🌊 Austria Drought Risk Map

×

Risk Municipalities

Click on a municipality to see detailed analysis

🔗 Share ×

Municipality Details

×

Hydropower Plant

🔗 Share ×

Groundwater Station

×

Sources & Methods

Data Sources

• eHYD Portal - Austrian hydrographic service
  • Groundwater levels (2,074 monitoring stations)
  • Surface water flow (604 gauging stations with discharge data)
  • Surface water network (795 OWF stations on 469 rivers)
  • Sediment transport (34 stations with daily measurements)
  • Precipitation (861 stations with daily data since 1971)
  • 100+ years of measurements
• European Environment Agency - WISE WFD 2022 - Water quality status
  • 6,408 groundwater monitoring sites with chemical status
  • 3,176 river monitoring sites with ecological status
  • Water Framework Directive compliance assessment
  • Citation: WISE WFD Reference Spatial Datasets reported under Water Framework Directive 2022. EEA Data Hub. Accessed Jan 2025.
• Copernicus European Drought Observatory (EDO) - Combined Drought Index
  • 428 dekadal (10-day) observations from 2012-2023
  • CDI integrates: Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI), Soil Moisture Anomaly, fAPAR Anomaly
  • Scale: 0=no drought, 1=watch, 2=warning, 3=alert
  • Zonal statistics calculated per municipality from 5km GeoTIFF rasters
• Oesterreichs Energie - Power plant registry (156 hydropower plants)
• Municipality boundaries from GeoJSON Austria

Risk Calculation

The drought risk score combines four factors:

• Groundwater trend (40%): Linear regression on annual mean water table levels. Negative trends (declining water table) increase risk.
• Hydropower impact (30%): Weighted impact of nearby plants within 30km radius (see below).
• EDO Combined Drought Index (30%): Satellite-derived drought indicator from Copernicus, integrating precipitation, soil moisture, and vegetation stress (2012-2023 average).

Hydropower Impact Factor

The hydro_factor calculation considers:

• Proximity: Plants within 30km radius, with distance decay (closer = more impact)
• Plant type weights:
  • Storage (Speicherkraftwerk): 0.7 - major sediment trapping
  • Pumped storage (Pumpspeicherkraftwerk): 0.5 - moderate impact
  • Run-of-river (Laufkraftwerk): 0.3 - lower sediment impact
• Sediment trends: Declining sediment transport indicates upstream dam trapping, used as modifier
• Normalized to 500 MW weighted impact = 100%

River Network Analysis

• 469 rivers identified from surface water monitoring network
• Major rivers by hydropower: Donau (2,254 MW), Ill (2,237 MW), Inn (1,294 MW)
• Hydropower aggregated by river for impact assessment

Sediment Transport Analysis

• 34 sediment monitoring stations analyzed
• Trend calculated: recent 3-year average vs. historical 3-year average
• Declining trends may indicate upstream dam sediment trapping
• Example findings:
  • Enns at Steyr: -64% decline
  • Inn at Schärding: 12,674 t/day average
  • Salzach at Ach: +98% increase

Precipitation Trend Analysis

• 861 precipitation stations analyzed (daily data since 1971)
• Annual totals calculated (minimum 300 days/year required)
• Linear trend over 10+ years, outliers removed
• Risk factor: -100 mm/decade = 100% risk, +100 mm/decade = 0% risk
• Distance-weighted average from stations within 30km
• Finding: 231/861 stations show declining precipitation
• Example trends:
  • Zürs-Hexenboden: -449 mm/decade (Alpine decline)
  • Pfänder: +313 mm/decade (Lake Constance increase)
  • Mean trend: +9 mm/decade

Surface Water Flow Analysis

• 604 flow gauging stations analyzed (Q-Tagesmittel)
• Annual mean discharge calculated (min 300 days/year)
• Linear trend over 10+ years
• Risk factor: -20%/decade = 100% risk, +20%/decade = 0% risk
• Links to hydropower: identifies MW capacity on same rivers
• Finding: 390/604 stations show declining flow (mean: -2.8%/decade)
• Example trends:
  • Traisen at Herzogenburg: -67% (severe decline)
  • Rußbach at Leopoldsdorf: +42% (increasing)

Groundwater Trend Analysis

• Minimum 10 years of data required
• Outliers filtered (trends > 5m/decade excluded)
• Stations with unrealistic variance excluded
• Result: 94 stations with valid trends
• Finding: 54 declining, 40 rising (mean: -4.7cm/decade)

Limitations

• Coordinate transformation (BMN to WGS84) is approximate
• Risk interpolated to municipalities without direct monitoring
• Hydropower impact is proximity-based, not fully hydrologically modeled
• Sediment stations matched to municipalities via river names (no direct coordinates)
• River connectivity not modeled (upstream/downstream relationships)