Advertisement

Landslides

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 165–178 | Cite as

A regional real-time debris-flow warning system for the District of North Vancouver, Canada

  • Matthias JakobEmail author
  • T. Owen
  • T. Simpson
Original Paper

Abstract

Engineered (structural) debris-flow mitigation for all creeks with elements at risk and subject to debris flows is often outside of the financial capability of the regulating government, and heavy task-specific taxation may be politically undesirable. Structural debris-flow mitigation may only be achieved over long (decadal scale) time periods. Where immediate structural mitigation is cost-prohibitive, an interim solution can be identified to manage residual risk. This can be achieved by implementing a debris-flow warning system that enables residents to reduce their personal risk for loss of life through timely evacuation. This paper describes Canada’s first real-time debris-flow warning system which has been operated for 2 years for the District of North Vancouver. The system was developed based on discriminant function analyses of 20 hydrometric input variables consisting of antecedent rainfall and storm rainfall intensities for a total of 63 storms. Of these 27 resulted in shallow landslides and subsequent debris flows, while 36 storms were sampled that did not reportedly result in debris flows. The discriminant function analysis identified as the three most significant variables: the 4-week antecedent rainfall, the 2-day antecedent rainfall, and the 48-h rainfall intensity during the landslide-triggering storm. Discriminant functions were developed and tested for robustness against a nearby rain gauge dataset. The resulting classification functions provide a measure for the likelihood of debris-flow initiation. Several system complexities were added to render the classification functions into a usable and defensible warning system. This involved the addition of various functionality criteria such as not skipping warning levels, providing sufficient warning time before debris flows would occur, and hourly adjustment of actual rainfall vs. predicted rainfall since predicted rainfall is not error-free. After numerous iterations that involved warning threshold and cancelation refinements and further model calibrations, an optimal solution was found that best matches the actual debris-flow data record. Back-calculation of the model’s 21-year record confirmed that 76% of all debris flows would have occurred during warning or severe warning levels. Adding the past 2 years of system operation, this percentage increases marginally to 77%. With respect to the District of North Vancouver boundaries, all debris flows occur during Warning and Severe Warnings emphasizing the validity of the system to the area for which it was intended. To operate the system, real-time rainfall data are obtained from a rain gauge in the District of North Vancouver. Antecedent rainfall is automatically calculated as a sliding time window for the 4-week and 2-day periods every hour. The predicted 48-h storm rainfall data are provided by the Geophysical Disaster Computational Fluid Dynamics Centre at the Earth and Ocean Science Department at the University of British Columbia and is updated every hour as rainfall is recorded during a given storm. The warning system differentiates five different stages: no watch, watch level 1 (the warning level is unlikely to be reached), watch level 2 (the warning level is likely to be reached), warning, and severe warning. The debris-flow warning system has operated from October 1, 2009 to April 30, 2010 and October 1, 2010 and April 30, 2011. Fortunately, we were able to evaluate model performance because the exact times of debris flows during November 2009 and January 2010 were recorded. In both cases, the debris flows did not only occur during the warning level but coincided with peaks in the warning graphs. Furthermore, four debris flows occurred during a warning period in November 2009 in the Metro Vancouver watershed though their exact time of day is unknown. The warning level was reached 13 times, and in four of these cases, debris flows were recorded in the study area. One debris flow was recorded during watch II level. There was no severe warning during the 2 years of operation. The current warning level during the wet season (October to April) is accessible via District of North Vancouver’s homepage (www.dnv.org) and by automated telephone message during the rainy season.

Keywords

Rainfall-induced landslides Debris flows Warning system 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work would not have been possible without the understanding of the intensive effort required for such study by the District of North Vancouver. We especially like to thank Jozsef Dioszeghy and Fiona Dercole for their continuing support. We acknowledge the excellent collaboration with the Geophysical Disaster Computational Fluid Dynamic Centre at the University of British Columbia. Neil Ripley drafted Fig. 1. Two anonymous reviewers provided useful comments and additional insights.

Supplementary material

10346_2011_282_MOESM1_ESM.doc (262 kb)
Table S1 Hydroclimatic data for all storms triggering and not triggering debris flows in the North Shore Mountains. (DOC 261 kb)

References

  1. Baum RL, Godt JW (2010) Early warning of rainfall-induced shallow landslides and debris flows in the USA. Landslides 7:259–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bovis MJ, Jakob M (1999) The role of debris supply to determine debris flow activity in southwestern BC. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 24:1039–1054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chan RKS, Pang PLR, Pun WK (2003) Recent developments in the landslips warning system in Hong Kong. In: Ho KKS, Li KS (eds) Geotechnical engineering—meeting society’s needs: proceedings of the 14th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference, Dec 10–14 (2001), Hong Kong. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 219–224Google Scholar
  4. Chleborad AF (2003) Preliminary evaluation of a precipitation threshold for anticipating the occurrence of landslides in the Seattle, Washington area. US Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-463Google Scholar
  5. Chleborad AF, Baum RL, Godt JW (2008) A prototype system for forecasting landslides in the Seattle, Washington area. In: Baum RL, Godt JW, Highland LM (eds) Engineering geology and landslides of the Seattle, Washington area: Geological Society of America reviews in engineering geology, vol XX. Geological Society of America, Boulder, pp 103–120. doi: 10.1120/2008.4020(06) Google Scholar
  6. d’Orsi RN, Ortigao JAR, Dias A, Morales L, Santos MD (1997) Rio-Watch: the Rio de Janeiro landslide watch system. In: Proc. 2nd PSLPan-Am Symp. on Landslides, Rio de Janeiro, vol 1, pp 21–30Google Scholar
  7. Dillon WR, Goldstein M (1984) Multivariate analysis—methods and application. Wiley, New York, 587pGoogle Scholar
  8. BGC Engineering Inc (2009) North Vancouver debris flow and debris flood quantitative risk assessment: update. Accessible via www.dnv.org
  9. Godt JW, Baum RL, Chleborad AF (2006) Rainfall characteristics for shallow landsliding in Seattle, Washington, USA. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 31:97–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Guzzetti F, Peruccacci S, Rossi M, Stark CP (2007) Rainfall thresholds for the initiation of landslides in central and southern Europe. Meteorol Atmos Phys 98(3–4):239–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Guzzetti F, Peruccacci S, Rossi M, Stark CP (2008) The rainfall intensity–duration control of shallow landslides and debris flows: an update. Landslides 5:3–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hungr O (2004). Landslide hazards in British Columbia. Achieving balance in risk assessments. Innovation, April 2004, 12–16Google Scholar
  13. Jakob M, Lambert S (2009). Climate change effects on landslides along the southwest coast of British Columbia. Geomorphology 107: 275–284Google Scholar
  14. Jakob M (1996) Morphometric and geotechnical controls of debris flow frequency and magnitude in southwestern British Columbia. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, 232ppGoogle Scholar
  15. Jakob M, Weatherly H (2003) A hydroclimatic threshold for landslide initiation on the North Shore Mountains of Vancouver, British Columbia. Geomorphology 54:137–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jakob M, McKendry I, Lee R (2003) Changes in rainfall intensity in the Greater Vancouver Regional District, British Columbia. Can Water Resour J 28(4):587–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jan C-D, Lee M-H (2004) A debris-flow rainfall-based warning model. Chin J Soil Water Conserv 35(3):275–285Google Scholar
  18. Jan C-D, Kuo FH, Lee MH (2007) A case study on debris-flow warning and evacuation during typhoon Haitang. In: 2nd International Conference on Urban Disaster Reduction, Taipei, TaiwanGoogle Scholar
  19. Kerr Wood Leidal Associates (KWL) (2003a) Overview report on debris flow hazards. Submitted to the District of North Vancouver. Accessible via www.dnv.org
  20. Kerr Wood Leidal Associates (KWL) (2003b) Reports on debris flow studies. Submitted to the District of North VancouverGoogle Scholar
  21. Lumley T, Diehr P, Emerson S, Chent L (2002) The importance of the normality assumption in large public hearth data. Annual Rev Public Health 23:151–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. NOAA-USGS Debris Flow Task Force (2005) Debris-flow warning system-final report. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1283, 47ppGoogle Scholar
  23. Ortigao JAR, Justi MG, D’Orsi R, Brito H (2001) Rio-Watch 2001: the Rio de Janeiro landslide alarm system. In: Ho KKS, Li KS (eds) Proc 14th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference, Hong Kong, vol 3. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 237–241Google Scholar
  24. Reichenbach P, Cardinali M, De Vita P, Guzzetti F (1998) Regional hydrological thresholds for landslides and floods in the Tiber River Basin (central Italy). Environ Geol 35(2–3):146–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schuster RL and Highland LM (2001) Socioeconomic and environmental impacts of landslides in the Western Hemisphere. US Geological Survey Open-file Report 01-0276Google Scholar
  26. Shapiro SS, Wilk MB, Chen HJ (1968) A comparative study of various tests of normality. J Am Stat Assoc 63:1343–1372Google Scholar
  27. Wieczorek GF, Glade T (2005) Climatic factors influencing occurrence of debris flow. In: Jakob M, Hungr O (eds) Debris-flow hazards and related phenomena. Springer-Praxis, Heidelberg, pp 325–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wiley TJ (2000) Relationship between rainfall and debris flows in western Oregon. Oregon Geol 62(2):27–43Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.BGC Engineering IncVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations