have to<?pagebreak page1346?> stop any
surface water abstraction if they wished to protect the river
ecosystem. Different from the US grid cell, droughts are rather equally
distributed over all decades of the reference period in the German grid cell
but the summers of 2003 and 2005 suffer from the most severe droughts of the
reference period, in line with expected drier summer due of climate
change. Even if taking into account EFR as 80 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M263" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">%</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M264" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mtext>nat_mean</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (EFR<inline-formula><mml:math id="M265" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.8</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>), the total surface water demand is so low
that in contrast to the US cell, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M266" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is always smaller than <inline-formula><mml:math id="M267" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
      <p id="d1e3960">Assumptions about the magnitude of EFR have a strong impact on
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M268" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and thus QDAI of all grid cells except those with very high surface
water abstractions such as the US cell. If the water demand of the ecosystem
were assumed to be only 20 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M269" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">%</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M270" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mtext>nat_mean</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mtext>EFR_0.2</mml:mtext></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) instead of 80 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M271" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">%</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M272" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mtext>nat_mean</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M273" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> decreases somewhat in the US cell but reduces
to zero during the whole reference period in the German cell (Fig. S6 in the
Supplement). Therefore, water suppliers in the German grid cell would not
suffer from any drought hazard (as indicated by QDAI) and would not have to
decrease their surface water abstractions even during a drought similar to the
2003 central European drought.</p>
      <p id="d1e4028">The global streamflow drought hazard maps for August 2003 (Fig. 5) help to
illustrate the global variations in QDAI as a function of its components
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M274" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M275" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, which again depends on the human surface water demand
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M276" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mtext>WU</mml:mtext><mml:mtext>sw</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Streamflow deficits are not restricted to areas with
high mean annual <inline-formula><mml:math id="M277" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mtext>WU</mml:mtext><mml:mtext>sw</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> during the period 1981–2010
(Fig. 5a) but can be greater than 75 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M278" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">%</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in regions such as South
Africa were <inline-formula><mml:math id="M279" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ant</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is low (Fig. 5b). Different from soil moisture
drought, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M280" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M281" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are strongly correlated (Fig. 5c). This is due to
the fact that total surface water demand is dominated in many grid cells by
EFR, which is a fraction of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M282" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mtext>nat</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. In the
EFR-dominated cells, the mean monthly <inline-formula><mml:math id="M283" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ant</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is very
similar to the mean monthly <inline-formula><mml:math id="M284" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mtext>nat</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, such that <inline-formula><mml:math id="M285" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is then
approximately the difference between mean monthly <inline-formula><mml:math id="M286" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ant</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M287" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ant</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; this difference is also the basis for computing by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M288" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
(Fig. 5d).  QDAI is mostly less than <inline-formula><mml:math id="M289" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. 5e).  The 2003 central
European drought hazard for the surface water supply for humans (Fig. 5d) is,
at least in many parts of Germany, less pronounced than the soil moisture
drought hazard for vegetation (Fig. 2c). Figure 5c–e also indicate the grid
cells with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M290" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ant</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. If streamflow in a grid cell is zero in
20 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M291" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">%</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> or more of all August months (left panel of Fig. S7), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M292" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
and thus QDAI are zero because the zero streamflow is not an anomaly that
occurs in less than 1 out of 5 years.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{5}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 5</label><caption><p id="d1e4243">Global maps of mean annual <inline-formula><mml:math id="M293" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mtext>WU</mml:mtext><mml:mtext>sw</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M294" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M295" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, QDAI and the difference between QDAI and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M296" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for August 2003. Blue points in
<bold>(b)</bold> represent the location of the German and US grid cells from Fig. 4.
Grid cells with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M297" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ant</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are
indicated; nc: QDAI is not computed due to land cover.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=483.69685pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/21/1337/2021/nhess-21-1337-2021-f05.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e4315">In contrast to SMDAI, the frequency of occurrence of no-drought conditions
according to QDAI (Fig. 6) is larger than 80 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M298" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">%</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in grid cells,
particularly with large rivers and barely any human water use, such as the
Amazon River in South America, the Congo River in Africa and the Ob River in
Russia (Fig. 6e), where the deficit is often zero. In addition, grid cells with
intermittent flows also show a high percentage of no-drought conditions, as
for any calendar month with at least 6 months without streamflow <inline-formula><mml:math id="M299" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is
always equal to zero (Fig. S7). In these grid cells, no-drought conditions
occur in the case of zero streamflow. This type of intermittent grid cell,
where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M300" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ant</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for at least 20 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M301" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">%</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of the months of any
calendar month is marked separately in Fig. 6c–e. Extreme streamflow drought
hazard for human water supply (Fig. 6d) occurs most often in regions with high
streamflow<?pagebreak page1347?> deficits (compare Fig. 5b), such as South Africa and parts of
southeastern Australia, i.e., regions with low streamflow and relatively high
surface water abstractions, mainly for irrigation (Fig. 5a). Regions with low
water human surface water abstractions such as northern Canada and the Amazon
and Congo basins show an exceptionally high occurrence of mild drought hazards
(Fig. 6a).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{6}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 6</label><caption><p id="d1e4363">Frequency of occurrence [%] of different streamflow drought
classes during the period 1981–2010 as defined by QDAI (Table 2). Grid cells
where for any calendar month there are at least 6 months with
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M302" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ant</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are indicated as int, and
grid cells which are not computed due to land cover are indicated as
nc.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=483.69685pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/21/1337/2021/nhess-21-1337-2021-f06.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3">
  <label>3.3</label><?xmltex \opttitle{Sensitivity of SMDAI to the $S_{{\text{max}}}$ values assumed in WaterGAP}?><title>Sensitivity of SMDAI to the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M303" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mtext>max</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values assumed in WaterGAP</title>
      <p id="d1e4407"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M304" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mtext>max</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is one of the key components for computing SMDAI. WaterGAP
calibration and validation studies have indicated that <inline-formula><mml:math id="M305" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mtext>max</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> may be
underestimated in WaterGAP by a factor of 2 or more (Hosseini-Moghari
et al., 2020). In order to understand the sensitivity of SMDAI to changes in
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M306" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mtext>max</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, we ran a version of WaterGAP in which <inline-formula><mml:math id="M307" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mtext>max</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was
doubled <inline-formula><mml:math id="M308" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>max</mml:mtext><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). Figure 7 presents global maps of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M309" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil_Smax2</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. 7a), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M310" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil_Smax2</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. 7c) and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M311" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mtext>SMDAI</mml:mtext><mml:mtext>_Smax2</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. 7e) for August 2003 and the change in
each parameter with respect to the standard WaterGAP output, i.e., the
difference between parameters computed using <inline-formula><mml:math id="M312" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>max</mml:mtext><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M313" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mtext>max</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. 7b, d and f). With doubled <inline-formula><mml:math id="M314" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mtext>max</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, mean
monthly soil moisture increases, too. In most grid cells, the soil moisture
deficit increases compared to standard <inline-formula><mml:math id="M315" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mtext>max</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
(Fig. 7b). Differences are mostly small except for scattered grid cells in
which the soil moisture deficit decreases by more than 50 percentage
points. Such cells are also found in central Europe where, under the heavy
drought conditions of August 2003, computed deficits <inline-formula><mml:math id="M316" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are generally
smaller in the case of doubled <inline-formula><mml:math id="M317" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mtext>max</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; in this region,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M318" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> increases in the case of doubled <inline-formula><mml:math id="M319" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mtext>max</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
(Fig. 7d). Globally, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M320" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> increases or decreases in some grid
cells by more than 50 percentage points.  Equally, for SMDAI, the sensitivity
to doubled <inline-formula><mml:math id="M321" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mtext>max</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is low for most grid cells but can be greater for
a few (Fig. 7e).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F7" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{7}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 7</label><caption><p id="d1e4619">Spatial representation of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M322" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M323" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and SMDAI computed with
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M324" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mtext>max2</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is presented in <bold>(a, c, e)</bold>, and in <bold>(b, d, f)</bold> are
the differences in these <inline-formula><mml:math id="M325" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M326" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mtext>soil</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and SMDAI compared to
the results computed with the standard version of WaterGAP for August 2003. Grid cells which are not computed due to land cover are denoted as nc.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=483.69685pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/21/1337/2021/nhess-21-1337-2021-f07.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<?pagebreak page1348?><sec id="Ch1.S3.SS4">
  <label>3.4</label><title>Sensitivity of QDAI to different assumptions about EFR</title>
      <p id="d1e4698">The streamflow drought hazard for water supply indicated by QDAI depends on
how EFR is defined. In Fig. 8, we compare the global distribution of
QDAI values among the 57 043 0.5<inline-formula><mml:math id="M327" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> grid cells, assuming that either
80 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M328" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">%</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> or 50 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M329" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">%</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of mean monthly natural streamflow is
required to remain in the river for the well-being of the river ecosystem, or
that there is no EFR at all that needs to be considered when the
decisions about river water abstractions are made. We distinguish between
humid and (semi)arid grid cells (Fig. S8 in the Supplement) and consider the
two months of August and December 2003 as well as all 360 months of the
reference period. The QDAI distributions are very similar for all three time
periods. The boxplots show that a drought hazard in humid areas is only
identified if the existence of an EFR is acknowledged. If water
suppliers in humid areas assume that all water in the river can be abstracted,
they will very rarely be unable to satisfy their demand. In humid grid cells,
QDAI increases strongly with the selected EFR, which means that with
increasing consideration of the water requirements of the river ecosystems,
drought hazards to the water supply increase; i.e., there are more situations
where water abstractions would have to be reduced to keep enough water in the
river for the ecosystems to thrive. In (semi)arid regions, QDAI is already
very high, even without acknowledging any water requirement of the river
ecosystem. This is due to an often high surface water demand compared to
naturalized streamflow, in particular as crop production requires
irrigation. Like in humid regions, QDAI increases with increasing
EFR. The slightly higher median QDAI values in August 2003 than in
December 2003 reflect the larger amount of humid grid cells in the Northern
Hemisphere. Figure 8 shows that water suppliers in (semi)arid and arid regions
suffer much more strongly from drought hazards than water suppliers in<?pagebreak page1349?> humid
areas due to the much higher ratio of water demand to streamflow.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F8" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{8}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 8</label><caption><p id="d1e4728">Global distribution of QDAI in August 2003 (left) and December 2003
(middle) and for all 360 months of the reference period (right), computed
with alternative assumptions about EFR for grid cells
with humid and (semi)arid conditions. Grid cells where all three
EFR assumptions result in QDAI <inline-formula><mml:math id="M330" display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0 are not
included.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=483.69685pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/21/1337/2021/nhess-21-1337-2021-f08.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e4744">Further differences between QDAI values computed for an alternative EFR
are explored for two widely known drought events, the South Asian drought of
2009 (Neena et al., 2011) and the North American drought of 2002 (Seager,
2007). Figure 9 presents the spatial extent of both the droughts detected by
QDAI at a continental scale (left panels of Fig. 9) for August 2009 and March
2002. Time series plots (right panels of Fig. 9) for an Indian
grid cell (24.75<inline-formula><mml:math id="M331" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, 75.75<inline-formula><mml:math id="M332" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E, top panel), as well as another for a US grid cell
(44.25<inline-formula><mml:math id="M333" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M334" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>110.75<inline-formula><mml:math id="M335" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E, bottom panel), provide a better understanding of the
sensitivity of QDAI to EFR.  As expected, QDAI values calculated with
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M336" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>EFR</mml:mtext><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (green) are lower and drought periods shorter than if it is
assumed that water needs to remain in the river for the well-being of the
ecosystems. Interestingly, short but severe droughts in the Indian grid cell in
2002, 2006 and 2010 have almost equal QDAI values for all three EFR
alternatives.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F9" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{9}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 9</label><caption><p id="d1e4806">Continental maps of QDAI for Asia and North America for August
2009 and March 2002, respectively <bold>(a, c)</bold>, with blue points showing the
locations of the Indian and US grid cells. Time series of different QDAI
with alternative EFR for the Indian grid cell
for 2001–2010 <bold>(b)</bold> and the US grid cell for 1998–2007 <bold>(d)</bold>. Grid cells which
are not computed due to land cover are denoted as nc.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=483.69685pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/21/1337/2021/nhess-21-1337-2021-f09.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F10" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{10}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 10</label><caption><p id="d1e4826">Time series of QDAI and SSFI for grid cells with different
ratios of surface water abstractions to streamflow <inline-formula><mml:math id="M337" display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> in three regions: <bold>(a)</bold>
Vietnam (10.75<inline-formula><mml:math id="M338" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, 107.25<inline-formula><mml:math id="M339" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E), <bold>(b)</bold> southeast USA (31.75<inline-formula><mml:math id="M340" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M341" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>84.75<inline-formula><mml:math id="M342" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E) and <bold>(c)</bold> Russia
(63.75<inline-formula><mml:math id="M343" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, 136.75<inline-formula><mml:math id="M344" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E). SSFI is shown in red if it is below <inline-formula><mml:math id="M345" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.84 standard
deviations, corresponding to a 5-year return period and a <inline-formula><mml:math id="M346" display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> of zero (Table 1).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=483.69685pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://nhess.copernicus.org/articles/21/1337/2021/nhess-21-1337-2021-f10.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS5">
  <label>3.5</label><title>Comparing QDAI to the standardized streamflow index (SSFI)</title>
      <?pagebreak page1350?><p id="d1e4937">Like <inline-formula><mml:math id="M347" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, SSFI (see Sect. 2.6) assumes biota and humans are accustomed to
the seasonal and interannual variability of the streamflow. In order to
quantify the added value of QDAI, we compared QDAI values to SSFI values
computed with a 1-month timescale. The anomaly of streamflow in SSFI was
computed in the same manner as for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M348" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, by fitting the gamma cumulative
distribution function for monthly <inline-formula><mml:math id="M349" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ant</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. It was then transformed
into a Gaussian distribution by calculating the mean and standard deviation, as
well as using the approximate conversion provided by Abramowitz and Stegun
(1965); this is also used by Kumar et al. (2009). Figure 10 shows three grid
cells characterized by rather different values of the ratio <inline-formula><mml:math id="M350" display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> of long-term
average annual <inline-formula><mml:math id="M351" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mtext>WU</mml:mtext><mml:mtext>sw</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to long-term average annual
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M352" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mtext>ant</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>: high (Vietnam, 10.75<inline-formula><mml:math id="M353" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, 107.25<inline-formula><mml:math id="M354" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E in Fig. 10a), moderate
(southeast USA, 31.75<inline-formula><mml:math id="M355" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M356" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>84.75<inline-formula><mml:math id="M357" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E in Fig. 10b) and low (Russia, 63.75<inline-formula><mml:math id="M358" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N,
136.75<inline-formula><mml:math id="M359" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E in Fig. 10c).</p>
      <?pagebreak page1352?><p id="d1e5065">As expected, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M360" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and SSFI show an equivalent behavior in all grid cells as
they are based on the same streamflow data, do not use any additional
information and can be mathematically transformed from one to the other
(Table 1). In contrast, QDAI is based additionally on estimates of the grid
cell's specific human surface water demand and assumptions on EFR. A
comparison of SSFI and QDAI is, therefore, essentially a comparison of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M361" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
and QDAI.  If <inline-formula><mml:math id="M362" display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is very small, such as in the case of the Russian grid cell,
with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M363" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.5</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. 10c), QDAI is very similar to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M364" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, while
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M365" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is very similar to EFR, being 80 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M366" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">%</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of the mean
monthly <inline-formula><mml:math id="M367" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mtext>nat</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (see explanation in Sect. 3.2). For the Vietnamese
grid cell with a high <inline-formula><mml:math id="M368" display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> value of 0.143, QDAI does not interpret the
anomalously low streamflow values in December 2003 and December 2005 as a
drought hazard due to the low human water demand for surface water in
December. Globally averaged, the fraction of months under drought during
1981–2010 is 16.0 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M369" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">%</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> according to QDAI and 19.1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M370" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">%</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
according to SSFI. This reflects that QDAI only identifies a drought condition
if there is, in addition to the anomalously low flow, a water deficit.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4" sec-type="conclusions">
  <label>4</label><title>Conclusions</title>
      <p id="d1e5193">In this paper, we presented two drought hazard indices that combine the
drought deficit and anomaly characteristics: one for soil moisture drought
(SMDAI) and the other for streamflow drought (QDAI). With SMDAI, which
describes the drought hazard for vegetation, we achieved the simplification of
the deficit-anomaly-based Drought Severity Index introduced by Cammalleri et
al. (2016). We transferred the DSI concept to streamflow drought, creating an
indicator that specifically quantifies the hazard that drought poses for water
supply from rivers. To our knowledge, QDAI is the first ever streamflow
drought indicator that combines the anomaly and deficit aspects of streamflow
drought.</p>
      <p id="d1e5196">The concept of SMDAI and QDAI was tested at the global scale by using
simulated data from the latest version of the global water resources and using
the model WaterGAP. Conversely the reliability of the computed SMDAI and QDAI
values strongly depends on the quality of the model output. The indicators
themselves have been proven to provide meaningful quantitative estimates of
drought hazard that depend not only on the unusualness of the situation but
also on the concurrent deficit of available water compared to demand. We
found that the values of the combined deficit anomaly drought indices are
often broadly similar to purely anomaly-based indices and share with them the
difficulty of dealing with intermittent streamflow regimes.  However, they do
provide more differentiated spatial and temporal patterns and help to
distinguish the degree and nature of the drought hazard. QDAI can serve as a
tool for informing water suppliers and other stakeholders about the joint
drought hazard for water supply for both humans and the river ecosystem, while
stakeholders may adapt the EFR applied for computing QDAI in
accordance with their valuation of ecosystem health. Like all hydrological
drought indicators that reflect streamflow anomaly, QDAI needs to be
interpreted carefully in case of highly intermittent streamflow regimes.</p>
      <p id="d1e5199">The term “drought hazard” can be defined as the source of a potential
adverse effect of an unusual lack of water on humans or ecosystems. In this
sense, SMDAI and QDAI are drought hazard indicators, even if they include some
elements of vulnerability to drought. Both SMDAI and QDAI are well applicable
in drought risk studies. In local drought risk studies, additional indicators
of ecological or societal vulnerability should be added, for example,
vegetation/crop type or income levels. In regional or global drought risk
studies, the inclusion of grid-scale values of QDAI and SMDAI would be
beneficial as both indices contain spatially highly resolved information on
vulnerability, while most other vulnerability indicators represent spatial
averages of much larger spatial units such as countries.</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><notes notes-type="dataavailability"><title>Data availability</title>

      <p id="d1e5207">WaterGAP 2.2d model output data used in this study are available at
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.918447" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1594/PANGAEA.918447</ext-link> (Müller Schmied et al., 2020). The outputs from this study
are available at <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14213852" ext-link-type="DOI">10.6084/m9.figshare.14213852</ext-link> (Popat and Döll, 2021).</p>
  </notes><app-group>
        <supplementary-material position="anchor"><p id="d1e5216">The supplement related to this article is available online at: <inline-supplementary-material xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-21-1337-2021-supplement" xlink:title="zip">https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-21-1337-2021-supplement</inline-supplementary-material>.</p></supplementary-material>
        </app-group><notes notes-type="authorcontribution"><title>Author contributions</title>

      <p id="d1e5225">This paper was conceptualized by PD with input from EP. EP performed the
data analysis and visualization. The original draft was written by EP and
revised by PD.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests"><title>Competing interests</title>

      <p id="d1e5231">The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="sistatement"><title>Special issue statement</title>

      <p id="d1e5237">This article is part of the special issue “Recent advances in drought and water scarcity monitoring, modelling, and forecasting (EGU2019, session HS4.1.1/NH1.31)”. It is a result of the European Geosciences Union General Assembly 2019, Vienna, Austria, 7–12 April 2019.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d1e5243">We thank  Hannes Müller Schmied for input and guidance on setting up
the WaterGAP variant with doubled <inline-formula><mml:math id="M371" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>S</mml:mi><mml:mo>max⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Sect. 4.1.1) and Thedini
Asali Peiris for constructive criticism of the manuscript. Also, we
acknowledge funding from the German Federal Ministry of Education and
Research (BMBF) for the “Globe Drought” project through its funding
measure Global Resource Water (GRoW) (grant no. 02WGR1457B).</p></ack><notes notes-type="financialsupport"><title>Financial support</title>

      <p id="d1e5259">This research has been supported by the German Federal
Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) (grant no. 02WGR1457B).
<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?><?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>This open-access publication was funded <?xmltex \notforhtml{\newline}?> by the Goethe University Frankfurt.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="reviewstatement"><title>Review statement</title>

      <p id="d1e5270">This paper was edited by Carmelo Cammalleri and reviewed by two anonymous referees.</p>
  </notes><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Abramowitz, M. and Stegun, I. A. (Eds.): Handbook of mathematical formulas, graphs, and mathematical tables, Dover Publications, New York, 1965.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><?label 2?><mixed-citation>Agnew, C. T.: Using the SPI to identify drought, Drought Network News (1994–2001), 1, available at: <uri>https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/droughtnetnews/1/</uri> (last access: 21 August 2019), 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><?label 3?><mixed-citation>Alcamo, J., Döll, P., Henrich, T., Kasper, F., Lehner, B., Rösch, T., and Siebert S: Development and testing of the WaterGAP 2 global model of water use and availability, Hydrolog. Sci. J., 48, 317–337, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1623/hysj.48.3.317.45290" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1623/hysj.48.3.317.45290</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><?label 4?><mixed-citation>Bergez, J., Chabrier, P., Gary, C., Jeuffroy, M. H., Makowski, D., Quesnel, G., Ramat, E., Raynal, H., Rousse, N., Wallach, D., Debaeke, P., Durand, P., Duru, M., Dury, J., Faverdin, P., Gascuel-Odoux, C., and Garcia, F.: An open platform to build, evaluate and simulate integrated models of farming and agro-ecosystems, Environ. Modell. Softw., 39, 3949, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.03.011" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.03.011</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><?label 4?><mixed-citation>BoM: What is drought?, available at: <uri>http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/drought/</uri> (last access: 23 June 2020), 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><?label 6?><mixed-citation>Cammalleri, C., Micale, F., and Vogt, J.: A novel soil moisture-based drought severity index (DSI) combining water deficit magnitude and frequency, Hydrol. Process., 30, 289–301, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.10578" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/hyp.10578</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><?label 5?><mixed-citation>Cammalleri, C., Vogt, J., and Salamon, P.: Development of an operational low-flow index for hydrological drought monitoring over Europe, Hydrolog. Sci. J., 12, 1–13, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2016.1240869" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/02626667.2016.1240869</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><?label 7?><mixed-citation>Dai, A., Trenberth, K. E., and Qian, T.: A Global Dataset of Palmer Drought Severity Index for 1870–2002: Relationship with Soil Moisture and Effects of Surface Warming, J. Hydrometeorol., 5, 1117–1130, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-386.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JHM-386.1</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><?label 8?><mixed-citation>Döll, P. and Siebert, S.: Global modeling of irrigation water requirements, Water Resour. Res., 38, 8-1–8-10, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2001WR000355" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2001WR000355</ext-link>, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><?label 8?><mixed-citation>Döll, P., Müller Schmied, H., Schuh, C., Portmann, F., and Eicker, A.: Global-scale assessment of groundwater depletion and related groundwater abstractions: Combining hydrological modeling with information from well observations and GRACE satellites, Water Resour. Res., 50, 5698–5720, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR015595" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2014WR015595</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><?label 9?><mixed-citation>Döll, P., Hoffmann-Dobrev, H., Portmann, F. T., Siebert, S., Eicker, A., Rodell, M., Strassberg, G., and Scanlon, B. R.: Impact of water withdrawals from groundwater and surface water on continental water storage variations, J. Geodyn., 59–60, 143–156, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jog.2011.05.001" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jog.2011.05.001</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><?label 10?><mixed-citation>Döll, P., Kaspar, F., and Lehner, B.: A global hydrological model for deriving water availability indicators: model tuning and validation, J. Hydrol., 270, 105–134, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(02)00283-4" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/S0022-1694(02)00283-4</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><?label 11?><mixed-citation>Flörke, M., Kynast, E., Bärlund, I., Eisner, S., Wimmer, F., and Alcamo, J.: Domestic and industrial water uses of the past 60 years as a mirror of socio-economic development: A global simulation study, Global Environ. Chang., 23, 144–156, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.10.018" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.10.018</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><?label 12?><mixed-citation>Heim, R. R.: A review of twentieth-century drought indices used in the United States, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 83, 1149–1166, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477-83.8.1149" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0477-83.8.1149</ext-link>, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><?label 13?><mixed-citation>Hogg, E. H., Barr, A. G., and Black, T. A.: A simple soil moisture index for
representing multi-year drought impacts on aspen productivity in the western
Canadian interior, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 178–179, 173–182, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2013.04.025" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.agrformet.2013.04.025</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><?label 14?><mixed-citation>Hosseini-Moghari, S.-M., Araghinejad, S., Tourian, M. J., Ebrahimi, K., and Döll, P.: Quantifying the impacts of human water use and climate variations on recent drying of Lake Urmia basin: the value of different sets of spaceborne and in situ data for calibrating a global hydrological model, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 1939–1956, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-1939-2020" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/hess-24-1939-2020</ext-link>, 2020. nz</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><?label 15?><mixed-citation>Hunger, M. and Döll, P.: Value of river discharge data for global-scale hydrological modeling, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 12, 841–861, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-12-841-2008" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/hess-12-841-2008</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><?label 16?><mixed-citation>Kumar, N., Murthy, S., Sai, S., and Roy, S.: On the use of Standardized
Precipitation Index (SPI) for drought intensity assessment,
Meteorol. Appl.,  16, 381389, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/met.136" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/met.136</ext-link>,   2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><?label 17?><mixed-citation>Langat, P. K., Kumar, L., and Koech, R.: Identification of the Most Suitable Probability Distribution Models for Maximum, Minimum, and Mean Streamflow, Water, 11, 734, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/w11040734" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3390/w11040734</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><?label 18?><mixed-citation>López-Moreno, J. I., Vicente-Serrano, S. M., Beguería, S., García-Ruiz, J. M., Portela, M. M., and Almeida, A. B.: Dam effects on droughts magnitude and duration in a transboundary basin: The Lower River Tagus, Spain and Portugal, Water Resour. Res., 45, 6, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008WR007198" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2008WR007198</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><?label 19?><mixed-citation>Lorenzo-Lacruz, J., Vicente-Serrano, S. M., López-Moreno, J. I., Beguería, S., García-Ruiz, J. M., and Cuadrat, J. M.: The impact of droughts and water management on various hydrological systems in the headwaters of the Tagus River (central Spain), J. Hydrol., 386, 13–26, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.01.001" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.01.001</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><?label 20?><mixed-citation>
Mckee, T. B., Doesken, N. J., and Kleist, J.: The relationship of drought
frequency and duration times scales, Eight conference on Applied Climatology,
17–22 January 1993, Anaheim, California, 17–22, 1993.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><?label 21?><mixed-citation>Meza, I., Siebert, S., Döll, P., Kusche, J., Herbert, C., Eyshi Rezaei, E., Nouri, H., Gerdener, H., Popat, E., Frischen, J., Naumann, G., Vogt, J. V., Walz, Y., Sebesvari, Z., and Hagenlocher, M.: Global-scale drought risk assessment for agricultural systems, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 695–712, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-20-695-2020" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/nhess-20-695-2020</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><?label 22?><mixed-citation>Modarres, R.: Streamflow drought time series forecasting, Stoch. Env. Res. Risk A., 21, 223–233, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-006-0058-1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s00477-006-0058-1</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><?label 24?><mixed-citation>Müller Schmied, H., Eisner, S., Franz, D., Wattenbach, M., Portmann, F. T., Flörke, M., and Döll, P.: Sensitivity of simulated global-scale freshwater fluxes and storages to input data, hydrological model structure, human water use and calibration, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 3511–3538, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-3511-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/hess-18-3511-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><?label 24?><mixed-citation>Müller Schmied, H., Cáceres, D., Eisner, S., Flörke, M., Herbert, C., Niemann, C., Peiris, T. A., Popat, E., Portmann, F. T., Reinecke, R., Shadkam, S., Trautmann, T., and Döll, P.: The global water resources and use model WaterGAP v2.2d – Standard model output, PANGAEA, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.918447" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1594/PANGAEA.918447</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <?pagebreak page1354?><ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><?label 23?><mixed-citation>Müller Schmied, H., Cáceres, D., Eisner, S., Flörke, M., Herbert, C., Niemann,
C., Peiris, T. A., Popat, E., Portmann, F. T., Reinecke, R., Schumacher, M.,
Shadkam, S., Telteu, C.-E., Trautmann, T., and Döll, P.: The global water
resources and use model WaterGAP v2.2d: model description and evaluation,
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 1037–1079, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1037-2021" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-14-1037-2021</ext-link>,
2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><?label 25?><mixed-citation>Neena, J. M., Suhas, E., and Goswami, B. N.: Leading role of internal dynamics in the 2009 Indian summer monsoon drought, J. Geophys. Res., 116,  D13103, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JD015328" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2010JD015328</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><?label 26?><mixed-citation>
Palmer, W. C.: Meteorological drought, U.S. Research Paper No. 45, US Weather Bureau, Washington, DC, 58 pp., 1965.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Popat, E. and Döll, P.: Soil moisture and streamflow deficit anomaly index: An approach to quantify drought hazards by combining deficit and anomaly-outputs, figshare, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14213852" ext-link-type="DOI">10.6084/m9.figshare.14213852</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Richter, B. D., Davis, M. M., Apse, C., and Konrad, C.: A presumptive standard for environmental flow protection, River Res. Appl., 28, 13121321, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.1511" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/rra.1511</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><?label 27?><mixed-citation>Seager, R.: The Turn of the Century North American Drought: Global Context, Dynamics, and Past Analogs, J. Climate, 20, 5527–5552, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2007JCLI1529.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/2007JCLI1529.1</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><?label 28?><mixed-citation>Sharma, T. C. and Panu, U. S.: Predicting return periods of hydrological droughts using the Pearson 3 distribution: a case from rivers in the Canadian prairies, Hydrolog. Sci. J., 60, 1783–1796, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2014.934824" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/02626667.2014.934824</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><?label 29?><mixed-citation>Sheffield, J., Goteti, G., Wen, F., and Wood, E. F.: A simulated soil moisture based drought analysis for the United States, J. Geophys. Res., 109, 7449, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD005182" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2004JD005182</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><?label 30?><mixed-citation>Siebert, S., Kummu, M., Porkka, M., Döll, P., Ramankutty, N., and Scanlon, B.: Historical Irrigation Dataset (HID), MyGeoHUB, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.13019/M20599" ext-link-type="DOI">10.13019/M20599</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><?label 31?><mixed-citation>Spinoni, J., Barbosa, P., Jager, A. de, McCormick, N., Naumann, G., Vogt, J. V., Magni, D., Masante, D., and Mazzeschi, M.: A new global database of meteorological drought events from 1951 to 2016, J. Hydrol., 22, 100593, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2019.100593" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.ejrh.2019.100593</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Sridhar, V., Hubbard, K. G., You, J., and Hunt, E. D.: Development of the soil moisture index to quantify agricultural drought and Its “user friendliness” in severity-area-duration assessment, J. Hydrometeorol., 9, 660676, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2007JHM892.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/2007JHM892.1</ext-link>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><?label 32?><mixed-citation>Svensson, C., Hannaford, J., and Prosdocimi, I.: Statistical distributions for monthly aggregations of precipitation and streamflow in drought indicator applications, Water Resour. Res., 53, 999–1018, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016WR019276" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2016WR019276</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Van Loon, A. F., Stahl, K., Di Baldassarre, G., Clark, J., Rangecroft, S., Wanders, N., Gleeson, T., Van Dijk, A. I. J. M., Tallaksen, L. M., Hannaford, J., Uijlenhoet, R., Teuling, A. J., Hannah, D. M., Sheffield, J., Svoboda, M., Verbeiren, B., Wagener, T., and Van Lanen, H. A. J.: Drought in a human-modified world: reframing drought definitions, understanding, and analysis approaches, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 3631–3650, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-3631-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/hess-20-3631-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><?label 33?><mixed-citation>Veldkamp, T. I. E., Zhao, F., Ward, P. J., de Moel, H., Aerts, J. C. J. H., Schmied, H. M., Portmann, F. T., Masaki, Y., Pokhrel, Y., Liu, X., Satoh, Y., Gerten, D., Gosling, S. N., Zaherpour, J., and Wada, Y.: Human impact parameterizations in global hydrological models improve estimates of monthly discharges and hydrological extremes: a multi-model validation study, Environ. Res. Lett., 13, 55008, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aab96f" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1088/1748-9326/aab96f</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><?label 34?><mixed-citation>Vicente-Serrano, S. M., Beguería, S., and López-Moreno, J. I.: A Multiscalar Drought Index Sensitive to Global Warming: The Standardized Precipitation Evapotranspiration Index, J. Climate, 23, 16961718, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JCLI2909.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/2009JCLI2909.1</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><?label 34?><mixed-citation>Wu, H., Hayes, M. J., Weiss, A., and Hu, Q.: An evaluation of the Standardized Precipitation Index, the China-Z Index and the statistical Z-Score, Int. J. Climatol., 21, 745–758, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.658" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/joc.658</ext-link>, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><?label 36?><mixed-citation>Zaherpour, J., Gosling, S. N., Mount, N., Schmied, H. M., Veldkamp, T. I. E., Dankers, R., Eisner, S., Gerten, D., Gudmundsson, L., Haddeland, I., Hanasaki, N., Kim, H., Leng, G., Liu, J., Masaki, Y., Oki, T., Pokhrel, Y., Satoh, Y., Schewe, J., and Wada, Y.: Worldwide evaluation of mean and extreme runoff from six global-scale hydrological models that account for human impacts, Environ. Res. Lett., 13, 65015, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aac547" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1088/1748-9326/aac547</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><?label 35?><mixed-citation>Zaherpour, J., Mount, N., Gosling, S. N., Dankers, R., Eisner, S., Gerten, D., Liu, X., Masaki, Y., Müller Schmied, H., Tang, Q., and Wada, Y.: Exploring the value of machine learning for weighted multi-model combination of an ensemble of global hydrological models, Environ. Modell. Softw., 114, 112–128, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2019.01.003" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.envsoft.2019.01.003</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Soil moisture and streamflow deficit anomaly index: an approach to quantify drought hazards by combining deficit and anomaly</article-title-html>
<abstract-html><p>Drought is understood as both a lack of water (i.e., a
deficit compared to demand) and a temporal anomaly in one or more
components of the hydrological cycle. Most drought indices, however, only
consider the anomaly aspect, i.e., how unusual the condition is. In this
paper, we present two drought hazard indices that reflect both the deficit and
anomaly aspects.  The soil moisture deficit anomaly index, SMDAI, is based on
the drought severity index, DSI (Cammalleri et al., 2016), but is computed in
a more straightforward way that does not require the definition of a mapping
function. We propose a new indicator of drought hazard for water supply from
rivers, the streamflow deficit anomaly index, QDAI, which takes into account
the surface water demand of humans and freshwater biota. Both indices are
computed and analyzed at the global scale, with a spatial resolution of
roughly 50&thinsp;km, for the period 1981–2010, using monthly time series of
variables computed by the global water resources and the model
WaterGAP&thinsp;2.2d. We found that the SMDAI and QDAI values are broadly similar to
values of purely anomaly-based indices.  However, the deficit anomaly indices
provide more differentiated spatial and temporal patterns that help to
distinguish the degree and nature of the actual drought hazard to vegetation
health or the water supply. QDAI can be made relevant for stakeholders with
different perceptions about the importance of ecosystem protection, by
adapting the approach for computing the amount of water that is required to
remain in the river for the well-being of the river ecosystem. Both deficit
anomaly indices are well suited for inclusion in local or global drought risk
studies.</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Abramowitz, M. and Stegun, I. A. (Eds.): Handbook of mathematical formulas, graphs, and mathematical tables, Dover Publications, New York, 1965.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Agnew, C. T.: Using the SPI to identify drought, Drought Network News (1994–2001), 1, available at: <a href="https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/droughtnetnews/1/" target="_blank"/> (last access: 21 August 2019), 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Alcamo, J., Döll, P., Henrich, T., Kasper, F., Lehner, B., Rösch, T., and Siebert S: Development and testing of the WaterGAP 2 global model of water use and availability, Hydrolog. Sci. J., 48, 317–337, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1623/hysj.48.3.317.45290" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1623/hysj.48.3.317.45290</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Bergez, J., Chabrier, P., Gary, C., Jeuffroy, M. H., Makowski, D., Quesnel, G., Ramat, E., Raynal, H., Rousse, N., Wallach, D., Debaeke, P., Durand, P., Duru, M., Dury, J., Faverdin, P., Gascuel-Odoux, C., and Garcia, F.: An open platform to build, evaluate and simulate integrated models of farming and agro-ecosystems, Environ. Modell. Softw., 39, 3949, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.03.011" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.03.011</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
BoM: What is drought?, available at: <a href="http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/drought/" target="_blank"/> (last access: 23 June 2020), 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Cammalleri, C., Micale, F., and Vogt, J.: A novel soil moisture-based drought severity index (DSI) combining water deficit magnitude and frequency, Hydrol. Process., 30, 289–301, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.10578" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.10578</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Cammalleri, C., Vogt, J., and Salamon, P.: Development of an operational low-flow index for hydrological drought monitoring over Europe, Hydrolog. Sci. J., 12, 1–13, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2016.1240869" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2016.1240869</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Dai, A., Trenberth, K. E., and Qian, T.: A Global Dataset of Palmer Drought Severity Index for 1870–2002: Relationship with Soil Moisture and Effects of Surface Warming, J. Hydrometeorol., 5, 1117–1130, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-386.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-386.1</a>, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Döll, P. and Siebert, S.: Global modeling of irrigation water requirements, Water Resour. Res., 38, 8-1–8-10, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2001WR000355" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2001WR000355</a>, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Döll, P., Müller Schmied, H., Schuh, C., Portmann, F., and Eicker, A.: Global-scale assessment of groundwater depletion and related groundwater abstractions: Combining hydrological modeling with information from well observations and GRACE satellites, Water Resour. Res., 50, 5698–5720, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR015595" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR015595</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
Döll, P., Hoffmann-Dobrev, H., Portmann, F. T., Siebert, S., Eicker, A., Rodell, M., Strassberg, G., and Scanlon, B. R.: Impact of water withdrawals from groundwater and surface water on continental water storage variations, J. Geodyn., 59–60, 143–156, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jog.2011.05.001" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jog.2011.05.001</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Döll, P., Kaspar, F., and Lehner, B.: A global hydrological model for deriving water availability indicators: model tuning and validation, J. Hydrol., 270, 105–134, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(02)00283-4" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(02)00283-4</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Flörke, M., Kynast, E., Bärlund, I., Eisner, S., Wimmer, F., and Alcamo, J.: Domestic and industrial water uses of the past 60 years as a mirror of socio-economic development: A global simulation study, Global Environ. Chang., 23, 144–156, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.10.018" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.10.018</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
Heim, R. R.: A review of twentieth-century drought indices used in the United States, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 83, 1149–1166, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477-83.8.1149" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477-83.8.1149</a>, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Hogg, E. H., Barr, A. G., and Black, T. A.: A simple soil moisture index for
representing multi-year drought impacts on aspen productivity in the western
Canadian interior, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 178–179, 173–182, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2013.04.025" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2013.04.025</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Hosseini-Moghari, S.-M., Araghinejad, S., Tourian, M. J., Ebrahimi, K., and Döll, P.: Quantifying the impacts of human water use and climate variations on recent drying of Lake Urmia basin: the value of different sets of spaceborne and in situ data for calibrating a global hydrological model, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 1939–1956, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-1939-2020" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-1939-2020</a>, 2020. nz
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Hunger, M. and Döll, P.: Value of river discharge data for global-scale hydrological modeling, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 12, 841–861, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-12-841-2008" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-12-841-2008</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
Kumar, N., Murthy, S., Sai, S., and Roy, S.: On the use of Standardized
Precipitation Index (SPI) for drought intensity assessment,
Meteorol. Appl.,  16, 381389, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/met.136" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/met.136</a>,   2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Langat, P. K., Kumar, L., and Koech, R.: Identification of the Most Suitable Probability Distribution Models for Maximum, Minimum, and Mean Streamflow, Water, 11, 734, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/w11040734" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3390/w11040734</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
López-Moreno, J. I., Vicente-Serrano, S. M., Beguería, S., García-Ruiz, J. M., Portela, M. M., and Almeida, A. B.: Dam effects on droughts magnitude and duration in a transboundary basin: The Lower River Tagus, Spain and Portugal, Water Resour. Res., 45, 6, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008WR007198" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2008WR007198</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Lorenzo-Lacruz, J., Vicente-Serrano, S. M., López-Moreno, J. I., Beguería, S., García-Ruiz, J. M., and Cuadrat, J. M.: The impact of droughts and water management on various hydrological systems in the headwaters of the Tagus River (central Spain), J. Hydrol., 386, 13–26, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.01.001" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.01.001</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Mckee, T. B., Doesken, N. J., and Kleist, J.: The relationship of drought
frequency and duration times scales, Eight conference on Applied Climatology,
17–22 January 1993, Anaheim, California, 17–22, 1993.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
Meza, I., Siebert, S., Döll, P., Kusche, J., Herbert, C., Eyshi Rezaei, E., Nouri, H., Gerdener, H., Popat, E., Frischen, J., Naumann, G., Vogt, J. V., Walz, Y., Sebesvari, Z., and Hagenlocher, M.: Global-scale drought risk assessment for agricultural systems, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 695–712, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-20-695-2020" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-20-695-2020</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
Modarres, R.: Streamflow drought time series forecasting, Stoch. Env. Res. Risk A., 21, 223–233, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-006-0058-1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-006-0058-1</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Müller Schmied, H., Eisner, S., Franz, D., Wattenbach, M., Portmann, F. T., Flörke, M., and Döll, P.: Sensitivity of simulated global-scale freshwater fluxes and storages to input data, hydrological model structure, human water use and calibration, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 3511–3538, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-3511-2014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-3511-2014</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
Müller Schmied, H., Cáceres, D., Eisner, S., Flörke, M., Herbert, C., Niemann, C., Peiris, T. A., Popat, E., Portmann, F. T., Reinecke, R., Shadkam, S., Trautmann, T., and Döll, P.: The global water resources and use model WaterGAP v2.2d – Standard model output, PANGAEA, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.918447" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.918447</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Müller Schmied, H., Cáceres, D., Eisner, S., Flörke, M., Herbert, C., Niemann,
C., Peiris, T. A., Popat, E., Portmann, F. T., Reinecke, R., Schumacher, M.,
Shadkam, S., Telteu, C.-E., Trautmann, T., and Döll, P.: The global water
resources and use model WaterGAP v2.2d: model description and evaluation,
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 1037–1079, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1037-2021" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1037-2021</a>,
2021.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
Neena, J. M., Suhas, E., and Goswami, B. N.: Leading role of internal dynamics in the 2009 Indian summer monsoon drought, J. Geophys. Res., 116,  D13103, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JD015328" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JD015328</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
Palmer, W. C.: Meteorological drought, U.S. Research Paper No. 45, US Weather Bureau, Washington, DC, 58 pp., 1965.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
Popat, E. and Döll, P.: Soil moisture and streamflow deficit anomaly index: An approach to quantify drought hazards by combining deficit and anomaly-outputs, figshare, <a href="https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14213852" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14213852</a>, 2021.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
Richter, B. D., Davis, M. M., Apse, C., and Konrad, C.: A presumptive standard for environmental flow protection, River Res. Appl., 28, 13121321, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.1511" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.1511</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
Seager, R.: The Turn of the Century North American Drought: Global Context, Dynamics, and Past Analogs, J. Climate, 20, 5527–5552, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2007JCLI1529.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/2007JCLI1529.1</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
Sharma, T. C. and Panu, U. S.: Predicting return periods of hydrological droughts using the Pearson 3 distribution: a case from rivers in the Canadian prairies, Hydrolog. Sci. J., 60, 1783–1796, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2014.934824" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2014.934824</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
Sheffield, J., Goteti, G., Wen, F., and Wood, E. F.: A simulated soil moisture based drought analysis for the United States, J. Geophys. Res., 109, 7449, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD005182" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD005182</a>, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
Siebert, S., Kummu, M., Porkka, M., Döll, P., Ramankutty, N., and Scanlon, B.: Historical Irrigation Dataset (HID), MyGeoHUB, <a href="https://doi.org/10.13019/M20599" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.13019/M20599</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
Spinoni, J., Barbosa, P., Jager, A. de, McCormick, N., Naumann, G., Vogt, J. V., Magni, D., Masante, D., and Mazzeschi, M.: A new global database of meteorological drought events from 1951 to 2016, J. Hydrol., 22, 100593, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2019.100593" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2019.100593</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
Sridhar, V., Hubbard, K. G., You, J., and Hunt, E. D.: Development of the soil moisture index to quantify agricultural drought and Its “user friendliness” in severity-area-duration assessment, J. Hydrometeorol., 9, 660676, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2007JHM892.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/2007JHM892.1</a>, 2008.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
Svensson, C., Hannaford, J., and Prosdocimi, I.: Statistical distributions for monthly aggregations of precipitation and streamflow in drought indicator applications, Water Resour. Res., 53, 999–1018, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016WR019276" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2016WR019276</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>
Van Loon, A. F., Stahl, K., Di Baldassarre, G., Clark, J., Rangecroft, S., Wanders, N., Gleeson, T., Van Dijk, A. I. J. M., Tallaksen, L. M., Hannaford, J., Uijlenhoet, R., Teuling, A. J., Hannah, D. M., Sheffield, J., Svoboda, M., Verbeiren, B., Wagener, T., and Van Lanen, H. A. J.: Drought in a human-modified world: reframing drought definitions, understanding, and analysis approaches, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 3631–3650, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-3631-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-3631-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
Veldkamp, T. I. E., Zhao, F., Ward, P. J., de Moel, H., Aerts, J. C. J. H., Schmied, H. M., Portmann, F. T., Masaki, Y., Pokhrel, Y., Liu, X., Satoh, Y., Gerten, D., Gosling, S. N., Zaherpour, J., and Wada, Y.: Human impact parameterizations in global hydrological models improve estimates of monthly discharges and hydrological extremes: a multi-model validation study, Environ. Res. Lett., 13, 55008, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aab96f" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aab96f</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
Vicente-Serrano, S. M., Beguería, S., and López-Moreno, J. I.: A Multiscalar Drought Index Sensitive to Global Warming: The Standardized Precipitation Evapotranspiration Index, J. Climate, 23, 16961718, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JCLI2909.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JCLI2909.1</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
Wu, H., Hayes, M. J., Weiss, A., and Hu, Q.: An evaluation of the Standardized Precipitation Index, the China-Z Index and the statistical Z-Score, Int. J. Climatol., 21, 745–758, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.658" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.658</a>, 2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>
Zaherpour, J., Gosling, S. N., Mount, N., Schmied, H. M., Veldkamp, T. I. E., Dankers, R., Eisner, S., Gerten, D., Gudmundsson, L., Haddeland, I., Hanasaki, N., Kim, H., Leng, G., Liu, J., Masaki, Y., Oki, T., Pokhrel, Y., Satoh, Y., Schewe, J., and Wada, Y.: Worldwide evaluation of mean and extreme runoff from six global-scale hydrological models that account for human impacts, Environ. Res. Lett., 13, 65015, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aac547" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aac547</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>
Zaherpour, J., Mount, N., Gosling, S. N., Dankers, R., Eisner, S., Gerten, D., Liu, X., Masaki, Y., Müller Schmied, H., Tang, Q., and Wada, Y.: Exploring the value of machine learning for weighted multi-model combination of an ensemble of global hydrological models, Environ. Modell. Softw., 114, 112–128, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2019.01.003" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2019.01.003</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
