Natural Hazards

, Volume 70, Issue 3, pp 1749–1762 | Cite as

Climate input parameters for real-time online risk assessment

Original Paper


Risk assessment of natural hazards is often based on the actual or forecast weather situation. For estimating such climate-related risks, it is important to obtain weather data as frequently as possible. One commonly used climate interpolation routine is DAYMET, which in its current form is not able to update its database for periods of less than a year. In this paper, we report the construction of a new climate database with a standard interface and implement a framework for providing daily updated weather data for online daily weather interpolations across regions. We re-implement the interpolation routines from DAYMET to be compliant with the data handling in the new framework. We determine the optimal number of stations used in two possible interpolation routines, assess the error bounds using an independent validation dataset and compare the results with a previous validation study based on the original DAYMET implementation. Mean absolute errors are 1°C for maximum and minimum temperature, 28 mm for precipitation, 3.2 MJ/m² for solar radiation and 1 hPa for vapour pressure deficit, which is in the range of the original DAYMET routine. Finally, we provide an example application of the methodology and derive a fire danger index for a 1 km grid over Austria.


Interpolation Daily weather data Ecosystem modelling Risk assessment 



This research was partly funded by two projects from the Austrian Science Foundation (FWF): The ‘Austrian Forest Fire Research Initiative’ and ‘Application of ergodic theory within ecosystem modelling’. Thanks to the Central Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics, for providing the daily climate records. We thank Peter E. Thornton for making the original version of DAYMET available, Herbert Formayer for data handling support and Chris Eastaugh for English language editing. We also thank Prof. Thomas Glade for organising the session on Natural Hazards during the EGU conference 2009 in Vienna and the anonymous reviewers.


  1. Baier P, Pennerstorfer J, Schopf A (2007) PHENIPS—a comprehensive phenology model of Ips typographus (L.) (Col., Scolytinae) as a tool for hazard rating of bark beetle infestation. Forest Ecol Manag 249:171–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brooker P (1979) Kriging. Eng Min J 180:148–153Google Scholar
  3. Burgan RE (1988) Revisions to the 1978 national fire-danger rating system. Research paper SE-273. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Asheville, NCGoogle Scholar
  4. Burgan RE, Andrews PL, Bradshaw LS, Chase CH, Hartford RA, Latham DJ (1997) WFAS: wildland fire assessment system. Fire Manag Notes 57:14–17Google Scholar
  5. Carlson JD, Burgan RE (2003) Review of users’ needs in operational fire danger estimation: the Oklahoma example. Int J Rem Sens 24:1601–1620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carrega P (1991) A meteorological index of forest fire hazard in mediterranean France. Int J Wildland Fire 1:79–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chang K-T, Chiang S-H (2008) An integrated model for predicting rainfall-induced landslides. Geomorphology 105:366–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Changnon SA (2007) New risk assessment products for dealing with financial exposure to weather hazards. Nat Hazards 43:295–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cressie NA (1993) Statistics for spatial data, revised edition. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Cruden DM (1991) A simple definition of a landslide. Bull Int As Eng Geol 43:27–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dai FC, Lee CF, Ngai YY (2002) Landslide risk assessment and management: an overview. Eng Geol 64:65–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eastaugh CS, Petritsch R, Hasenauer H (2010) Climate characteristics across the Austrian forest estate from 1960 to 2008. Austr J Forest Res 127:133–146Google Scholar
  13. Ellis AW, Leathers DJ (1999) Analysis of cold airmass temperature modification across the US Great Plains as a consequence of snow depth and albedo. J Appl Meteorol 38:696–711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hasenauer H, Merganičová K, Petritsch R, Pietsch SA, Thornton PE (2003) Validating daily climate interpolations over complex terrain in Austria. Agr Forest Meteorol 119:87–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hong Y, Adler RF, Negri A, Huffman GJ (2007) Flood and landslide applications of near real-time satellite rainfall products. Nat Hazards 43:285–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jones PG, Thornton PK (2000) MarkSim: software to generate daily weather data for Latin America and Africa. Agron J 92:445–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Keetch JJ, Byram GM (1968) A drought index for forest fire control. Research paper SE-38. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Asheville, NCGoogle Scholar
  18. Meek DW (1997) Estimation of maximum possible daily global solar radiation. Agr Forest Meteorol 87:223–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nonhebel S (1994) The effects of use of average instead of daily weather data in crop growth simulation models. Agr Syst 44:377–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Petritsch R (2002) Anwendung und Validierung des Klimainterpolationsmodells DAYMET in Österreich. Master thesis, University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  21. Rawat V, Saraf AK, Das J, Sharma K, Shujat Y (2011) Anomalous land surface temperature and outgoing long-wave radiation observations prior to earthquakes in India and Romania. Nat Hazards, doi: 10.1007/s11069-011-9736-5
  22. Running SW, Coughlan JC (1988) A general model of forest ecosystem processes for regional applications. I. Hydrological balance, canopy gas exchange and primary production processes. Ecol Model 42:125–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schuster RL (1996) Socioeconomic significance of landslides. In: Turner AK, Schuster RL (eds) Landslides: investigation and mitigation, Special Report 247. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council. National Academy Press, Washington, pp 12–35Google Scholar
  24. Semenov MA, Barrow EM (1997) Use of a stochastic weather generator in the development of climate change scenarios. Clim Change 35:397–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Shepard D (1968) A two-dimensional interpolation function for irregularly-spaced data. In: Proceedings of the 1968 ACM national conference, pp 517–524Google Scholar
  26. Soltani A, Latifi N, Nasiri M (2000) Evaluation of WGEN for generating long term weather data for crop simulations. Agr Forest Meteorol 102:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Thornton PE, Running SW, White MA (1997) Generating surfaces of daily meteorological variables over large regions of complex terrain. J Hydrol 190:214–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Thornton PE, Hasenauer H, White MA (2000) Simultanous estimation of daily solar radiation and humidity from observed temperature and precipitation: an application over complex terrain in Austria. Agr Forest Meteorol 104:255–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Viegas DX, Bovio G, Ferreira A, Nosenzo A, Sol B (1999) Comparative study of various methods of fire danger evaluation in Southern Europe. Int J Wildland Fire 9:235–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wermelinger B, Seifert M (1998) Analysis of the temperature dependent development of the spruce bark beetle Ips typographus (L.) (Col., Scolytidae). J Appl Entomol 122:185–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of SilvicultureBOKU University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations