Akademik Veri Yönetim Sistemi
XI. International Congress on Global Practice of Multidisciplinary Scientific Studies, Munich, Almanya, 13 - 17 Ekim 2025, ss.308-309, (Özet Bildiri)
This research aims to reveal the differences between
drought characteristics based on the Standard Precipitation Index (SPI) and Run
theories, widely used in classical drought analyses, and to discuss how these
drought event definitions shape changes. In this context, SPI-3 analyses were
conducted using data from the Ereğli meteorological stations in the south of
the Konya Closed Basin (KEB), Cihanbeyli in the north, and Seydişehir in the
west. The study used both methods/definitions to compare the drought durations,
magnitudes, and intensities. The findings indicate that the SPI theory
describes drought events as relatively short-lived but highly severe. In
contrast, the Run theory results reflect drought conditions with longer
durations but lower intensities. This difference clearly demonstrates the
impact of the methodologies used in drought analyses on the results and
demonstrates that an assessment based on a single method can be limited. Drought
events, which have increased in number and whose impacts are becoming
increasingly evident in the basin, particularly over the last two decades, have
reached critical levels in recent years. Comparative findings from both methods
revealed that droughts vary significantly in intensity and duration across
different basin parts. For example, the SPI theory highlights high-severity
droughts, while the Run theory results emphasize prolonged drought conditions
in other parts. Conversely, the relatively milder drought conditions
experienced in specific regions and their surrounding areas indicate regional
heterogeneity across the basin. The drought conditions that developed after
2020 reached critical levels, further confirming the hydrological vulnerability
of the KEB. In conclusion, this study demonstrates that drought analyses should
not be based on a single method. SPI and Run theories complement each other,
and their combined use in drought monitoring provides advantages in terms of
accurate assessments. This allows for a more holistic assessment of both
short-term severe droughts and long-term low-severity periods, emphasizing these
approaches' critical importance for monitoring and drought management.