Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
In recent years, there has been a growing emphasis on drought vulnerability within the broader context of drought risk assessments, which can be primarily attributed to the pivotal role that vulnerability plays in determining the potential impacts of drought and in shaping drought management. Nevertheless, effective drought mitigation efforts should not solely focus on a thorough examination of drought vulnerability but should also factor in preparedness, if they are to gain a broader perspective and produce meaningful change for the human communities and systems impacted by droughts. This holds significant implications for the farming sector and, at a deeper level, for small or medium farmers, who stand at the forefront in terms of vulnerability to drought and also face significant challenges in withstanding its impacts. This study investigates the convergences and divergences between drought vulnerability and self-reported preparedness, with a specific focus on 1) the spatial patterns of vulnerability and preparedness, and 2) the relationships between these key elements, local landforms, and farm settings. The selected farming community, namely the livestock farmers in the Northeast of Romania, stands out as one of the most representative, year-long exposed to drought. The analysis focuses on agricultural drought within the last decade, and it relies on a downscaled, index-based approach. In order to compare the vulnerability and preparedness levels, two indexes are computed under an intuitive additive approach based on the data gathered from a survey conducted in situ on 141 livestock farmers in May-July 2023. Drought vulnerability is examined in terms of access to water resources, basic infrastructure, availability of reserves, networking level, farming education background and experience of farmers, and diversity of farming activities. Self-reported drought preparedness is conceptualised under a dichotomic approach that integrates proxies of both objective and subjective preparedness. Ranging from 0 to 1, the values of the Drought Vulnerability Index and Drought Preparedness Index are divided into equal-interval levels (i.e., very low, low, medium, high, and very high). Drought vulnerability levels are mapped against those of self-reported preparedness to discern spatial patterns within the study area. Further on, statistical tests (e.g., t-test, Spearman correlation) are conducted to explore significant relationships between drought vulnerability, preparedness, local landforms, and farm settings. Under the presented methodological framework, a negative correlation emerged between drought vulnerability and self-reported preparedness. Cross-correlations point out that the farming educational background, availability of fodder and financial reserves, basic infrastructure, and access to water play prominent roles in shaping both drought vulnerability and preparedness. Although there are no evident spatial patterns in drought preparedness levels, drought vulnerability shows a northward increase in the study area. In addition, there is a significant variation in both drought vulnerability and preparedness between different farm sizes, revealing that smaller farms have higher vulnerability and lower preparedness. This paper significantly contributes to the understanding of drought vulnerability in Europe, specifically in an area still underexplored in this regard. The findings serve as a roadmap for developing contextually relevant drought management plans, and the cross-correlations reveal the key components of vulnerability or preparedness.
Albulescu et al. (Fri,) studied this question.