Vulnerability NU

Environmental Development 45 (2023) 100799
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Environmental Development
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envdev
An index-based approach to assess the vulnerability of

socio-ecological systems to aridity and drought in the Danube
Delta, Romania
Nicoleta Damian a, Bianca Mitrică b, *, Irena Mocanu b, Ines Grigorescu a,
Monica Dumitraşcu c
a
Environmental Geography and GIS Department, Institute of Geography, Romanian Academy, 12 Dimitrie Racoviţă Str., Sector 2, RO-023993,
Bucharest, Romania
b
Human Geography and Regional Development Department, Institute of Geography, Romanian Academy, 12 Dimitrie Racoviţă Str., Sector 2, RO-
023993, Bucharest, Romania
c
Physical Geography Department, Institute of Geography, Romanian Academy, 12 Dimitrie Racoviţă Str., Sector 2, RO-023993, Bucharest, Romania
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Delta regions are compound socio-ecological systems increasingly exposed to various multi-
Socio-economic vulnerability hazards (e.g., drought, flooding). The Danube Delta, one of the most complex wetland areas in
Socio-ecological systems Europe, and one of the most vulnerable regions when it comes to drought, defined by its key
Aridity and drought
vulnerable categories: women, children, the elderly population, the unemployed etc. In addition
Danube Delta
to the demographic aspects, there is also the infrastructure that puts a damper on the develop
ment of certain sectors of the economy, be they technical (water, gas, electricity), or social
(schools, medicine, medical facilities). The current paper aims to apply a multi-criteria regional-
level aridity and drought vulnerability assessment relying on both quantitative and qualitative
methods in attaining a two-fold objective: (1) developing a comprehensive socio-economic aridity
and drought vulnerability index in order to (2) identifying aridity and drought-vulnerable areas
based on the finest indicators available for quantifying socio-economic vulnerability. The main
research findings point to a general high and very high socio-economic vulnerability in the central
and northern parts of the Danube Delta (36.3% of the total population) because of the high values
of the elderly population, of households not connected to the water supply and sewage network,
of the economic dependency rate, the high distance from the polarizing centres and the small
numbers of emergency situation units. The low and very low vulnerability is registered in the
West and in Sulina town (19.4% of the total population) where the accessibility to infrastructure
and services makes up for the overall high drought exposure (dry/arid and semiarid climate). The
research findings will improve the general understanding of drought vulnerability in a deltaic
area, thus providing valuable information to be used by policymakers for drought management.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: nicoleta_damian2002@yahoo.com (N. Damian), biancadumitrescu78@yahoo.com (B. Mitrică), mocanitai@yahoo.com
(I. Mocanu), inesgrigorescu@yahoo.com (I. Grigorescu), stefania_dumitrascu@yahoo.com (M. Dumitraşcu).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2022.100799
Received 14 July 2022; Received in revised form 17 November 2022; Accepted 17 December 2022
Available online 24 December 2022
2211-4645/© 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
N. Damian et al. Environmental Development 45 (2023) 100799
1. Introduction
Delta regions are socio-ecological systems (Brondizio et al., 2016) that have become hotspots of global change impact due to the
high levels of exposure to multiple (social-) natural hazards (Szabo et al., 2016; Hagenlocher et al., 2018) affecting both humans and
the environment, i.e., a rise in sea level, droughts, floods, heatwaves, river bank and coastal erosion, cyclones, storms, tsunamis, and
sea water and salinity intrusion (Syvitski, 2008; Sebesvari et al., 2016; Hagenlocher et al., 2018; Tran et al., 2021). Worldwide,
thirty-three major delta regions cover nearly 26,000 km2 of vulnerable area below the local mean sea level and another ~70,000 km2
below 2 m (Overeem and Syvitski, 2009). According to Ericson et al. (2006), for a sample of 40 deltas worldwide there are close to 300
million inhabitants. Over 73% of this population is concentrated in 10 countries, mostly in South and South-east Asia: China, India,
Bangladesh, Vietnam, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines (Sanchez-Rodriguez et al., 2007). Delta regions, and especially wetlands,
are important for human well-being as they provide local people with essential environmental resources through valuable ecosystem
services, such as climate regulation, opportunities for fishing, and the provision of water resources for crop production and leisure
activities (Malekmohammadi and Jahanishakib, 2017; Hiernaux et al., 2021; Hossain and Banik, 2022).
Due to their dynamic biophysical nature, deltas are made up of multiple socio-ecological systems – from those dominated by
agriculture to those dedicated to the fisheries (Barbier et al., 2011; Adams et al., 2020; Tran et al., 2021), generally highly populated,
subject to ongoing and future global change impact. Consequently, they have become ecologic and economic sentinels of sustainable
development, whose state has great significance both locally, as well as nationally and globally (Hagenlocher et al., 2018). Addi
tionally, the health of wetland ecosystems worldwide is increasingly under threat from environmental pressures, mainly driven by
human activities: the water used for agriculture, the discharge of industrial and domestic wastewater and the consumption of wetland
vegetation for fuel and livestock feed (Malekmohammadi and Jahanishakib, 2017; Qazlbash et al., 2021).
As a result of rising hazard exposure combined with high vulnerabilities of deltaic socio-ecological systems, delta regions pose
specific challenges to environmental governance and sustainability (Brondizio et al., 2016). However, the general limited approach to
deltaic socio-ecological systems in vulnerability analyses has improved significantly in recent years (Brondizio et al., 2016; Mansur
et al., 2016; Sebesvari et al., 2016; Szabo et al., 2016; Hagenlocher et al., 2018; Anderson et al., 2019), with numerous recent studies
being performed (e.g., Sebesvari et al., 2016; Tran et al., 2021; Hiernaux et al., 2021; Swain et al., 2022; Savari et al., 2022). Thus,
complex frameworks have been developed to assess delta regions taking into account various socio-economic and environmental sets
of indicators. For example, Mansur et al. (2016) published a conceptual model of vulnerability designed for the urban areas of the
Amazon Delta and Estuary. Brondizio et al. (2016) used a framework to analyse delta regions (particularly the Amazon River Delta)
based on five components: socio–economic systems, governance systems, ecosystems-resource systems, topographic-hydrological
systems, and oceanic-climate systems. Szabo et al. (2016) provided an overview of population trends and dynamics in the Gang
es–Brahmaputra, Mekong and Amazon deltas. Hagenlocher et al. (2018) proposed an innovative, modular, indicator, library-based
approach which takes into consideration hazard-dependent and independent vulnerability indicators in order to assess coastal
deltas globally and to apply the results to the Amazon, Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna, and Mekong deltas. Tran et al. (2021) put
forward a vulnerability assessment tool combined with a sustainable livelihood framework aimed at evaluating the vulnerability of
coastal communities to extreme drought and salinity intrusion in the Vietnamese Mekong. Swain et al. (2022) advanced a compre
hensive drought vulnerability index over the Narmada River Basin, in India, by incorporating hydroclimatic, socio-economic and
physiographic information so as to assess the overall drought vulnerability.
In the context of global environmental change, understanding the interactions between the social and biophysical systems in delta
regions is critical for ensuring efficient policy planning and a progress towards social and ecological sustainability (Szabo et al., 2016).
In line with the above, the social dimension has always been a key issue in the vulnerability assessment process as part of the IPCC
(2007) and IPCC (2014) Reports (Sharma and Ravindranath, 2019; Das et al., 2020). Moreover, the IPCC et al. (2022) Report reveals
the importance of case studies, as a first step in larger, comparable and generalised scales of approaching the differences across and
within areas (i.e., countries) in terms of climate risk exposure and vulnerability, which are translated into adaptation actions.
However, for delta regions, the socio-ecological vulnerability defined as “the extent to which environmental degradation and
climate change cause negative changes in the exposure, susceptibility and capacity of the socio-ecological system to anticipate, cope
and recover from the hazard” (Depietri, 2020) is essential in covering all aspects of these complex ecosystems. This conceptualization
can be easily extrapolated to delta regions, which, due to the complexity of their socio-ecological systems, are increasingly threatened
by the increasing multi-hazard exposure to climate and non-climate related hazards, with drought, flooding, salinity etc. being the
more relevant (Hagenlocher et al., 2018). Drought is becoming increasingly acute and is more probable to surge in frequency, duration
and intensity in the years to come (IPCC, 2014; Golfam et al., 2021; Kalura et al., 2021; Swain et al., 2021; Swain et al., 2022c). It is a
complex, multi-dimensional and holistic phenomenon, often driven by several contexts and impact-specific factors, namely envi
ronmental, social, economic, cultural, physical and/or institutional (governance) (Birkmann et al., 2013; Hagenlocher et al., 2019).
Assessing drought vulnerability is an important step in identifying the short-term coping capacity and long-term adaptive capacity of
populations, since vulnerability is the propensity of a system to be adversely affected, as a result of its elements’ sensitivity or sus
ceptibility to be harmed (IPCC, 2014). However, among the vulnerability approaches in deltaic socio-ecological systems, drought
vulnerability, in particular, is quite limited; the existing literature largely focuses on the social dimension, rather than on the integrated
socio-ecological systems (Sebesvariet al., 2016; Hagenlocher et al., 2019).
In Central and Southern European regions, drought (Stathatou et al., 2015) and drought vulnerability (Blauhut et al., 2016;
Dumitrașcu et al., 2018; Grigorescu et al., 2021; Mocanu et al., 2021) have received little, yet increasing attention. In Romania, despite
the consistent research which has been dedicated to drought phenomena and their ensuing socio-economic aspects, little attention has
been paid to the socio-economic vulnerability assessment (Dumitrașcu et al., 2018).
2
Generally, drought phenomena were monitored in agricultural systems due to the high market demand of services targeting
agricultural losses (Swain et al., 2022a, 2022b, 2022d). Although particularly susceptible to change, wetland areas are less studied as
drought-prone or drought-affected areas, most likely because wetland habitats are, by nature, ecosystems rich in water, where the
groundwater level remains close to the soil surface throughout the whole year (Ciężkowski et al., 2018). In Romania, drought affects
extended areas in the southern half of the territory (where the study area – the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve – can be found)
becoming more frequent and more impactful over the course of extended periods of consecutive days without rainfall and with higher
temperatures during longer-lasting and intense heat waves (Grigorescu et al., 2021). According to the Disaster Risk Evaluation at the
National Level project - RO-RISK (2016–2018), the Danube Delta falls under the effects of the worst-case scenario (2011–2012), which
was selected at the national level, and which generates the worst possible impact. This scenario calls for a major effort from the
authorities to manage post-event situations (General Inspectorate of Emergency Situations, 2018).
Consequently, the current paper intends to build up and apply a multi-criteria regional-level drought vulnerability assessment in
the most complex wetland areas in Europe – the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve. This approach embraces both quantitative and
qualitative methods in attaining a two-fold objective: (1) developing a comprehensive socio-economic drought vulnerability index in a
complex and fragile socio-ecological system, such as the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve, in order to (2) identifying drought-
vulnerable areas based on the finest indicators available for quantifying socio-economic vulnerability. Thus, vulnerability outcomes
become more accessible to decision makers when dealing with risk assessment and management.
2. The Danube delta – a complex socio-ecological system
The Danube Delta is located in the Eastern part of Romania, North-East of the Dobrogea Plateau, in Tulcea County. The city of
Sulina is the eastern most local administrative unit (LAU) of the country (Figs. 1 and 2). The largest part of the Danube Delta (4150
km2) overlaps the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve, spanning 3510 km2 on Romanian territory (approx. 84%), and 640 km2 on the left-
hand-side of the Chilia Arm (including its secondary delta) on Ukrainian territory (Institute of Geography, 2005). In terms of
surface-area, the Danube Delta ranks third in Europe, after the deltas of the Volga (13,000 km2) and the Kuban (4300 km2); it ranks
22nd worldwide, displaying one of the most complex deltaic biodiversity in the world.
Due to its huge biodiversity, which includes 30 types of ecosystems (23 natural or partially man-made ecosystems, and 7 artificial
ecosystems including agriculture-designated areas and a settlement system) (Gâştescu and Ştiucă, 2008), the Danube Delta (3510 km2)
and the Razim-Sinoe Lagoon complex were declared a Biosphere Reserve by Law 82/1993. In view of its importance, the Reserve was
included on the list of the International Biosphere Network, under the Man and Biosphere (MAB) UNESCO Programme, and declared a
wetland of international significance, especially as a water bird habitat (Ramsar Convention, September 1991), and listed as a natural
Fig. 1. Study area.
3
Fig. 2. Danube Delta LAUs: demographic size.
World Heritage site – UNESCO (December 1991).

The Danube Delta is characterised by a temperate continental climate, with west-to-east (triggered by the continental and maritime
influences, respectively) and north-to-south differences (due to the opening towards the Russian Plain, and the North and Central
Dobrogea Plateau, respectively). In general, the climate of the Danube Delta is shaped by continental and pontic-maritime influences
(Bogdan et al., 2016). The main geomorphological features (a low altitude, a relative uniformity, the absence of major orographic
Fig. 3. Drought-affected areas based on the De Martonne aridity index.
4
obstacles to the advection of the main air masses, and the wide opening to all wind directions) have led to a relative homogeneity of the
climate features. These elements are joined by the climatic influences imposed by the morpho-hydrographic particularities and by
those of the zonal and azonal vegetation layer. Locally, the complex topoclimates of the fluvial and fluvio-marine deltas and the
Razim-Sinoe Lagoon complex are under development, together with the various natural and human-induced topoclimates. Overall, the
Danube Delta is the region where most positive extremes occur (Dragotă et al., 2013):
- the highest values of solar radiation and, thus, of sunshine duration;

- some of the highest average air temperature values in Romania (11.6 ◦ C/Sulina weather station);
- the greatest persistence of clear weather, especially in summer and at noon;
- the lowest average multiannual precipitation amounts (257.5 mm/Sulina weather station);
- the highest amounts of precipitation falling over short time intervals (24 and 48 h);
- the longest intervals with drought phenomena (among the top three in the country in terms of frequency, duration and intensity);
- high frequencies and wind speeds - the highest energy values in the country;
- the high intensity of evaporation and evapotranspiration.
As a result, the Danube Delta is one of the areas more affected by aridity and drought (Lungu et al., 2012; Vlăduţ et al., 2017;
Croitoru et al., 2013) dealing with a more severe impact during spring and summer (Croitoru et al., 2013). Among the aridity indices
often used to identify regions prone to drought, the De Martonne classification places the study area in the 5–15 (dry) and 15–20
(semiarid) intervals, with the most critical values being registered at Sulina (12.5 mm/ C) and Sf. Gheorghe (16.3 mm/ C) weather
◦ ◦
stations (Fig. 3).

However, on a multi-annual oscillation (1961–2009), two of the most important weather stations flanking the Danube Delta to the
West (Tulcea) and East (Sulina) recorded key aridity index values associated to the arid or semi-arid climate. For instance, the most
critical values were registered at Sulina weather station. According to De Martonne’s index, the years 2003 (5.2 mm/ C), 2001 (6
◦
mm/ C) and 2000 (6.1 mm/ C) are attributed to the arid interval. Overall, the index matches up to the 10–15 interval (semi-arid),
◦ ◦
which confirms not only the inter-annual oscillations, but also the stability of a local climate with semi-arid features in the Danube
Delta (Prăvălie and Bandoc, 2015).
The study area comprises the Local Administrative Units (LAUs) located strictly between the three arms of the Danube, accessible
mostly on water, isolated from the other localities, which have direct access to the other roads transport network (roads, railways). The
Danube Delta consists of only one urban LAU, Sulina, and seven rural LAUs (22 villages) with a population of 10,777 inhabitants
(2019), who depend on the local economy and on a limited number of natural resources.
The Danube Delta is a restrictive geographical area, due to physical-geographical constraints (emerged surfaces limiting the
development of settlements, the dominance of the hydrographical component, vegetation and specific soils) and relational ones (its
peripheral position, isolation, the low degree of accessibility). The local economy is dependent on the natural resources, which have
started to become more and more limited. The main activities, i.e., fishing and agriculture, have undergone significant change over
time because of renaturation works, the restriction of the fishing activity, the drop in fish catches caused by prolonged droughts, the
eutrophication of lakes etc. (Damian, 2013). Droughts and floods directly and indirectly affect people as part of the biosphere. These
two extreme phenomena could be assimilated to natural risks, as a result of the human-environment interaction, and might represent a
territorial dysfunction (Mierlă and Romanescu, 2012). Thus, the complexity of the human-ecological relationships enhances the
importance of studying this region of European significance. On the other hand, the Danube Delta has a favourable geographical
position from an economic point of view, due to the naval traffic that takes place on the Sulina Canal.
3. Methodology
So far, numerous indices have been developed and used to quantify and describe drought in various ecosystems (e.g., forest,
grassland, agricultural) and at various scales. However, for wetland ecosystems, it is less clear which of the existing indices would be
suitable, since aquatic ecosystems are generally more sensitive to drought when the water table depth fluctuates around zero (Zhao
et al., 2017). To date, the most widely used methodology in the vulnerability analysis is the indicator-based assessment through the
development of one or more composite indices, such as the compilation of multi-thematic individual indicators into a single value
(Anderson et al., 2019). According to Hagenlocher et al. (2018), vulnerability and risk in areas with strong social and ecological
coupling, such as deltas and coastal deltas, is not fully understood.
This study aims to build a Socio-Economic Drought Vulnerability Index in a wetland area (SEV_Dw) in the Danube Delta, and to
map it at local level (LAUs level). Finally, each deltaic LAU will be synthetically characterised in terms of socio-demographic, inhabited
environment, economic and geographic location, so as to highlight and explain their level of vulnerability to drought, despite the large
or – in the case of settlements located on longitudinal river levees –limited surfaces covered by water (e.g., lakes, canals, swamps).
Overall, in the Danube Delta, almost 11,000 people are exposed to drought phenomena. As a result, to analyse the local pop
ulation’s vulnerability to drought in the Danube Delta, the authors have tried to provide a broader understanding by identifying a
larger number of vulnerability indicators, which were classified into 4 vulnerability categories: socio-demographic indicators (the
demographic size of localities, population density, the feminization index, demographic aging, the share of the young population in the
total population); socio-economic indicators (the structure of the active population, the population’s level of education or degree of
literacy, land use, poverty, disadvantaged social groups, the unemployment rate, schools, physicians, medical facilities, the infant
mortality rate); physical indicators that define the quality of housing (connection to water, gas, electricity, no. of inh./inhabitable
5
area) (Mocanu et al., 2019); location indicators (the distance to the nearest urban centre or polarizing centres of different categories,
traffic axes, i.e., the cities of Sulina and Tulcea).
The selection of variables is the most important step in the index construction process (Bera et al., 2019). Apart from the intrinsic
characteristics that explain vulnerability, the variables related to the specific socio-economic context where the vulnerability analysis
is being conducted should also be taken into consideration, as vulnerability is a place-specific concept (Cutter, 1996; Adger et al., 2004;
Oulahen et al., 2015; Anderson et al., 2019).
The methodology follows two main paths, that is, to identify the drought-prone areas and to analyse the socio-economic vulner
ability to drought.
The methodological approach follows four steps (1 to 4 in Fig. 3), divided between two linked components: the climatic component
(A), which delineates the deltaic areas most affected by drought phenomena, and the added valuable information for the socio-
economic component (B). Together, they explain the different scores of the SEV, as assessed in the final step (5).
(A) Drought is considered a temporary phenomenon, while aridity is a permanent feature of the climate, with inevitable recurrence,
which is dependent on the natural decrease in the amount of precipitation over an extended period of time, as well as on other
associated climatic factors (i.e., high temperatures, high winds, low relative humidity) which can add to the severity of the event
(Wilhite, 2000). Scientific literature focused on measuring the spatial and temporal extent of drought and often used aridity indices
calculated based on different climatic elements (Lungu et al., 2012; Croitoru et al., 2013; Vlăduţ et al., 2017; Vlăduț and Licurici,
2020). However, our choice regarding the indicator used was primarily based on the idea supported by many authors that although
precipitation-only based indices (i.e., SPI) are still largely used, most scientists prefer to identify drought and aridity conditions using
indices based on two or more climatic elements (Croitoru et al., 2013; Ontel and Vlăduț, 2015), in this case the De Martonne Aridity
Index, computed based on temperature and precipitations. They were generally used by academics and decision makers and developed
to meet specific needs (Yihdego et al., 2019). In the Danube Delta, most of the applied aridity and drought indicators (e.g., Climatic
Water Balance – CWB, Climatic Water Deficit – CWD, Standardized Precipitation Evapotranspiration Index – SPEI, De Martonne)
pointed to an increased aridity trend. Păltineanu et al. (2009) used CWD, Bandoc and Prăvălie (2015) used and Prăvălie and Bandoc
(2015) used the UNEP Aridity Index to reveal the critical aridity index values registered at the weather stations located in the Danube
Delta. Based on SPI values, Cheval et al. (2014) highlighted the increasing dryness in several weather stations during winter and spring
for the 1961–2010 period. On a seasonal time scale, the SPEI showed some dryness trends (especially SPEI-12) increasing in magnitude
from the eastern to the north-western Dobrogea Region where the Danube Delta lies (Chelu et al., 2020). As shown by Bogdan (2006),
the aridity and drought phenomena evidenced by the De Martonne aridity index point to an increased aridity degree eastwards in the
Danube Delta.
Considering the two key features defining the climate of the Danube Delta, i.e., the highest average temperature values and the
lowest average multiannual precipitation amounts, the authors applied the De Martonne Index (Iar-DM), which uses the temperature-
precipitation relationship (De Martonne, 1926): Iar-DM = P/(T + 10), where P is the mean annual precipitation amount (mm) and T is
the mean annual temperature (0C). Iar-DM was computed for the most relevant weather stations in the study area: Tulcea, Sulina,
Gorgova and Sf. Gheorghe, for the 1961–2010 period. In Fig. 3, the climate component (A) is represented by the De Martonne index.
(B) The socio-economic vulnerability to aridity and drought should mirror, as much as possible, the complexity of the unique socio-
economic territorial system (Ianoș, 2000) that is the Danube Delta. As a result, the socio-economic component (Fig. 3 step B) of
Fig. 4. The methodology applied in the development of socio-economic vulnerability to aridity and drought in Danube Delta.
6
drought vulnerability envisages the four key dimensions of the deltaic socio-ecological system, namely, the demographics, the
inhabited environment, the economic context and its unique geographic location, with deep implications for all other life as
pects (Fig. 4).
Fig. 5 shows the most important direct and indirect effects of drought on the different dimensions of vulnerability, ultimately
influencing its level in each LAU. The relationship between water (as the main natural component and driving force within a delta
system) and drought (as a water shortage for ecosystems, human communities and their activities according to the World Meteoro
logical Organization, 1992; the American Meteorological Society, 1997 quoted by Heim, 2002; Solomon et al., 2007) constitutes a
challenge in terms of selecting the indicators (Fig. 4, step B.1). Capitalizing on the international and national literature focusing on the
drought vulnerability assessment and the experts’ judgement, an “ideal” extended set of statistical variables and indicators resulted
based on the experiences obtained in different scientific projects (e.g., the RO-RISK project, the ROBUHAZ-DUN project) (Mocanu
et al., 2021). This “ideal” set was enriched by several variables, in two ways: i) the expert judgement offered us some indicators specific
for isolated deltaic areas (e.g., the number of fishermen holding commercial fishing licences, the population living in villages directly
connected to the nearest main channel), and ii) the scientific literature focusing on methods and indices used to estimate drought
vulnerability (e.g., Spinoni et al., 2016, 2018; Blauhut et al., 2016; Dumitrașcu et al., 2018; Grigorescu et al., 2021; Mocanu et al.,
2021). Thus, the result was a comprehensive set of variables/indicators, the most appropriate to assess the socio-economic vulnera
bility (SEV). This base-set was structured in order to highlight the four dimensions of vulnerability (socio-demographic, inhabited
environment, economic and geographic location) and the main direct and indirect influences exerted by the drought phenomenon on
deltaic socio-economic and ecologic territorial systems. In order to become operational for the assessment of SEV in the Danube Delta,
the base-set of indicators was passed through two consecutive levels of “filtersˮ: firstly, that of availability and, secondly, that of
dependence between indicators. In order to assess the SEV Index, (SEVI) the authors valorised the available statistical data published
by the National Institute of Statistics (NIS) (National Institute of Statistics, 2019), the Tulcea County Statistical Direction for 8 LAUs in
the Danube Delta, as well as other sources of data and information, such as reports prepared by the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve
Administration (www.ddbra.ro), together with other projects and reports prepared by the WWF in collaboration with other organi
sations and experts in the field (Climate-proofing the Danube Delta through integrated land and water management).
Each statistical indicator has a different influence on the SEVI values and on its territorial distribution. However, two or more
indicators might equally influence the index. With this in mind, each statistical indicator was filtered through nested questions, each of
them providing two choices or leads (Van Sinh et al., 2017). Thus, the degree of determination (e.g., the influence score) or subor
dination (e.g., the dependency score) of each statistical indicator was established using the number of indicators influenced by variable
X and the number of indicators influencing variable X. As a result, the selected variables would be integrated into indicators, and after
that into indices of vulnerability to drought (Fig. 4 step B2) as shown in Table 1.
The validation of the selected indicators has been done using the expert judgment approach and the focus group technique, which
Fig. 5. Types of drought (Wilhite and Glantz, 1985) and their influences on components of vulnerability in the Danube Delta (Source: the authors’
own design).
7
Table 1
Socio-economic vulnerability indicators.
CV/Index Variables & Description (i), data sources (ii) and Acronym Influence of Expression of
indicators selected measurement unit (iii) indicators on SEVI influence
Socio-demographic (SD)/ 1.Female population (i) the share of female persons of FEM If ↑ POP, then VULN ↑ +
SD Vulnerability to Romanian citizenship and permanent
aridity and drought residence; (ii) NIS, TEMPOnline time
Index (SDVI) series; (iii) %.
2.Vulnerable age (i) persons aged 65 and over; (ii) NIS, AGE If ↑ AGE, then VULN þ
group TEMPOnline time series; (iii) % ↑
3.Ethnic diversity (i) the Ethnic Diversity Index (EDI) based EDI If ↑ EDIA, then VULN þ
on the share of minorities in the total ↑
population (ii) NIS, 2011 Census; (iii) %
4.Healthcare (i) the healthcare infrastructure as HEALTH If ↑ HEALTH, then -
services revealed by the number of physicians in VULN ↓
each LAU (ii) NIS, TEMPOnline time
series;(iii) no. of physicians/100 inh.
5.Early warning and (i) includes the units underthe Tulcea ESU If ↑ IES, then VULN ↓ -
intervention County Inspectorate for Emergency
services Situations; (ii) https://www.igsu.ro/;
(iii) number of Emergency Situation
Units/100 inh.
Inabited environment 6. Drinking water (i) the length of the drinking water WATER_L If ↑ WATER_L, then -
(IE)/IE Vulnerability network network (ii) NIS, TEMPOnline time VULN ↓
Index to aridity and series; (iii) km/100 inh.
drought (IEVI) 7.Connectivity to (i) the share of households not connected NO_WATER If ↑ NO_WATER%, þ
drinking water to the drinking water supply network (ii) then VULN ↑
network NIS, 2011 Census; (iii) %
8.Drinking water (i) the volume of drinking water supplied WATER_SUP If ↑ WATER_SUP, -
supply (ii) NIS, TEMPOnline time series; (iii) then VULN ↓
thou. m2/100 inh./year
9.Sewerage network (i) the length of the sewerage network SEWE_L If ↑ SEWE_L, then -
(ii) NIS, TEMPOnline time series; (iii) VULN ↓
km/100 inh.
10.Connectivity to (i) the share of households connected to SEWE_CONN If ↑ SEWE%, then -
sewerage network the sewerage network (ii) NIS, 2011 VULN ↓
Census; (iii) %
Economic (EC)/EC 11.Economic (i) the economic dependency rate EC_DEPEND If ↑EC_DEPEND, then þ
Vulnerability Index dependency represents the ratio between the VULN ↑
to aridity and employed and unemployed population
drought (EVI) (%); (ii) NIS, TEMPOnline time series;
(iii) %
12.Fishing (i) the number of fishermen holding FISHING If ↑ FISHING, then þ
commercial fishing licences; (ii) www. VULN ↑
ddbra.ro; (iii) no.
13.Tourism (i) the share of the economically active TOURISM If ↑ TOURISM, then þ
employment population employed in tourism; (ii) NIS, VULN ↑
2011 Census; (iii) %
14.Watertransport (i) the share of the economically active TRANSP If ↑ WATER_TRANSP, þ
dependency population employed in transport; (ii) then VULN ↑
NIS, 2011 Census;(iii) %
15.Employees (i) the share of employees out of the total EMPLOYEES If ↑ EMPLOYEES, -
employed population; (ii) NIS, 2011 then VULN ↓
Census;(iii) %
Geographical Position 16.Settlements (i) the Settlements Dispersion Index SDI If ↑ SDI, then VULN ↑ þ
(GP)/GP distribution (Demangeon) showing the scattering
Vulnerability Index degree of the centre of localities; (ii)
to aridity drought computed by authors based on NIS, 2011
(GPVI) Census; (iii) unit
17.Distance (i) the distance of each LAU to the Tulcea DIST If ↑ DIST, then VULN þ
county-seat (ii) Google Earth; (iii) km ↑
18.Accessibility on (i) the share of the population out of the WATER_ACCESS If ↑ WATER_ACCESS, -
water total population living in villages directly then VULN ↓
connected to the nearest main channel;
(ii) computed by authors based on NIS,
the Census 2011 and Google Earth; (iii) %
involved two focus groups (Dumitrașcu et al., 2018; Grigorescu et al., 2021; Mocanu et al., 2021): (1) an institutional focus group
consisting of several institutions and regional authorities (e.g., the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve Administration, the National
Meteorological Administration, the Romanian General Inspectorate for Emergency Situations, the Tulcea County “Delta” Inspectorate
for Emergency Situations) and (2) an academic focus group made up of experts in natural hazards and vulnerability analysis (drought
8
included). The members of the two focus groups were asked to express their opinions in terms of the selection, processing and
interpretation of indicators that had significantly improved the methodology. Hence, climatologists helped with the selection of the
best drought index, while vulnerability analysis experts and local and regional stakeholders provided support for the selection of the
most fit indicators. Both meetings were held in Bucharest and were hosted by the Institute of Geography of the Romanian Academy.
The data normalization process (i.e., the min-max normalization technique) eliminated the disadvantage of different measurement
units which express the variables of the statistical indicators (Ianoş 1997; Popovici et al., 2018; Mitrică et al., 2017a,b).
The integration of indicators in a single index of SEVI made up step B3 (Fig. 4). The index was computed based on the four
components of vulnerability: socio-demographic (SDV), inhabited environment (IEV), economic (EV) and geographic location (GPV).
Thus, an index of socio-economic vulnerability to aridity and drought in the wetlands (SEV_ADI) was calculated for each component of
vulnerability. Considering that all indices were computed as a Hull Score with a mean value of 50 and a standard deviation of 14
(Cohen and Holliday, 2001), the equations are as follows:
SDVI = 50 + 14*(FEM + AGE + EDI – HEALTH – ESU)/5;
IEVI = 50 + 14*(NO_WATER – WATER_L – WATER_SUP – SEWE_L –SEWE_CONN)/5;
EVI = 50 + 14*(EC_DEPEND + FISHING + TOURISM + TRANSP – EMPLOYEES)/5;
GPVI = 50 + 14*(SDI + DIST – WATER_ACCESS)/ 3
We note that the indicators with a direct effect on SEV have been deemed positive (”+“, e.g., the Ethnic Diversity Index, meaning
the share of minorities in the total population) and those with a reverse effect were assumed to be negative (”− “, e.g., accessibility on
water, that is, the share of the total population living in villages directly connected to the nearest main channel) (Ianoş, 1997). All
indicators weigh equally in the final index (e.g., Mocanu et al., 2021; Mitrică et al., 2021).
Integrating the indicators in 4 secondary indices (reflecting the components of vulnerability) and in the Socio-Economic Vulner
ability Index (SEVI) is step B3 (Fig. 4).
The values registered by SEV allowed for the classification of socio-economic drought vulnerability in the Danube Delta and for the
mapping of the SEV’s degrees at the level of each local-administrative unit (LAU) (Fig. 4 step B4). The scaling of SEVI ranges from
48.64 (least vulnerable) to 54.31 (most vulnerable).
Overlapping and assessing (Fig. 4, step B5) the areas with high aridity and drought and SEV values is the last research stage, which
offers the possibility to compare the territorial distribution of these two indices and to make various observations regarding the in
fluence of drought on each of the components of vulnerability. The result is the Socio-economic Vulnerability to Aridity and Drought
Index (SEV_ADI).
4. Results
4.1. Socio-demographic vulnerability
One of the main factors of population vulnerability to drought is quantified by socio-demographic vulnerability as registered by
Fig. 6. Socio-demographic vulnerability index.
9
various vulnerable population groups, the healthcare system and the early warning and intervention services, which allow for the
shaping of the analysed territory’s social particularities. The Socio-demographic Vulnerability Index (SDVI) registers values between
48.367 in Pardina, 48.638 in Sfântu Gheorghe (less vulnerable settlements) and 53.809 in Chilia Veche (most vulnerable) (Fig. 6). The
LAUs of Maliuc (50.816), Sulina town (51.576) and C.A. Rosetti (51.885) fall into a medium-degree vulnerability category.
The lowest values of SDVI are influenced by the lowest values of indicators related to demographic aspects (i.e., gender and age
structure), and by the efficient early warning and intervention services.
The data registered in 2019 showed that, out of the total number of inhabitants - 10,777 pers. – the female population made up
5112 (47.4%), compared to the national average of51.2%). Less vulnerable from this point of view are Ceatalchioi (41.4% female
population) and Pardina (43.1%), while the most vulnerable is Sulina town (49.7%).
The age structure of the rural population of Romania in general has gone through significant mutations, owing mainly to severe
demographic aging, as the number and share of adults and elderly people (especially those aged 65 and over) are increasing, while the
population under 15 years of age is decreasing (Mitrică et al., 2019). The study-area is in line with this national trend. As a result, given
the dynamics and the accentuated rhythm of population aging, these localities may be prone to a demographic risk in the Danube
Delta, a territory also affected by the aging process. Thus, this category of vulnerable population will increase the demographic
vulnerability to climate change, and to drought phenomena, respectively. As concerns the territorial profile, at different ends of the
spectrum lie C.A. Rosetti, with a value of 35.6%, twice the national average (16.5%), and Pardina with a minimum value of 8.9%
(Fig. 7). The other LAUs register values between 17.0 and 19.3%.
Early warning and intervention services are provided by the Tulcea County Inspectorate for Emergency Situations (IES), a sub-unit
of the Romanian General Inspectorate for Emergency Situations, part of the Ministry for Administration and of Internal Affairs. The
Tulcea IES provides the structural and functional framework for prevention and disaster risk reduction, as well as the coordination and
response in case of emergency situations (Mocanu et al., 2020). In the Danube Delta, voluntary services for emergency situations are
functional in Crișan, Chilia Veche, C.A. Rosetti, or Ceatalchioi. The Crişan Ship Fire Picket is operative in Crişan, and falls under the
Tulcea County “Delta” Inspectorate for Emergency Situations. The number of emergency situation units/100 inh. has low values,
between 0.050 and 0.087 in Chilia Veche, in Sulina town and in Crişan (where both an IES and a volunteer unit operate), and in excess
of 0.129 in the commune of C.A. Rosetti, and 0.139 in the commune of Ceatalchioi. These units belong to the Committee for Emergency
Situations, Tulcea County, which manages various categories of emergencies, but with insufficient staff, which require continuous
professional training and an inadequate warning infrastructure to cope with the risks the Danube Delta localities are exposed to (e.g.,
drought, floods, naturally-occurring fires) (Ministry of European Founds, 2003, 2015).
The highest SDVI values registered in Chilia Veche, Crişan and C.A. Rosetti are due to the low values in the number of physicians/
1000 inh. and to the high degree of ethnic diversity. The number of physicians/1000 inh. reveals the possibility to offer complex
medical services interventions and treatments (Bogdan et al., 2008). There are a number of four LAUs that do not have a family
medicine physician (Ceatalchioi, Chilia Veche, Maliuc and Pardina), a situation which has a negative impact both on patients and on
the specialized staff, who are often replaced by local pharmacists (Zamfir et al., 2015). Most physicians are not residents of the
respective LAUs, a fact which does not encourage the continuity of the medical act. The number of physicians/1000 inh. is 0.087 in
Crişan, 0.125 in Sfântu Gheorghe, and 0.129 in C.A. Rosetti and Sulina.
The Danube Delta is known as an area with a high ethnic diversity, since it is home to the Lipovan-Russian, Turkish and Ukrainian
minorities. The higher ethnic diversity induces a high population vulnerability in the case of Crişan (46%) and C.A. Rosetti (35.2%),
Fig. 7. Share of persons aged 65 and over (%).
10
and a low population vulnerability in Ceatalchioi (2.2%), Maliuc (3.2%), Sfântu Gheorghe (4.1%) and Chilia Veche (5.4%).
4.2. Inhabited environment vulnerability
The Inhabited Environment Vulnerability Index (IEVI) is linked to the technical urban infrastructure, which, in this case, is mainly the
connectivity and the length of the sewerage and drinking water systems. The lowest values of the IEV are registered in Sfântu Gheorghe
(43.495) and Sulina (44.312), with C.A. Rosetti and Ceatalchioi ranking at the other end of the scale, with values of 52.716 and 52.228,
respectively (Fig. 8).
Even the length of the sewerage network is an indicator that the yearly registered growth values, especially in the rural area, are
due to the numerous programmes for the development of this type of public service (Mitrică et al., 2016) in the Danube Delta. This
service is deficient. There is no network in Pardina, Ceatalchioi and C.A. Rosetti. From this point of view, these LAUs are the most
vulnerable to drought. The most equipped are Crişan (0.635 km/100 inh.) and Sulina (0.439 km/100 inh). The percentage of
households connected to the public sewerage system varies to a large degree. The most vulnerable are C.A. Rosetti and Ceatalchioi,
with 7.2% and 10.0% of households, respectively, connected to the public sewerage system. The lowest vulnerability is displayed by
Sulina, 67.9%, while the rest of the LAUs have a medium vulnerability level ranging between 28.7% and 43.7%. We could very well
make the statement that a sewerage network is minimally developed and quite unsatisfactory in the town of Sulina, where extension
and modernisation works are necessary.
Rural areas are expected to experience major impacts on water availability and supply, food security, and agricultural incomes.
These risks are amplified for those lacking essential infrastructure and services, or living in exposed areas (Oppenheimer et al., 2014;
Mitrică et al., 2017a,b).
Currently, all deltaic LAUs are connected to the drinking water supply network, the total length of the supply pipes being 92.7 km
with an average value of 0.86 km of drinking water network/100 inhabitants. The smallest value is that of Sulina town, with 0.439 km/
100 inh., and the highest value is found in the commune of Chilia Veche, that is, a length of the drinking water network of 1.763 km/
100 inh.
The share of households not connected to the drinking water supply network is 64.1%, compared to the national average of 33.3%.
The 7 rural LAUs comprise over 50% of the households not connected to the drinking water supply network, the highest values are
registered by C.A. Rosetti (93.3%), Ceatalchioi (88.6%) and Chilia Veche (71.2%) (Fig. 9). The lowest value is registered in Sulina town
(26.3%), the least vulnerable LAU to water shortage due to drought phenomena.
Water supply is a major indicator of the level of civilization, since water plays an important role in the daily life of the population
(Chiriac et al., 2001), mainly in the areas affected by drought phenomena. The population lacking access to the water supply infra
structure is highly dependent on the fluctuating underground water flows, which, during drought spells, trigger water shortages in
many rural settlements. The volume of the drinking water supplied varies from 2.44 thou. m3/100 inh./year in Maliuc to 14.66 thou.
m3/100 inh./year in Sfântu Gheorghe. The other LAUs range between 4.98 and 6.17 m3/100 inh./year. The most vulnerable are C.A.
Rosetti and Ceatalchioi, where there is no quantity of drinking water supplied from the public network.
4.3. Economic vulnerability
The Economic Vulnerability Index (EVI) registered very low values in Ceatalchioi (49.995) and Pardina (52.235) (Fig. 10) where the
Fig. 8. Inhabited environment vulnerability index.
11
Fig. 9. Households not connected to the drinking water supply network (%).
Fig. 10. The economic vulnerability index.
economic dependency rate, the number of fishermen with commercial fishing licences and the share of the population employed in the
tourism sector registered low and very low values, thus decreasing the level of economic vulnerability.
Economic vulnerability is high in Sfântu Gheorghe (55.329), Sulina (55.190) and Chilia Veche (55.151), where the economic
dependency rate and the number of fishermen holding commercial fishing licences register high or very high values.
The economic dependency rate has high values (Chilia Veche - 185.4, Crişan - 138.4, Sfântu Gheorghe - 117.8, CA Rosetti - 114.6)
in more isolated settlements, located at a greater distance from the Tulcea county-seat. Additionally, Sulina registers a high value of
economic dependency rate (128.2) as a result of the gradual shut-down of the enterprises operating in the city (e.g., the fish cannery,
the shipyard) and of a certain public institution (i.e., the hospital). Lower values are registered in Ceatalchioi (73.9) and Maliuc (94.1),
due to the smaller distance to the municipality of Tulcea, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, due to the higher number of people
employed in the agriculture (i.e., Ceatalchioi) and fishing sectors (i.e., Maliuc).
In 2019, in the localities within the Danube Delta, there were a total of 488 active fishermen authorized for commercial fishing. In
restrictive environments, such as large areas of the Danube Delta, the natural conditions do not allow for the practice of agriculture.
Here, there are several rural settlements where inhabitants depend on fishing. Thus, the number of fishermen holding licences for
commercial fishing is high: Crişan had 149 authorized fishermen, Sfântu Gheorghe - 110, Sulina had 101 and Maliuc counted 41
12
authorized fishermen (Fig. 11). In the past 10 years the fishing activity, and, by extension, the number of fishermen holding a licence
for commercial fishing has dropped significantly. Simultaneously, these settlements have faced various difficulties caused by the
population’s natural decline, as well as by migration, demographic aging, poor infrastructure and environmental pressures (e.g.,
climate change, the eutrophication of lakes, fishing over the allowed quotas).
Faced with the decrease in the fishing activity, the locals have identified other sources of income in the opportunities offered by the
huge natural and human tourist potential. Consequently, a part of the economically active population of the Danube Delta reoriented
their occupational interest to the practice of different types of tourism: ecological tourism, sports/recreational fishing but also to other
activities such as becoming tourist guides or ecological agents. Thus, most of the labour force employed in tourism are registered in the
localities with important tourist potential, where the number of accommodation units is also higher: Sfântu Gheoghe (6.01% of the
total number of employed population work in the tourism industry, the locality being known both for its picturesque surroundings and
for the Black Sea beach, as well as the Anonymous Film Festival, which has reached its 17th edition); Crişan (4.65% working in the
tourism industry, as it is located at the crossroads of several tourist routes and where both cultural tourism, in the case of traditional
villages, and sports tourism, as well as recreational fishing are practiced); Sulina (3.18% are employed in the tourism industry, as the
port city is sought for its Black Sea beaches, but also for cultural tourism, having a number of tourist attractions: the palace of the
European Commission of the Danube, the lighthouse, churches). In contrast, having a small number of people employed in the tourism
industry, C.A. Rosetti (0.71%) and Ceatalchioi (0%) are rural LAUs with a culture of traditional agriculture and animal husbandry.
The average economic vulnerability of Maliuc, C.A. Rosetti and Crişan is driven by the share of the population employed in
transport, and by the percentage of employees of the total employed population.
The largest number of employees working in transport is registered in the city of Sulina (13.2% of the total employed population),
taking into account the fact that both Navrom transport company and other private companies operate here. To this are added the
employees in the ship repair sector or in the freight transport sector, as Sulina is a port with access to the Black Sea. Large numbers of
the population employed in the transport industry are also registered in C.A. Rosetti (5.9% of the total employed population). Although
most of the villages making up the commune are located on the longitudinal river levees (except for the village of Periprava, found on
the Chilia arm), the relatively large number of transport employees is explained by the fact that they chose to work in transport outside
the Delta in order to support their families. Lower values of the population employed in transport are registered in Chilia Veche (2%)
and Ceatalchioi (2.1%), both known for practicing agriculture, and in the locality of Pardina (0 employees in transport activities).
Chilia Veche and C.A. Rosetti register the lowest share of employees in the total employed population, 14.7% and 15.5%,
respectively. These values contribute to a high economic vulnerability. The highest values are registered by Sulina (42.3%) and Sfântu
Gheoghe (34.1%).
4.4. Geographical position vulnerability
The Geographical Position Vulnerability Index (GPVI) refers to the distance to the nearest urban centre (i.e., the Tulcea county-seat) or
polarizing centres (i.e., the commune centre, where the central administration office is based), as well as to the distance from the axes
of transport which, in the Danube Delta, are channels and canals. Thus, the greater the distances from the polarizing centres and
channels/canals, the more vulnerable they are. The most vulnerable is C.A. Rosetti (59.333), which registers extreme values for all
indicators taken into account. The least vulnerable are Pardina (46.617) and Ceatalchoi (47.685) (Fig. 12).
The settlements distribution evaluated by the settlements dispersion index (Demangeon) registers the value 0 in the communes that
Fig. 11. The number of fishermen holding commercial fishing licences.
13
Fig. 12. The geographical position vulnerability index.
do not comprise any villages (Sulina, Pardina and Sfântu Gheorghe), and values of 0.04 in Chilia Veche, which consists of three
villages: Câşliţa, Ostrovul Tătaru and Tatanir. At the last census, the village of Tatanir registered 43 inhabitants, and the other two
villages – 0 inhabitants, which cancels them out due to depopulation. The highest value of the Demangeon index is recorded in C.A.
Rosetti (3.77) which has a total population of 773 inh. and consists of 5 villages: C.A. Rosetti, Cardon, Letea, Periprava and Sfiştofca,
each of them counting between 14 and 220 inhabitants. This is the territorial unit where the highest vulnerability was the result of
geographical positioning. Moreover, Maliuc registers a relatively high value (3.61), having a total population of 903 inhabitants,
comprising 5 villages (Maliuc, Ilganii de Sus, Gorgova, Partizani and Vulturu). Ceatalchioi commune, comprising 4 villages (Cea
talchioi, Pătlăgeanca, Plauru and Sălceni) and a total population of 720 inhabitants, has a value of the dispersion index of 1.9, this the
low value being caused by the small population of the composing villages (e.g., both Plauru and Sălceni villages had less than 100
inhabitants each).
The geographical isolation of the rural LAUs in the Danube Delta can be interpreted by taking into account the distance to the
nearest polarizing centre, in this case the city of Tulcea. Thus, the most remote localities are those at the extremities of the Danube
(ChiliaVeche, Periprava, Sfântu Gheorghe) and those located on the longitudinal river levees (C.A. Rosetti, Letea, Sfiştofca) (Gâştescu
and Ştiucă, 2008) (Fig. 13). Given that the distances between localities remain unchanged over time, the degree of accessibility of some
of them has changed by carrying out improvement works (such as the dirt road that runs parallel to the Chilia arm and allows access for
Fig. 13. The distance between each LAU and Tulcea town (km).
14
off-road vehicles to Chilia. However, this road is practicable only in favourable weather conditions).
From the point of view of accessibility, the town of Sulina together with 4 rural LAUs (Maliuc, Sfântu Gheorghe, Pardina and
Ceatalchioi with all its composing villages) are directly connected to the main water transport route, namely the Sulina and Chilia
arms. A good connection of the population to the main channels/canals is also registered by Chilia Veche (97.3), located on the Chilia
arm. The only composing village that is located on the Chilia longitudinal river levee (thus not directly connected to the water) is the
village of Câşliţa, but in recent years, it has become depopulated. A small percentage of the population connected to the main water
transport route (22%) is the case of C.A. Rosetti, located on the Sulina ridge. Aside from the village of Periprava, located on the Chilia
arm, the other composing villages of the commune do not have direct access to water, the connection being usually made by tractor.
For the Crişan territorial unit, the degree of accessibility of the population is 37.6%, the reason being that only the village of Crişan is
located on the Sulina channel. For the other two villages the access is more difficult, thus increasing the vulnerability of the population
to droughts, when the water level drops.
4.5. The socio-economic vulnerability to Aridity and Drought Index (SEV_ADI)
In the Danube Delta, in a dry or semiarid area, the very high Socio-economic Vulnerability Index (SEVI) is registered in C.A. Rosetti
(773 inh., that is 6.8% of the total population) and Chilia Veche and Crişan (3135 inh., 29.1%), respectively. The medium SEV was
characteristic for Maliuc, which is located in a low semiarid area with a population of 903 inh. (8.4%) (Fig. 14).
The majority of the population (5390 inh., 50.0%) features a low SEV in Sulina town and in Ceatalchioi and Sfântu Gheorghe rural
settlements. While Sulina and Sfântu Gheorghe lie in a high semiarid area, Ceatalchioi overlaps a low semiarid area. Pardina, with a
very low value of the SEV, characterized by medium and low levels of semi-aridity, has a population of 576 persons making up 5.3% of
the total Danube Delta population.
By overlapping the socio-economic vulnerability and the exposure to drought, we get the Socio-economic Vulnerability to Aridity
and Drought Index (SEV_ADI). This shows that only Sulina town changed class by migrating from low to medium vulnerability. Even
Sulina has a low value of SEV, which means that due to its exposure to a dry area the SEV_AD will increase (Fig. 15).
4.6. Discussions
Given the heightened pressure stemming from increased population, urbanization and intensive agricultural use driving increas
ingly higher risks and exposure to various natural hazards (Szabo et al., 2016), the analysis of deltas as socio-ecological systems has
been addressed more often in recent years (Brondizio et al., 2016; Mansur et al., 2016; Sebesvari et al., 2016; Szabo et al., 2016;
Hagenlocher et al., 2018; Anderson et al., 2019). As a result, this study continues on this research path and responds to the need to have
a complex study that analyses the interactions between the social and the biophysical systems in the Danube Delta.
In terms of SDVI, the direct dependence is between the lowest values registered by the indicators of the intrinsic characteristics of
the population (e.g., gender and age structure), and the highest values registered by the early warning and intervention services in
dicator. The relationship between gender and the degree of vulnerability shows that the women living in the Danube Delta’s rural areas
are among the most vulnerable population categories, since they have few job opportunities in the area or are inactive on the labour
market, recording low incomes or even no incomes whatsoever, thus having no social support or health insurance. Moreover, the
female population, due to their natural physical constitution, found it harder to cope with the effects of a natural disaster, thus being
more exposed to injuries (Goţiu and Surdeanu, 2008). Ethnicity, through cultural habits, has an influence on the location of residential
areas in hazard-prone sectors, thus increasing socio-economic sensitivity and the potential impact and decreasing the socio-economic
adaptive capacity (Cutter et al., 2003; Rufat et al., 2015; Grigorescu et al., 2021). In addition to said demographic aspects, there is also
the infrastructure that prevents the development of certain sectors of the economy, including the technical-municipal infrastructure
(water, gas, electricity) and the social infrastructure (schools, medical facilities, dispensaries). Regarding the early warning and
intervention services, the central public authorities (e.g., the Ministry of Regional Development, Public Works and Administration) are
aware that in isolated geographic areas, such as the Danube Delta, the large water surface and the lowest degree of accessibility make
the early warning service very important and, often, vital (Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration, 2014).
Drought does not always directly affect human health and wellbeing; it does so indirectly, through its impact on the qualitative and
quantitative features of the drinking water. In terms of health, it is not only the healthcare service itself that is vital in a wetland area,
but the ability to access it. Access to the healthcare system is limited by the topographic conditions of the wetland: in most cases,
transport for medical assistance in the Danube Delta is done by boat, by motorboat or by cart; medical emergency services are provided
by 5 medical fast boats, departing from Tulcea. It is only in case of major medical emergencies that the medical helicopter is used.
The IEVI registers lower values across the area, even in the only town of the Danube Delta, Sulina. Most settlements in the Danube
Delta do not meet the minimum standards in terms of accessibility to local public utilities (e.g., the sewerage and drinking water
systems). These are extremely important from a social point of view (Lieske et al., 2015; Mitrică et al., 2016) as they significantly
contribute to the poor living conditions (including residential living conditions). Additionally, local public utilities could be an
important factor in terms of the population’s adaptive capacity to the drought phenomena. However, in the case of the Danube Delta,
the limited access to local public utilities decreases this type of capacity. Moreover, there are communes and their villages which are
not connected to the drinking water supply network, where the population is supplied with water from individual sources (wells), or
directly from the Danube River and its canals. This situation raises problems related to the quality of the drinking water, which does
not always comply with quality standards due to the high degree of contamination. All of the above facts increase the vulnerability of
the population tackling drought because of the uncertain quality and quantity of the drinking water.
15
Fig. 14. Socio-economic vulnerability and the exposure to aridity and drought.
Fig. 15. Socio-economic vulnerability to aridity and drought (SEV_ADI).
The EVI is correlated mainly with the general rate of employment, but also with the employment rate according to different
economic activities, i.e., fishing, tourism and transport. The indicator related to the number of fishermen holding commercial fishing
licences registers high values because of the dependency of the population and of local economies on the fishing activity. But this fact
increases the economic vulnerability level in the area, under the influence of extreme weather events, such as drought. The high values
of the economic dependency rate are explained by demographic aging, the abandonment of traditional activities (i.e., fishing) and by
the surplus of labour force. All these aspects reflect the poor local economy, ultimately impacting the level of the rural settlements’
economic vulnerability. The Danube Delta is known as an area with an ancient tradition in fishing, alongside the traditional subsis
tence agriculture. As a result, there is currently a need to facilitate the fishing activity and diversify the economy in accordance with the
Biosphere Reserve status (Ministry of European Founds, 2003, 2015).
Deltas are important barometers in the successful achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Hagenlocher et al.,
2018) with the aim of improving societal wellbeing while limiting the impact on the environment and climate. Several recent studies
focused on the relevance of the SDGs in the context of the climate change impact on groundwater level, drainage systems, precipitation
or heat-related extremes (Sahoo et al., 2021; Guptha et al., 2021, 2022; Nandi and Swain, 2022; Patel et al., 2022; Swain et al., 2022e).
16
This study also contributes to fulfilling the SDGs, especially for a developing country such as Romania, while targeting poverty (SDG1),
hunger (SDG2), clean water and sanitation (SDG6), sustainable cities and communities (SDG11), climate adaptation (SDG 13), life
below water (SDG 14), and on land (SDG 15).
A variety of quantitative and qualitative data on aridity and drought, demography, social and economic features, technical
infrastructure, accessibility etc. should be integrated in order to provide a more accurate image of vulnerability. The limitations of any
vulnerability approach performed using indicator-based studies that combine socio-demographic, economic activities, the inhabited
environment and geographical position stem from the variety of data and data sources employed and the selection of the most
appropriate indicators, largely depending on data availability. The following limitations have been identified: (i) the lack of a
centralized inventory and a fragmented data collection system, which is now organised in various forms of storage and is accessed by
many users or beneficiaries; (ii) some statistical and spatial variables needed to be adapted or modified by the authors in order to better
illustrate the local environmental or socio-economic features in relation to the aridity and drought-related impacts; (iii) due to rather
limited data availability and fragmented data at LAU level, there are indicators that were not included in the present study (e.g., station
flow for waste water purification, building materials, population segments without healthcare insurance, the lack of a centralized
situation concerning the indicators increasing the adaptive capacity to aridity and drought at local level (e.g., the number or type of
documents adopted to support aridity and drought management); (iv) the sound theoretical background of the methodology which
relies on some of the most representative vulnerability studies.
5. Conclusion
The categories vulnerable to the living conditions in the Danube Delta are women, children, the poor and those without a stable
income to guarantee a decent living, the large number of unemployed people, as well as the elderly population lacking social benefits,
and so on. Given the above-mentioned reasons, the population in the Danube Delta can be largely considered vulnerable due to the
living conditions imposed by the natural factors, but also by the economic and technical-urban infrastructure unsuitable to achieving
normal living conditions.
Vulnerability-oriented studies have become increasingly important for the identification of susceptible areas and population, as
well as for supporting the decision-making process in coping with aridity and drought-related effects. The present study could offer a
scientific base for this complex socio-economic territorial system that is the Danube Delta by increasing its adaptive capacity in the face
of socio-demographic and economic pressures, the declining and aging population, the low education level, poor health, unemploy
ment, low income, the socially disadvantaged, the poorly developed transport infrastructure, as well as the geographical isolation. The
means of achieving this goal might entail increasing the driving-forces in order to maximize the adaptive capacity to drought in the
following ways/actions/behaviours: (i) informing the locals about ways to minimize water use and maximize water efficiency and
capture; (ii) boosting economic resources in the Danube Delta (especially related to fishery, e.g., breed native fish less sensitive to low
oxygen levels and higher water temperatures); (iii) adapting the energy sector to climate change through the enhanced use of local
renewable energy sources (e.g., biomass, especially using reeds or solar panels on roofs); (iv) pursuing a synergic approach, such as:
developing the transport infrastructure (geographic isolation will be diminished) and diversifying and improving the tourism activity
will attract qualified human resources in the education and healthcare systems; a better educated and a healthier person will be more
active on the labour market, they will earn a higher income, their reliance on social support will decrease, the general level of life
quality will increase, as well as that of the interests towards the deltaic ecosystem.
As a future scope, there is a need to better understand the links between droughts and their impact on different economic sectors,
analysing the feedback from other climate extremes (e.g., floods), and involving experts in the decision-making processes, as well as
decision makers in the research processes to find and discuss the best practices and methodologies to use in order to analyse the impact
of droughts. In line with the above, the results of such an analysis, such as the present study, apart from their academic role, aim to
provide important policy consequences for the interested parties, namely stakeholders and policy makers. Within this broader context,
the collaboration between the 3 countries (Romania, Ukraine and the Republic of Moldova) on the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve
territory plays a vital role because of the dependency of their local economies on the ecosystems and the services they provide. Thus,
man and nature mutually benefit from each other’s existence (Nesterenko et al., 2014).
The sustainable management of Delta regions must be encouraged and supported so as to better cope with socio-economic pressures
(e.g., a growing elderly population, limited healthcare, unemployment) while facing increasing bio-physical pressures (e.g., floods,
droughts, heat waves).
Credit author statement
Nicoleta Damian: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Data creation;
Bianca Mitrică: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Software; Irena
Mocanu: Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Data creation, Formal analysis; Ines Grigorescu: Meth
odology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Formal analysis; Monica Dumitraşcu: Formal analysis, Data creation,
Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
17
influence the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgements
1. Research-work for this paper was conducted under the Pollution Identification, Mapping, and Ecosystem Observation with AI-
powered water quality USV, ERANET- MarTERA-PIMEO-AI-1 Project and GAR-UM-2019-XI-5.4-2 Sets of statistical indicators for
assessing the socioeconomic vulnerabilities to extreme climate events in Romania. A territorial multiscales development, adaptation
and valorisation (VULSERO); 2. This paper has been also financially supported within the project entitled: “Support Center for IEM
research - innovation projects competitive in Horizon (2020)′′ , ID 107540. This project is co-financed by the European Regional
Development Fund through Competitiveness Operational Programme 2014–2020. All authors contributed equally to this paper.
References
Adams, H., Adger, W.N., Ahmad, S., Ahmed, A., Begum, D., Matthews, Z., Mofizur Rahman, M., Nilsen, K., Gurney, G.G., Streatfield, P.K., 2020. Multi-dimensional
well-being associated with economic dependence on ecosystem services in deltaic social-ecological systems of Bangladesh. Reg. Environ. Change 20 (2), 1–16.
Adger, W.N., Brooks, N., Bentham, G., Agnew, M., Eriksen, S., 2004. New Indicators of Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity. Technical Rep. No. 7. Tyndall Centre for
Climate Change Research, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
American Meteorological Society, 1997. Meteorological drought-Policy statement. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 78, 847–849.
Anderson, C.C., Hagenlocher, M., Renaud, F.G., Sebesvari, Z., Cutter, S.L., Emrich, C.T., 2019. Comparing index-based vulnerability assessments in the Mississippi
Delta: implications of contrasting theories, indicators, and aggregation methodologies. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduc. 39, 101–128.
Bandoc, G., Prăvălie, R., 2015. Climatic water balance dynamics over the last five decades in Romania’s most arid region, Dobrogea. J. Geogr. Sci. 25 (11),
1307–1327.
Barbier, E.B., Hacker, S.D., Kennedy, C., Koch, E.W., Stier, A.C., Silliman, B.R., 2011. The value of estuarine and coastal ecosystem services. Ecol. Monogr. 81 (2),
169–193.
Bera, S., Das, A., Mazumder, T., 2019. A multi -objective framework for multidimensional vulnerability assessment – case of a coastal district of West Bengal, India.
J. Environ. Manag. 249, 109411 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109411.
Birkmann, J., Cardona, O.D., Carreño, M.L., Barbat, A.H., Pelling, M., Schneiderbauer, S., Kienberger, S., Keiler, M., Alexander, D., Zeil, P., Welle, T., 2013. Framing
vulnerability, risk and societal responses: the MOVE framework. Nat. Hazards 67 (2), 193–211.
Blauhut, V., Stahl, K., Stagge, J.H., Tallaksen, L.M., Stefano, L.D., Vogt, J., 2016. Estimating drought risk across Europe from reported drought impacts, drought
indices, and vulnerability factors. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 20 (7), 2779–2800.
Bogdan, O., 2006. Riscuri climatice complexe în rezervaţia biosferei Delta Dunării. Fenomenele de uscăciune şi de secetă. MediulAmbiant 25 (1), 1–8.
Bogdan, O., Dragotă, C., Micu, D., 2016. Potențialul climatic. In: Bălteanu, D., Dumitraşcu, M., Geacu, S., Mitrică, B., Sima, M. (Eds.), Romania. Natură Și Societate.
The Publishing House of the Romanian Academy, pp. 102–130.
Bogdan, O., Marinică, I., Rusan, N., Rusu, S., 2008. Warm winter risk in Romania. In: Conference on Water Observation and Information System for Decision Support,
p. 84.
Brondizio, E.S., Vogt, N.D., Mansur, A.V., Anthony, E.J., Costa, S., Hetrick, S., 2016. A conceptual framework for analyzing deltas as coupled social–ecological
systems: an example from the Amazon River Delta. Sustain. Sci. 11 (4), 591–609.
Chelu, Al, Zaharia, L., Toroimac, I.G., 2020. 2020. Temporal and Spatial Variability of Drought Based on SPEI Analysis in Southeastern Romania. Air and Water –
Components of the Environment” Conference Proceedings, Cluj-Napoca, Romania, pp. 71–80. https://doi.org/10.24193/AWC2020_07.
Cheval, S., Busuioc, A., Dumitrescu, A., Birsan, M.V., 2014. Spatiotemporal variability of meteorological drought in Romania using the standardized precipitation
index (SPI). Clim. Res. 60 (3), 235–248. https://doi.org/10.3354/cr01245.
Chiriac, D., Humă, C., Tudor, C., 2001. Impactul socio-economic al apei asupra calităţii vieţii populaţiei din România. Calitatea Vietii XII (1–4), 95–116.
Ciężkowski, W., Jóźwiak, J., Szporak-Wasilewska, S., Kleniewska, M., Gnatowski, T., Dąbrowski, P., Góraj, M., Szatyłowicz, J., Ignar, S., Chormanski, J., 2018. UAV
Based Crop Water Stress Index for Wetland Habitats as a Meteorological Drought Indicator.
Cohen, L., Holliday, M., 2001. Practical Statistics for Students: an Introductory Text. Paul Chapman Publishing, London.
Croitoru, A.E., Piticar, A., Imbroane, A.M., Burada, D.C., 2013. Spatiotemporal distribution of aridity indices based on temperature and precipitation in the extra-
Carpathian regions of Romania. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 112 (3), 597–607.
Cutter, S.L., 1996. Vulnerability to environmental hazards. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 20 (4), 529–539.
Cutter, S.L., Boruff, B.J., Shirley, W.L., 2003. Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Soc. Sci. Q. 84 (2), 242–261.
Damian, N., 2013. Mediul geographic şi factorii de risc social din Delta Dunării. Edit. Universitară, Bucureşti.
Das, S., Ghosh, A., Hazra, S., Ghosh, T., de Campos, R.S., Samanta, S., 2020. Linking IPCC AR4 & AR5 frameworks for assessing vulnerability and risk to climate
change in the Indian Bengal Delta. Prog. Disaster Sci. 7, 100110.
De Martonne, E., 1926. Une nouvelle function climatologique: L’indice d’aridite. Meteorol. 2, 449–458.
Depietri, Y., 2020. The social–ecological dimension of vulnerability and risk to natural hazards. Sustain. Sci. 15 (2), 587–604.
Dragotă, C.-S., Grigorescu, I., Dumitraşcu, M., Doroftei, M., 2013. Caracteristici ale variabilităţii şi schimbărilor climatice în România, Manual de… Delta Dunării,
Ghid pentru personalul de teren al Administraţiei Rezervaţiei Biosferei Delta Dunării şi Gărzii de Mediu, Edit. Centrul de Informare Tehnologică Delta Dunării,
Tulcea, pp. 23–38, 978-973-88117-4-4.
Dumitraşcu, M., Mocanu, I., Mitrică, B., Dragotă, C., Grigorescu, I., Dumitrică, C., 2018. The assessment of socio-economic vulnerability to drought in Southern
Romania (Oltenia Plain). Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduc. 27, 142–154.
Ericson, J.P., Vörösmarty, C.J., Dingman, S.L., Ward, L.G., Meybeck, M., 2006. Effective sea-level rise and deltas: causes of change and human dimension implications.
Global Planet. Change 50 (1–2), 63–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2005.07.004.
Gâştescu, P., Ştiucă, R. (Eds.), 2008. Delta Dunării – Rezervaţie a Biosferei. Edit. CD Press, Bucureşti.
General Inspectorate of Emergency Situations, 2018. Disaster Risk Evaluation at the National Level Project - RO-RISK (2016-2018. https://www.igsu.ro/Resources/
COJ/RapoarteStudii/Raport%20privind%20evaluarea%20riscurilor%20la%20nivel%20na%C8%9Bional%20final%202018%20Mec%20PR%20Civ.pdf.
Golfam, P., Ashofteh, P.S., Loáiciga, H.A., 2021. Modeling adaptation policies to increase the synergies of the water-climate-agriculture nexus under climate change.
Environ. Dev. 37, 100612.
Goţiu, D., Surdeanu, V., 2008. Hazardele naturale şi riscurile asociate din Ţara Haţegului. Presa Universitară Clujeană, p. 335.
Grigorescu, I., Mocanu, I., Mitrică, B., Dumitraşcu, M., Dumitrică, C., Dragotă, C.S., 2021. Socio-economic and environmental vulnerability to heat-related phenomena
in Bucharest metropolitan area. Environ. Res. 192, 110268.
18
Guptha, G.C., Swain, S., Al-Ansari, N., Taloor, A.K., Dayal, D., 2021. Evaluation of an urban drainage system and its resilience using remote sensing and GIS. Remote
Sens. Appl.: Soc. Environ. 23, 100601.
Guptha, G.C., Swain, S., Al-Ansari, N., Taloor, A.K., Dayal, D., 2022. Assessing the role of SuDS in resilience enhancement of urban drainage system: a case study of
Gurugram City, India. Urban Clim. 41, 101075.
Hagenlocher, M., Meza, I., Anderson, C.C., Min, A., Renaud, F.G., Walz, Y., Min, A., Siebert, S., Sebesvari, Z., 2019. Drought vulnerability and risk assessments: state of
the art, persistent gaps, and research agenda. Environ. Res. Lett. 14 (8), 083002.
Hagenlocher, M., Renaud, F.G., Haas, S., Sebesvari, Z., 2018. Vulnerability and risk of deltaic social-ecological systems exposed to multiple hazards. Sci. Total
Environ. 631, 71–80.
Heim, R.R., 2002. A Review of Twentieth Century Drought Indices Used in the United States. American Meteorological Society, August, pp. 1149–1166.
Hiernaux, P., Turner, M.D., Eggen, M., Marie, J., Haywood, M., 2021. Resilience of wetland vegetation to recurrent drought in the Inland Niger Delta of Mali from
1982 to 2014. Wetl. Ecol. Manag. 29 (6), 945–967.
Hossain, M.A., Banik, A.K., 2022. What drives the resilience of wetland-dependent fishermen? Social determinants of co-management in Bangladesh. Environ. Dev.
42, 100668.
Ianoş, I., 1997. Individualizarea şi analiza disparităţilor intraregionale. Aplicaţie la judeţul Alba. Comunicări de geografie. I, p. 103, 100.
Ianoș, I., 2000. Sisteme Teritoriale. Edit. Tehnică, București.
Institute of Geography, 2005. Geografia României, Vol. V., Câmpia Română, Dunărea, Podişul Dobrogei, Litoralul Românesc Al Mării Negre Şi Platforma
Continentală. Edit. Academiei Române, Bucureşti.
IPCC, 2014. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Ed. V. R., Barros et al. (New York: Cambridge University Press).
IPCC, 2007. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate. Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
and New York, NY, USA.
IPCC, 2022. In: Pörtner, H.-O., Roberts, D.C., Tignor, M., Poloczanska, E.S., Mintenbeck, K., Alegría, A., Craig, M., Langsdorf, S., Löschke, S., Möller, V., Okem, A.,
Rama, B. (Eds.), Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, p. 3056. https://
doi.org/10.1017/9781009325844.
Kalura, P., Pandey, A., Chowdary, V.M., Raju, P.V., 2021. Assessment of hydrological drought vulnerability using geospatial techniques in the tons river basin, India.
J. Indian Soc. Rem. Sens. 49 (11), 2623–2637.
Lieske, S.N., McLeod, D.M., Coupal, R.H., 2015. Infrastructure development, residential growth and impacts on public service expenditure. Appl. Spatial Anal. Pol. 8
(2), 113–130.
Lungu, M., Panaitescu, L., Plesoianu, D., 2012. Aridity, risk climatic phenomenon in Danube Delta. In: Gâştescu, Petre, Lewis Jr., William, Breţcan, Petre (Eds.), Water
Resources and Wetlands, Conference Proceedings, pp. 14–16.
Malekmohammadi, B., Jahanishakib, F., 2017. Vulnerability assessment of wetland landscape ecosystem services using driver-pressure-state-impact-response (DPSIR)
model. Ecol. Indicat. 82, 293–303.
Mansur, A.V., Brondizio, E.S., Roy, S., Hetrick, S., Vogt, N., Newton, A., 2016. An assessment of urban vulnerability in the Amazon Delta and Estuary: a multi-criterion
index of flood exposure, socio-economic conditions and infrastructure. Sustain. Sci. 11, 625–643, 10.1007/s11625-016-0355-7.
Mierlă, M., Romanescu, G., 2012. Method to Assess the Extreme Hydrological Events in Danube Fluvial Delta. Aerul Și Apa, vol. 149. Componente ale Mediului.
Ministry of European Founds, 2003. Strategia de dezvoltare integrată a Deltei Dunării, vol. 2015. https://mfe.gov.ro/strategie-integrata-de-dezvoltare-durabila-a-
deltei-dunarii-si-implementarea-acesteia-printr-o-investitie-teritorialaintegrata/. http://www.mmediu.ro/app/webroot/uploads/files/SIDDDD_FINAL_AUGUST_
2016.pdf.
Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration, 2014. Strategia de dezvoltare teritorială a României. România policentrică 2035: Coeziune şi
competitivitate teritorială, dezvoltare şi şanse egale pentru oameni 288 accessed August 2019. http://sdtr.ro/upload/sdtr-28.08.pdf.
Mitrică, B., Bogardi, I., Mitrică, E., Mocanu, I., Minciună, M., 2017a. A forecast of public water scarcity on Leu-Rotunda Plain, Romania, for the end of the 21st
century. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift-Norvegian J. Geograp. 71 (Issue 1), 12–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/00291951.2017.1289977.
Mitrică, B., Damian, N., Mocanu, I., Şerban, P., Săgeată, R., 2016. Technical-urbanistic infrastructure in the Romanian Danube Valley. Urban vs. rural territorial
disparities. Geograp. Pannonica 20 (issue 4), 242–253.
Mitrică, B., Mocanu, I., Dumitraşcu, M., Grigorescu, I., 2017b. Socio-economic disparities in the development of the Romania’s border areas. Soc. Indicat. Res. 134 (3),
899–916. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-016-1462-7.
Mitrică, B., Mocanu, I., Grigorescu, I., Dumitrașcu, M., Pistol, A., Damian, N., Șerban, P., 2021. Population Vulnerability to the SARS-CoV-2 Virus Infection. A County-
Level Geographical Methodological Approach. GeoHealth, 5, 11, e2021GH000461. Special Collection: The COVID-19 Pandemic: Linking Health, Society and
Environment.
Mitrică, B., Persu, M., Mocanu, I., Şerban, P., Grigorescu, I., Damian, N., 2019. Changes in the dynamics and demographic structure of the Romanian rural population:
An overview of the post-communist period. Three Decades Trans. East-Cent. Eur. Countryside 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-21237-7_9. Springer.
https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783030212360.
Mocanu, I., Grigorescu, I., Mitrică, B., Dumitraşcu, M., Dragotă, C.S., Mateeva, Z., Dumitrică, C., 2021. Human health vulnerability to summer heat extremes in
Romanian-Bulgarian cross-border area. Nat. Hazards Rev. 22 (2), 05021003.
Mocanu, I., Mitrică, B., Dumitrașcu, M., Damian, N., Persu, M., Dumitrică, C., 2020. Socio-economic and environmental vulnerability to heat-related phenomena in
Dobrogea. Romania, Proceedings of the GEOLINKS Conference Vision for new horizons, 5-7 October 2020, Book 2. In: International Conference on Environmental
Sciences, Plovdiv, Bulgaria, 2, pp. 143–154. Section Ecology and environmental studies.
Mocanu, I., Mitrică, B., Persu, M., Damian, N., 2019. Exploring the links between the ethnic structure and the dwellings quality in the Danube Valley. Geograficky
Casopis. Geogr. J. 71 (3), 227–240. https://doi.org/10.31577/geogrcas.2019.71.3.12.
Nandi, S., Swain, S., 2022. Analysis of heatwave characteristics under climate change over three highly populated cities of South India: a CMIP6-based assessment.
Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 1–13.
National Institute of Statistics, 2019. Baze de Date Statistice. Available online: http://statistici.insse.ro:8077/tempo- online/#/pages/tables/insse-table.
Nesterenko, M., Dyakov, O., Drumea, D., Doroftei, M., 2014. Adapting to Change - Climate Change Adaptation Strategy and Action Plan for Danube Delta Region.
Oppenheimer, M., Campos, M., Warren, R., Birkmann, J., Luber, G., O’Neill, B., Takahashi, K., 2014. Emergent risks and key vulnerabilities. In: Climate Change 2014:
Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada,
R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (Eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom
and New York, NY, USA, pp. 1039-1099.
Ontel, I., Vlăduț, A., 2015. Impact of drought on the productivity of agricultural crops within the Oltenia Plain, Romania. Geograp. Pannonica 19 (1), 9–19.
Oulahen, et al., 2015. Unequal vulnerability to flood hazards: “ground truthing” a social vulnerability index of five municipalities in metro vancouver, Canada. Ann.
Assoc. Am. Geogr. 105 (issue 3), 473–495.
Overeem, I., Syvitski, J.P.M., 2009. Dynamics and Vulnerability of Delta Systems. LOICZ Reports & Studies No. 35. GKSS Research Center, Geesthacht, p. 54.
Păltineanu, C., Mihăilescu, I.F., Prefac, Z., et al., 2009. Combining the standardised precipitation index and climatic water deficit in characterising droughts: a case
study in Romania. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 97, 219–233.
Patel, P., Thakur, P.K., Aggarwal, S.P., Garg, V., Dhote, P.R., Nikam, B.R., et al., 2022. Revisiting 2013 Uttarakhand flash floods through hydrological evaluation of
precipitation data sources and morphometric prioritization. Geomatics, Nat. Hazards Risk 13 (1), 646–666.
Popovici, A., Mitrică, B., Mocanu, I., 2018. Land concentration and land grabbing: implications for the socio-economic development of rural communities in South-
Eastern Romania. Outlook Agric. 47 (3), 204–213.
19
Prăvălie, R., Bandoc, G., 2015. Aridity variability in the last five decades in the Dobrogea region, Romania. Arid Land Res. Manag. 29 (3), 265–287. https://doi.org/
10.1080/15324982.2014.977459.
Qazlbash, S.K., Zubair, M., Manzoor, S.A., Haq, A., Baloch, M.S., 2021. Socioeconomic Determinants of Climate Change Adaptations in the Flood-Prone Rural
Community of Indus Basin, vol. 37. Environmental Development, Pakistan, 100603.
Rufat, S., Tate, E., Burton, C.G., Maroof, A.S., 2015. Social vulnerability to floods: review of case studies and implications for measurement. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduc.
14, 470–486.
Sahoo, S., Swain, S., Goswami, A., Sharma, R., Pateriya, B., 2021. Assessment of Trends and Multi-Decadal Changes in Groundwater Level in Parts of the Malwa
Region, Punjab, India, vol. 14. Groundwater for Sustainable Development, 100644.
Sanchez-Rodriguez, R., et al., 2007. Introduction to the “Global Environmental Change, Natural Disasters, Vulnerability and Their Implications for Human Security in
Coastal Urban Areas ”Issue IHDP Update, vol. 2, pp. 4–5.
Savari, M., Damaneh, H.E., Damaneh, H.E., 2022. Drought vulnerability assessment: solution for risk alleviation and drought management among Iranian farmers. Int.
J. Disaster Risk Reduc. 67, 102654.
Sebesvari, Z., Renaud, F.G., Haas, S., Tessler, Z., Hagenlocher, M., Kloos, J., Szabo, S., Tejedor, A., Kuenzer, C., 2016. A review of vulnerability indicators for deltaic
social–ecological systems. Sustain. Sci. 11, 575–590.
Sharma, J., Ravindranath, N.H., 2019. Applying IPCC 2014 framework for hazard-specific vulnerability assessment under climate change. Environ. Res. Commun. 1
(5), 051004.
Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K.B., Tignor, M., Miller, H.L. (Eds.), 2007. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
Spinoni, J., Arias Muñoz, C., Masante, D., McCormick, N., Vogt, J.V., Barbosa, P., 2018. European Drought Observatory User Meeting 2018. European Commission,
Ispra (VA), Italy, p. JRC114677.
Spinoni, J., Naumann, G., Vogt, J., Barbosa, P., 2016. Meteorological Droughts in Europe: Events and Impacts – Past Trends and Future Projections. Publications
Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, EUR 27748 EN. https://doi.org/10.2788/450449.
Stathatou, P.М., Gad, F.K., Kampragou, E., Grigoropoulou, H., Assimacopoulos, D., 2015. Treated wastewater reuse potential: mitigating water scarcity problems in
the Aegean islands. Desalination Water Treat. 53 (12), 3272–3282.
Swain, S., Mishra, S.K., Pandey, A., 2021. A detailed assessment of meteorological drought characteristics using simplified rainfall index over Narmada River Basin,
India. Environ. Earth Sci. 80 (6), 1–15.
Swain, S., Mishra, S.K., Pandey, A., 2022a. Assessing spatiotemporal variation in drought characteristics and their dependence on timescales over Vidarbha Region,
India. Geocarto Int. 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2022.2136260 published online.
Swain, S., Mishra, S.K., Pandey, A., Dayal, D., 2022b. Assessment of drought trends and variabilities over the agriculture-dominated Marathwada Region, India.
Environ. Monit. Assess. 194 (12), 1–18.
Swain, S., Mishra, S.K., Pandey, A., Kalura, P., 2022c. Inclusion of groundwater and socio-economic factors for assessing comprehensive drought vulnerability over
Narmada River Basin, India: a geospatial approach. Appl. Water Sci. 12 (2), 1–16.
Swain, S., Mishra, S.K., Pandey, A., Kalura, P., 2022e. Inclusion of groundwater and socio-economic factors for assessing comprehensive drought vulnerability over
Narmada River Basin, India: a geospatial approach. Appl. Water Sci. 12 (2), 1–16.
Swain, S., Mishra, S.K., Pandey, A., Dayal, D., Srivastava, P.K., 2022d. Appraisal of historical trends in maximum and minimum temperature using multiple non-
parametric techniques over the agriculture-dominated Narmada Basin, India. Environ. Monit. Assess. 194 (12), 1–23.
Swain, S., Sahoo, S., Taloor, A.K., Mishra, S.K., Pandey, A., 2022. Exploring Recent Groundwater Level Changes Using Innovative Trend Analysis (ITA) Technique over
Three Districts of Jharkhand, India. Groundwater for Sustainable Development, 100783.
Syvitski, J.P., 2008. Deltas at risk. Sustain. Sci. 3 (1), 23–32.
Szabo, S., Brondizio, E., Renaud, F.G., Hetrick, S., Nicholls, R.J., Matthews, Z., Tessler, Z., Tejedor, A., Sebesvari, Z., Foufoula-Georgiou, E., da Costa, S., Dearing, J.A.,
2016. Population dynamics, delta vulnerability and environmental change: comparison of the Mekong, Ganges–Brahmaputra and Amazon delta regions. Sustain.
Sci. 11 (4), 539–554.
Tran, D.D., Dang, M.M., Du Duong, B., Sea, W., Vo, T.T., 2021. Livelihood vulnerability and adaptability of coastal communities to extreme drought and salinity
intrusion in the Vietnamese Mekong Delta. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduc. 57, 102183.
Van Sinh, N., Wiemers, M., Settele, J., 2017. Proposal for an index to evaluate dichotomous keys. ZooKeys 685, 83–89. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.685.13625.
Vlăduţ, A.Ș., Licurici, M., 2020. Aridity conditions within the region of Oltenia (Romania) from 1961 to 2015. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 140 (1), 589–602.
Vlăduţ, A.Ş., Nikolova, N., Licurici, M., 2017. Aridity assessment within southern Romania and northern Bulgaria Procjenaaridnosti za južnu Rumunjsku isjevernu
Bugarsku. Hrvat. Geogr. Glas. 79 (2), 5–26.
Wilhite, D.A., 2000. Drought as a natural Hazard: Concepts and Definitions. In: Wilhite, D.A. (Ed.). Drought: A Global Assessment. Routledge, London chap. 1, 3–18.
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/droughtfacpub/69.
Wilhite, D.A., Glantz, M.H., 1985. Understanding the drought phenomenon: the role of definitions. Water Int. 10 (3), 111–120.
World Meteorological Organization, 1992. International Meteorological Vocabulary, 2d ed. WMO No. 182, WMO, p. 784.
Yihdego, Y., Vaheddoost, B., Al-Weshah, R.A., 2019. Drought indices and indicators revisited. Arabian J. Geosci. 12 (3), 69.
Zamfir, D., Dumitrache, L., Stoica, I.-V., Vârdol, D., 2015. Spatial inequalities in health care provision in Romania: milestones for territorial sustainable development.
Carpathian J. Earth Environ. Sci. 10 (3), 177–188.
Zhao, D., Wang, P., Zuo, J., Zhang, H., An, S., Ramesh, R.K., 2017. Are the traditional large-scale drought indices suitable for shallow water wetlands? An example in
the Everglades. J. Environ. Manag. 198, 240–247. http://www.ddbra.ro/proiecte. https://www.igsu.ro/.
20

Vulnerability NU

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vulnerability NU

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Environmental Development 45 (2023) 100799

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

An index-based approach to assess the vulnerability of

2. The Danube delta – a complex socio-ecological system

Fig. 1. Study area.

Fig. 2. Danube Delta LAUs: demographic size.

World Heritage site – UNESCO (December 1991).

Fig. 3. Drought-affected areas based on the De Martonne aridity index.

- the highest values of solar radiation and, thus, of sunshine duration;

stations (Fig. 3).

SDVI = 50 + 14*(FEM + AGE + EDI – HEALTH – ESU)/5;

IEVI = 50 + 14*(NO_WATER – WATER_L – WATER_SUP – SEWE_L –SEWE_CONN)/5;

EVI = 50 + 14*(EC_DEPEND + FISHING + TOURISM + TRANSP – EMPLOYEES)/5;

GPVI = 50 + 14*(SDI + DIST – WATER_ACCESS)/ 3

4.1. Socio-demographic vulnerability

Fig. 6. Socio-demographic vulnerability index.

Fig. 7. Share of persons aged 65 and over (%).

4.2. Inhabited environment vulnerability

4.3. Economic vulnerability

Fig. 8. Inhabited environment vulnerability index.

Fig. 10. The economic vulnerability index.

4.4. Geographical position vulnerability

Fig. 11. The number of fishermen holding commercial fishing licences.

Fig. 12. The geographical position vulnerability index.

4.5. The socio-economic vulnerability to Aridity and Drought Index (SEV_ADI)

Fig. 15. Socio-economic vulnerability to aridity and drought (SEV_ADI).

Credit author statement

Declaration of competing interest

influence the work reported in this paper.

Data will be made available on request.

You might also like