International Journal of Scientific Research in Knowledge, 2(9), pp.

425-432, 2014
Available online at http://www.ijsrpub.com/ijsrk
ISSN: 2322-4541; 2014 IJSRPUB
http://dx.doi.org/10.12983/ijsrk-2014-p0425-0432
425
Full Length Research Paper
A New Methodology for Drought Vulnerability Assessment Using SPI (Standardized
Precipitation Index)
Elham Asrari
1*
, Masoud Masoudi
2

1
Department of civil engineering, Payame Noor University, PO BOX 19395-3697 Tehran, I.R of Iran
2
Department of Desert Regions Management, College of Agriculture, Shiraz University, I.R of Iran
*Corresponding Author: e_asrari@pnu.ac.ir, elasrari@yahoo.com
Received 21 June 2014; Accepted 19 August 2014
Abstract. The Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI) is a widely used drought index to provide good estimations about the
intensity, magnitude and spatial extent of droughts. The objective of this study was analyzing spatial pattern of drought by SPI
index. In this paper, according to the data of 30 stations in Fars Province located in the southern Iran, during 1972-2006, the
pattern of drought hazard are evaluated. Influenced zone of each station was specified by Thiessen method. It was attempted to
make a new model of drought hazard using GIS. Three criteria for drought were studied and considered to define areas under
vulnerability. Drought hazard criteria used in the present model include: maximum severity of drought in the period, trend of
drought, and the maximum number of sequential arid years. Each of the vulnerability indicator map and also final hazard map
are classified into 4 hazard classes of drought: slight, moderate, severe and very severe. The final drought vulnerability map
was prepared by overlaying three criteria maps in the GIS and the final hazard classes were defined on the basis of hazard
scores arrived at by using the geometric mean of the main indicators, deploying the new model. The final vulnerability map
shows that moderate hazard areas (74% of the region) are much widespread than areas under severe hazard (26% of the region)
which are observed in the northwest and eastern parts of the region.
Keywords: Drought, SPI, GIS, trend, criteria, vulnerability map
1. INTRODUCTION
Drought is one of the main natural hazards affecting
the economy and the environment of large areas
(Obasi, 1994; Bruce, 1994; Wilhite, 2000). Droughts
cause crop losses (Austin et al., 1998; Leilah and Al-
Khateb, 2005), urban water supply shortages (De-
Gaetano, 1999), social alarm (Morales et al., 2000),
degradation and desertification (Nicholson et al.,
1998; Pickup, 1998; Evans and Geerken, 2004), and
forest fires (Pausas, 2004; Flannigan and Harrington,
1988). Drought is a complex phenomenon which
involves different human and natural factors that
determine the risk and vulnerability to drought.
Although the definition of drought is very complex
(Wilhite and Glantz, 1985), it is usually related to a
long and sustained period in which water availability
becomes scarce (Dracup et al., 1980; Redmond,
2002). Drought can be considered to be essentially a
climatic phenomenon (Palmer, 1965; Beran and
Rodier, 1985) related to an abnormal decrease in
precipitation (Oladipo, 1985; McKee et al., 1993).
Important efforts for developing methodologies to
quantify different aspects related to droughts have
been made. More efforts have been made to develop
drought indices, which allow an earlier identification
of droughts, their intensity and surface extent. During
the twentieth century, several drought indices were
developed, based on different variables and
parameters (Heim, 2002). Drought indices are very
important for monitoring droughts continuously in
time and space, and drought early warning systems are
based primarily on the information that drought
indices provide (Svoboda et al., 2002).
The majority of drought indices have a fixed time
scale. For example, the Palmer Drought Severity
Index (PDSI, Palmer, 1965) has a time scale of about
9 months (Guttman, 1998), which does not allow
identification of droughts at shorter time scales.
Moreover, this index has many other problems related
to calibration and spatial comparability (Alley, 1984;
Guttman et al., 1992; Karl, 1983). To solve these
problems, McKee et al. (1993) developed the
Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI), which can be
calculated at different time scales to monitor droughts
in the different usable water resources. Moreover, the
SPI is comparable in time and space (Hayes et al.,
1999; Lana et al., 2001; Wu et al., 2005).
Asrari and Masoudi
A New Methodology for Drought Vulnerability Assessment Using SPI (Standardized Precipitation Index)
426
The SPI was developed in 1993 following a careful
procedure (Redmond, 2002), but due to its robustness
it has already been widely used to study droughts in
different regions, For example the USA (Hayes et al.,
1999), Italy (Bonaccorso et al., 2003), Hungary
(Domonkos, 2003), Korea (Min et al., 2003), Greece
(Tsakiris and Vangelis, 2004), Spain (Vicente-Serrano
et al., 2004; Lana et al., 2001) and Iran (Nurozi,
2007). SPI has also been included in drought
monitoring systems and management plans (Wu et al.,
2005). In general, different studies have indicated the
usefulness of the SPI to quantify different drought
types (Edwards and McKee, 1997; Hayes et al., 1999;
Komuscu, 1999). The long time scales (over 6
months) are considered as hydrological drought
indicators ([river discharges or reservoir storages)
(McKee et al., 1993; Hayes et al., 1999).
The objective of this study is to establish spatial
pattern of drought using multi-temporal assessment of
SPI in Fars Province, southern Iran. For that, different
aspects of drought hazard; namely, maximum severity
of drought in the period, trend of drought; and the
maximum number of sequential arid years have been
prepared in the GIS deploying the new model. It is the
first attempt of its kind research in Iran to preparing
such hazard maps that may be useful for regional
planners; and it can be use by policy makers for
agricultural and environmental strategies, not only in
Southern Iran but also in other countries facing similar
problem.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1. Study Area

Fars Province located in the southern Iran was
selected as a study area for a test assessment of
drought vulnerability. It covers an area of 12 million
ha, which lies between the latitudes of 27 02' to 31
43' N and the longitudes of 50 42' to 55 36' E.
Average of precipitation is 330 mm in the mentioned
region.


Fig. 1: Scattering of stations in Fars Province map

2.2. Data and methodology

The meteorological data used in this study, consisting
of monthly precipitation measurements for 30
meteorological stations distributed fairly evenly in the
region (Fig. 1), were collected from the Iran
Meteorological Organization (IMO) and Regional
Water Organization of Fars Province. The adequate
quantity of station was determine using suitable
scatter formula [equation 1 (Mahdavi, 2002)] was
used. An exhaustive list of the selected stations is
given in Table 1.

Where; N = minimum of adequate station number;
CV% = average of coefficient of variations of annual
precipitation for stations of region; E% = acceptable
faults (%) for the determination of correct number, for
this work E% is considered 6.6%; SD = standard
deviation of annual precipitation for the stations of
region;
P
= annual precipitation average for the
stations of region; in this study: N=30
International Journal of Scientific Research in Knowledge, 2(9), pp. 425-432, 2014
427
To determine the common duration of the suitable
statistic period for all the stations, equation 2
(Mahdavi, 2002) was used. For using this equation, at
least 24 years data are needed. However due to
available data, data has been selected from 1972 till
2006 for the total stations. For each station, missing
values were estimated using a linear regression with
the optimum reference station.
(2)
Where; N = minimum necessary annual data; t = t
student with the freedom degree of n-6;R= Ratio of
return period precipitation of 100 years to 2 years; in
this paper; N=23.6 years.
In the next stage, for each station in every year,
annual precipitation and Standardized Precipitation
Index (SPI) have been calculated using following
equation:
(3)
Where; Pi = total of precipitation in each year; P=
average of precipitation in the period; SD

= standard
deviation of annual precipitation in the period.

73.2%
81.7%
49.2%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1 2 3 4
Severity Classes
Maximum Intensity
Maximum Duration
Trend

Fig. 2: Per cent areas under hazard classes of three criteria used in the model of drought in the region

Table 1: Name of the selected stations over the study area


To check normality of the data for each station; the
software of "MINITAB.14" was used. Amounts of P-
values from option of "Normality Test" have been
analyzed. Amounts more than 0.05 indicate
distribution of data in the period of record is normal
while amounts less than this indicate distribution data
is not normal. In the current assessment 90% of
stations have normal data that is acceptable for the
assessment.
The assessment of hazard of drought has been
attempted by first identifying the main criteria of
drought in the study area and then establishing the
thresholds (class limits) of severity for criteria and in
the end analyzing the hazard. The recommendations
appearing in some literature (like; Masoudi et al .,
2007; Zareiee , 2009 ; Zehtabian and Jafari, 2002) as
well as the statistically suitable parameters of region
like average and standard deviation for the trend data
have also been taken into consideration while fixing
the thresholds of the four classes of severity (ratings
scores between 1 to 4) for each indicator. Three
criteria (Table 2) have been processed in the GIS to
arrive at the hazard map for each criterion.

Asrari and Masoudi
A New Methodology for Drought Vulnerability Assessment Using SPI (Standardized Precipitation Index)
428
Table 2: Criteria used for the hazard assessment of drought using SPI


Criteria used for drought hazard in the present
model include: maximum severity of drought in the
period, trend of drought, and the maximum number of
sequential arid years. Amounts of SPI 0.5 have
been taken into consideration to show drought
condition and dry year. This threshold helps to
evaluate second and third criteria. To find trend of
hazard for each station or its thiessen polygon, period
of data recording have been divided to two equal
periods and in each period percent of dry years was
evaluated. Then trend of hazard have been calculated
using following equation:
Percent of trend= [(dry years in the second period -
dry years in the first period) / dry years in the first
period] 100 (Eq. 4)
In order that the effect of all criteria gets projected
in the final hazard map, the overlays of the individual
hazard criterion maps, derived from three criteria,
were analyzed step by step. The severity of hazard
assigned for each polygon has been assessed by
geometric mean of all the attributes (rating scores) of
criteria used in the GIS. The following equation was
used in GIS to assess the hazard map of
meteorological drought:
Hazard score for drought = (maximum severity of
drought trend of drought maximum number of
sequential arid years)
1 / 3
(Eq. 5)
The hazard score in each polygon denotes the
cumulative effect of all the criteria for qualifying the
four severity classes (Table 3), which facilitated the
production of Fig. 3 showing different degrees of
drought hazard.

Table 3: The severity classes of hazard Map produced in the GIS


3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Some studies so far done in Iran and in the world have
based on their estimation on the present state of
hazard of drought during a specific year using some
indices like SPI and PNPI (Ensafi Moghaddam, 2007,
Raziei et al., 2007). Such Indicator maps or
information alone based on the present state of hazard
derived from the specific year are inadequate to show
those areas which are more vulnerable to the hazard
(Masoudi, 2010).As displayed in figure 2, among the
hazard criteria maps used in the model; About 78 % of
area in this hazard map falls under severe and very
severe classes indicating that the most parts of region
have been experienced the worst droughts in the
period of study. Other results regarding drought
assessment in different regions of Iran show the
comparable results (Ensafi Moghaddam, 2007; Raziei
et al., 2007, Sarhadi et al., 2008).

International Journal of Scientific Research in Knowledge, 2(9), pp. 425-432, 2014
429

Fig. 3: Hazard map of drought vulnerability in the region.

But the most parts of hazard map showing
'maximum number of sequential arid years in the
period' is under moderate hazard class (82%),
indicating period of droughts doesnt continue more
than three years, in the most parts of region. This
aspect of drought have been used alone to show
vulnerability to drought in regions, showing
importance of this criteria in the hazard assessment
(Feiznia et al., 2001, Zehtabian and Jafari, 2002).
While drought hazard map based on the percentage
of increasing trend shows that 49 % of area in this
hazard map is under slight class, indicating occurrence
of droughts in the recent years in half parts of the
region. It is almost equal showing a decreasing trend
in the second part of period compared to first part.
This indicates trend of occurrence drought condition
in the study area is an increasing trend in other half
part of the region confirming those studies in the
region showing climate changes is going to drier
condition in many parts of region and country (Asrari
and Masoudi , 2010, Masoudi and Afrough , 2011,
Zareiee , 2009,).
On the other hand the final hazard map of Fars
Province (Fig. 3) shows two different hazard classes.
From the Figure 3 a general conclusion can be derived
that in Fars Province a smaller proportion (26%) is
under severe hazard (classes 3) of drought while the
widespread areas are under moderate risk (class 2) of
drought (74%). Hazardous lands are observed more in
north-western parts and middle parts of province.


4. CONCLUSION

It requires a combination of more indices of hazard
like maximum number of sequential years of hazard in
a period and also important index of trend showing
different aspects of hazard. This kind of classification
using different criteria is the first attempt of its kind
for defining areas with higher risk drought. The GIS
analysis not only facilitated the model those
development but also allowed the evaluation of spatial
correlation and hazard map production.

REFERENCES

Alley WM (1984). The Palmer drought severity index:
limitations and applications. J. Appl. Journal of
Meteorology, 23: 11001109.
Austin RB, Cantero-Martinez C, Arrue JL, Playan E,
Cano-Marcellan P (1988). Yield rainfall
relationships in cereal cropping systems in the
Ebro river valley of Spain. European Journal of
Agronomy, 8: 239248.
Asrari E, Masoudi M (2010). Hazard assessment of
climate changes, a case study area: Fars
Province, Iran. International Pollution
Research, 29: 275-281.
Beran MA, Rodier JA (1985). Hydrological aspects of
drought. Studies and reports in hydrology, 39,
UNESCOWMO, Ginebra.
Bonaccorso B, Bordi I, Cancelliere A, Rossi G, Sutera
A (2003). Spatial variability of drought: an
Asrari and Masoudi
A New Methodology for Drought Vulnerability Assessment Using SPI (Standardized Precipitation Index)
430
analysis of the SPI in Sicily. Water Resour.
Manag, 17: 273296.
Bruce JP (1994). Natural disaster reduction and
global change. Bulletin of the American
Meteorological Society, 75: 18311835.
DeGaetano AT (1999). A Temporal Comparison of
Drought Impacts and Responses in the New
York City Metropolitan Area. Climatic Change,
42: 539560.
Domonkos P (2003). Recent precipitation trends in
Hungary in the context of larger scale climatic
changes. Natural. Hazards, 29: 255271.
Dracup JA, Lee K., Paulson EG (1980). On the
definition of droughts. Water Resource Res, 16:
297302.
Edwards DC, McKee TB (1997). Characteristics of
20th century drought in the United States at
multiple time scales. Atmos. Sci, Paper No.
634.
Ensafi Moghaddam T (2007). An Investigation and
assessment of climatological indices and
determination of suitable index for
climatological droughts in the Salt Lake Basin
of Iran. Iranian journal of Range and Desert
Reseach, 14: 271-288.
Evans J, Geerken R (2004). Discrimination between
climate and human-induced dry land
degradation. J. Arid Env, 57: 535554.
Feiznia S, Gooya AN, Ahmadi H, Azarnivand H
(2001). Investigation on desertification factors
in Hossein-Abad Mish Mast plain and a
proposal for a regional model. Journal of
Biaban, 6(2): 1-14.
Flannigan MD, Harrington JB (1988). A study of the
relation of meteorological variables to monthly
provincial area burned by wilfire in Canada
(19531980). J. Appl. Meteorology, 27: 441
452.
Guttman NB, Wallis JR, Hosking JRM (1992). Spatial
comparability of the Palmer Drought Severity
Index.Water Resource, Bull, 28:11111119
Guttman NB (1998). Comparing the Palmer drought
index and the Standardized Precipitation Index.
Journal of the American Water Resources
Association, 34: 113121.
Hayes M, Wilhite DA, Svoboda M, Vanyarkho O
(1999). Monitoring the 1996 drought using the
Standardized Precipitation Index. Bulletin of
the American Meteorological Society, 80: 429
438.
Heim RR (2002). A review of twentieth-century
drought indices used in the United States.
Bulletin of the American Meteorological
Society, 83: 11491165.
Karl TR (1983). Some spatial characteristics of
drought duration in the United States. J. Clim.
Appl. Meteorol, 22: 13561366.
Komuscu AU (1999).Using the SPI to analyze spatial
and temporal patterns of drought in Turkey.
Drought Network News, 11: 713.
Lana X, Serra C, Burgueno A (2001). Patterns of
monthly rainfall shortage and excess in terms of
the Standardied Precipitation Index for
Catalonia (NE Spain). Int. J. Climatology, 21:
16691691.
Leilah AA, Al-Khateeb SA (2005). Statistical
analysis of wheat next term yield under
previous term drought next term conditions. J.
Arid Env, 61: 483-496.
Mahdavi M (2002). Applied Hydrology. Tehran
University Press
Masoudi M (2010). Risk assessment and remedial
measures of land degradation, in parts of
Southern Iran. Lambert Academic Publishing
(LAP). Germany, 220 p.
Masoudi M, Afrough E (2011). Analyzing trends of
precipitation for Humid, Normal and Drought
classes using Standardized Precipitation Index
(SPI), a case of study: Fars Province, Iran.
International Journal of Agri Science, 1: 85-96.
Masoudi M, Patwardhan AM , Gore SD ( 2007). Risk
assessment of lowering of ground water table
using GIS for the Qareh Aghaj Sub Basin,
Southern Iran. J. of the Geological Society of
India, 70: 861-872.
McKee TBN, Doesken J, Kleist J (1993). The
relationship of drought frequency and duration
to time scales. Eight Conf. on Applied
Climatology. Anaheim. CA.Amer. Meteor. Soc,
179 184
Min SK, Kwon WT, Park EH, Choi Y (2003). Spatial
and temporal comparisons of droughts over
Korea with East Asia. Int. J. Climatol, 23: 223
233.
Morales A, Olcina J, Rico AM (2000). Diferentes
percepciones de la sequa en Espana: adaptaci
on, catastrofismo e intentos de correcci on.
Investigaciones Geograficas, 23: 546.
Nicholson SE, Tucker CJ, Ba MB (1998).
Desertification, drought and surface vegetation:
an example from the west African Sahel.
Bulletin of the American Meteorological
Society, 79: 815829.
Noruzi R (2007). Assessment and Preparation of
Critical Condition Map of Ground Water
Resources Using GIS. M.Sc Thesis. Tehran
University. Iran.
Obasi GOP (1994). WMOs role in the international
decade for natural disaster reduction. Bulletin
International Journal of Scientific Research in Knowledge, 2(9), pp. 425-432, 2014
431
of the American Meteorological Society, 75:
16551661.
Oladipo EO (1985). A comparative performance
analysis of three meteorological drought
indices. J. Climat, 5: 655664.
Palmer WC (1965). Meteorological droughts.US
Department of Commerce Weather Bureau
Research Paper 45, 58.
Pausas JG (2004). Changes in fire and climate in the
eastern Iberian Peninsula (Mediterranean
basin). Climatic Change, 63: 337350.
Pickup G (1998). Desertification and climate change,
the Australian perspective. Clim. Res, 11:5163
Raziei T, Daneshkar Arasteh P, Akhtari R , Saghafian
B ( 2007). Investigation of Meteorological
Droughts in the Sistan and Balouchestan
Province, Using the Standardized Precipitation
Index and Markov Chain Model. Iran-Water
Resources Research, 3: 25-35.
Redmond KT(2002).The depiction of drought.
Bulletin of the American Meteorological
Society, 83: 11431147.
Sarhadi A, Soltani S, Modarres R (2008): The analysis
of drought extension over Isfahan province
based on four drought indices. Journal of the
Iranian Natural Res, 61: 555-570.
Svoboda M, LeCompte D, et al (2002). The drought
monitor.Bulletin of the American
Meteorological Society, 83: 11811190.
Tsakiris G,Vangelis H (2004). Towards a drought
watch system based on spatial SPI. Water
Resour. Manag, 18:112.
Vicente Serrano SM, Begueria S (2003).Estimating
extreme dry-spell risk in the middle Ebro valley
(Northeastern Spain): A comparative analysis
of partial duration series with a General Pareto
distribution and Annual maxima series with a
Gumbel distribution. Int. J. Climatol, 23: 1103
1118.
Wilhite DA. Glantz MH (1985). Understanding the
drought phenomenon: the role of definitions.
Water Int, 10: 111120.
Wilhite DA (2000). Drought as a natural hazard:
concepts and definitions. En Drought: a global
assessment, edited by Wilhite D, 1, 318
Wu H, Hayes MJ, Wilhite DA, Svoboda MD (2005).
The effect of the length of record on the
standardized precipitation index calculation. Int.
J. Climatol, 25: 505520.
Zareiee AR (2009). Vulnearibility Assessment of
drought Using GIS in Qareh Aghaj basin,
Southern Iran. M.Sc thesis, Shiraz University,
Iran.
Zareiee AR (2009). Climate changes in Iran. Seminar
Report of M.Sc, Shiraz University, Iran.
Zehtabian G, Jafari R (2002). Evaluation of water
resources degradation in Kashan area using
desertification model. J. of Ecology, 30: 19-30.
Asrari and Masoudi
A New Methodology for Drought Vulnerability Assessment Using SPI (Standardized Precipitation Index)
432





Dr. Elham Asrari is an Associate Professor in the Civil Engineering Department of Payame Noor
University of Shiraz. She is a researcher and author, having published numerous peer-reviewed
articles in the fields of air pollution, water pollution and wastewater pollution. She received her MSc
in Environmental Engineering, and her PhD in Environmental Sciences from Pune University, India.












Dr Masoud Masoudi is an Associate Professor in Agriculture College of Shiraz University. He is a
researcher and author, having published numerous peer- reviewed articles in the fields of risk
assessment, land use planning, air pollution and etc.