Reference Climatology Matters: How Baseline Selection Alters Standardized Drought Projections Under Climate Change and Their Implications for Sustainable Water Resources Planning

Standardized drought indices such as the Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI) are widely used in both monitoring and climate-change impact assessments. However, SPI values are not uniquely defined unless the reference climatology used for standardization is explicitly stated and justified−a methodological issue that becomes critical under non-stationary climate conditions. Here, we present a methodological assessment of how reference-climatology strategy affects SPI-based drought projections under climate change, using Türkiye’s 26 major basins as a hydroclimatically diverse testbed. These assessments inform sustainable water resources planning, agricultural adaptation, and climate-resilient infrastructure design under non-stationary climate. Daily precipitation projections from 56 GCM-RCM pairs (EURO-CORDEX EUR-11, 0.11° (approximately 12 km at the mid-latitudes of the study domain); CMIP5 RCP8.5) were bias-corrected against ERA5-Land and aggregated to basin means. We computed SPI-9 and compared two commonly used reference strategies: (i) a fixed historical baseline (1970–2005), applied consistently to both historical and future periods (fixed-baseline SPI); and (ii) a period-specific baseline (period-specific SPI; future SPI values are standardized to the climatology of the future evaluation period itself). Using the same climate simulations, the two strategies yield markedly different drought projections. At the country scale, end-of-century drought time reaches 458 months under the fixed-baseline strategy, whereas the period-specific strategy indicates 393 drought months. Corresponding severity summaries are likewise stronger under fixed-baseline standardization. The contrast is even stronger in several Mediterranean basins, where fixed-baseline standardization produces persistently severe drought conditions. These results show that SPI-based drought projections are substantially sensitive to the choice of reference-climatology strategy, and that the same climate ensemble can support materially different drought narratives depending on how anomalies are standardized. Because the two strategies differ in both reference-timing and calibration-window length (36 versus 95 years), the headline contrast should be interpreted as a combined effect rather than as a pure baseline-timing result. In the present implementation, the period-specific strategy uses a single future calibration period (2006–2100), so the comparison should be interpreted as a stress test of reference framing under non-stationary climate rather than as an equal-length baseline experiment. An equal-length late-baseline sensitivity check (1970–2005 versus 2065–2100; both spanning 36 years) shows that the fixed-to-late-baseline contrast is larger than the fixed-to-period-specific contrast in 25 of 27 spatial units, including a 3.0-fold amplification at the national scale, indicating that the reference-timing effect persists when calibration-window length is held constant. Because the analysis is based on a CMIP5-driven RCP8.5 ensemble, the numerical projections should be interpreted as a high-end stress-test envelope rather than as the most likely outcome. We therefore recommend that drought projection studies explicitly report the reference-climatology strategy, justify the calibration window, and distinguish between analyses designed to quantify change relative to a historical climate and analyses designed to describe anomalies relative to an evolving future climate. These methodological choices have direct implications for sustainable water resources management and drought-risk preparedness in water-stressed Mediterranean systems, and contribute to broader sustainability targets such as Sustainable Development Goal 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation), SDG 13 (Climate Action), and SDG 15 (Life on Land).