Natural Hazards

, Volume 74, Issue 2, pp 967–987 | Cite as

Large wood transport as significant influence on flood risk in a mountain village

  • V. Ruiz-VillanuevaEmail author
  • J. M. Bodoque
  • A. Díez-Herrero
  • E. Bladé
Original Paper


An important issue that is not considered in most flood risk assessments in mountain villages in Spain is the transport of solids associated with the flood flow, in this case, large wood transport. The transport and deposition of this wood in urban areas may be a potentially worse hazard than the flood flow itself. Despite its importance, large wood is a key ecological element in rivers, so removing it could be an unsuccessful approach. Therefore, efforts are needed in the better understanding of wood transport and deposition in streams. To analyse this process, scenario-based 2D hydrodynamic flood modelling was carried out. Since flood risk assessment has considerable intrinsic uncertainty, probabilistic thinking was complemented by possibilistic thinking, considering worst-case scenarios. This procedure obtained a probabilistic flood map for a 500-year return period. Then, a series of scenarios was built based on wood budget to simulate wood transport and deposition. Results allowed us to identify the main infrastructures sensitive to the passing of large wood and simulate the consequences of their blockage due to wood. The potential damage was estimated as well as the preliminary social vulnerability for all scenarios (with and without wood transport). This work shows that wood transport and deposition during flooding may increase potential damage at critical stream configurations (bridges) by up to 50 % and the number of potentially exposed people nearby these areas by up to 35 %.


Flood risk Large wood transport Drift wood Woody debris 



This work was funded by CICYT MAS Dendro-Avenidas project (CGL 2010-19274) and the Geological Survey of Spain (IGME). We are grateful to the Confederación Hidrográfica del Tajo and Meteorological Agency (AEMET) for having provided meteorological data; the Junta de Castilla y León in Ávila, Ayuntamiento de Arenas de San Pedro (particularly to Nuria Blázquez, Gloria Suárez and Sixto Díaz) for their collaboration. Special mention to Martí Sánchez-Juni (UPC) for his collaboration; and to Ignacio Gutiérrez, Luis Fernández and Luis Barca for their assistance with the topographical survey.


  1. Abt SR, Wittler RJ, Taylor A, Love DJ (1989) Human stability in a high hazard flood zone. Water Resour Bull 25(4):881–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Apel H, Thieken AH, Merz B, Blöschl G (2004) Flood risk assessment and associated uncertainty. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 4:295–308Google Scholar
  3. Ballesteros-Canovas JA, Sanchez-Silva M, Bodoque JM, Diez-Herrero A (2013) An integrated approach to flood risk management: a case study of navaluenga (Central Spain). Water Resour Manage 27:3051–3069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bates PD, Horritt MS, Aronica G, Beven K (2004) Bayesian updating of flood inundation likelihoods conditioned on flood extent data. Hydrol Process 18:3347–3370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bezzola GR, Hegg C (eds) (2007) Ereignisanalyse Hochwasser 2005. Teil 1 Prozesse, Schäden und erste Einordnung. Bundesamt für Umwelt BAFU, Eidgenössische Forschungsanstalt WSL. Umweltwissen 0707, BernGoogle Scholar
  6. Bladé E, Cea L, Corestein G, Escolano E, Puertas J, Vázquez-Cendón ME, Dolz J, Coll A (2012) Iber – Herramienta de simulación numérica del flujo en ríos. Rev Int Metod Numer 30:1–10Google Scholar
  7. Blaschke T, Burnett C, Pekkarinen A (2004) New contextual approaches using image segmentation for object-based classification. In: De Meer F, de Jong S (eds) Remote sensing image analysis: including the spatial domain. Kluver Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 211–236Google Scholar
  8. Bocchiola D, Rulli M, Rosso R (2006) Transport of large woody debris in the presence of obstacles. Geomorphology 76:166–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bocchiola D, Rulli MC, Rosso R (2008) A flume experiment on the formation of wood jams in rivers. Water Resour 44:1–17Google Scholar
  10. Bradley C, Mosugu M, Gerrard AJ (2005) Simulation modelling of water movement in a cracking clay soil. Soil Use Manag 21:386–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Braudrick CA, Grant GE, Ishikawa Y, Ikeda H (1997) Dynamics of wood transport in streams: a flume experiment. Earth Surf Proc Land 22:7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brooks AP, Abbe T, Cohen T, Marsh N, Mika S, Boulton A, Broderick T, Borg D, Rutherfurd I (2006) Design guidelines for the reintroduction of wood into Australian streams. Land & Water Australia, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  13. Buxton TH (2010) Modelling entrainment of waterlogged large wood in stream channels. Water Resour Res 46:10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chow VT (1959) Open-channel hydraulics. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Comiti F, Mao L, Wilcox A, Wohl E, Lenzi M (2007) Field-derived relationships for flow velocity and resistance in high-gradient streams. J Hydrol 340:48–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Comiti F, Agostino VD, Moser M, Lenzi MA, Bettella F, Agnese AD, Rigon E, Gius S, Mazzorana B (2012) Preventing wood-related hazards in mountain basins: from wood load estimation to designing retention structures. In: 12th congress INTERPRAEVENT 2012—Grenoble/France conference proceedings, pp 651–662Google Scholar
  17. Di Baldassarre G, Schumann G, Bates P, Freer J, Beven K (2010) Floodplain mapping: a critical discussion on deterministic and probabilistic approaches. Hydrol Sci J 55(3):364–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Diehl TH (1997) Potential drift accumulation at bridges, FHWA-RD-97-28. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  19. Dudley SJ, Fischenich JC, Abt SR (1998) Effect of woody debris entrapment on flow resistance. J Am Water Resour As 34:1189–1197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Faulkner H, Parker D, Green C, Beven K (2007) Developing a translational discourse to communicate uncertainty in flood risk between science and the practitioner. Ambio 36:692–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fellin W, Lessmann H, Oberguggenberger M, Vieider R (2005) Analysing uncertainty in civil engineering. Springer, Berlin. ISBN 3-540-22246-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gaál L, Szolgay J, Kohnová S, Hlavcová K, Viglione A (2010) Inclusion of historical information in flood frequency analysis using a Bayesian MCMC technique: a case study for the power dam Orlík, Czech Republic. Contrib Geophys Geod 40:121–147Google Scholar
  23. Gaume E, Gaál L, Viglione A, Szolgay J, Kohnova S, Blöschl G (2010) Bayesian MCMC approach to regional flood frequency analyses involving extraordinary flood events at ungauged sites. J Hydrol 394:101–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gippel CJ (1995) Environmental hydraulics of large woody debris in streams and rivers. J Environ Eng ASCE 121:388–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gómez M, Macchione F, Russo B (2010) Hazard criteria related to urban flooding produced by heavy storm events. In: Proceedings of 1st European congress of the IAHR. Edinburgh, May 4–6Google Scholar
  26. Haque CE, Etkin D (2007) People and community as constituent parts of hazards: the significance of societal dimensions in hazards analysis. Nat Hazards 41:271–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jarrett RD, (1990) Paleohydrology used to define the spatial occurrence of floods. Geomorphol 3:81–95Google Scholar
  28. Kang JL, Su MD, Chang LF (2005) Loss functions and frame-work for regional flood damage estimation in residential area. J Mar Sci Technol 13:193–199Google Scholar
  29. Kelman I, Thomalla F, Brown J, Möller I, Spence R, Spencer T (2002) Coastal flood-risk assessment in England. Philos Trans R Soc Lond A360(1796):1553–1554Google Scholar
  30. Komatina D (2005) Uncertainty analysis as a complement to flood risk assessment.
  31. Kreibich H, Seifert I, Merz B, Thieken AH (2010) Development of FLEMOcs—a new model for the estimation of flood losses in the commercial sector. Hydrol Sci 55(8):1302–1314Google Scholar
  32. Kuczera G (1999) Comprehensive at-site flood frequency analysis using Monte Carlo Bayesian inference. Water Resour Res 35(5):1551–1557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lassettre NS, Kondolf GM (2012) Large woody debris in urban stream channels: redefining the problem. River Res Appl 28:1477–1487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. LeVeque RJ (2002) Finite volume methods for hyperbolic problems. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lyn D, Cooper T, Condon D, Gan L (2007) Factors in debris accumulation at bridge piers. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration Research and Development, Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center, WashingtonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Manga M, Kirchner JW (2000) Stress partitioning in streams by large woody debris. Water Resour 36:2373–2379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mao L, Comiti F (2010) The effects of large wood elements during an extreme flood in a small tropical basin of Costa Rica. In: De Wrachien D, Brebbia CA (eds) Debris flow III. WIT Press, UK, pp 225–236Google Scholar
  38. Martin DJ, Benda LE (2001) Patterns of in-stream wood recruitment and transport at the watershed scale. Trans Am Fish Soc 130:940–958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. May CL, Gresswell RE (2003) Large wood recruitment and redistribution in headwater streams in the southern Oregon Coast Range, U.S.A. Can J For Res 33:1352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mazzorana B, Hübl J, Zischg AM, Largiader A (2010) Modelling woody material transport and deposition in alpine rivers. Nat Hazards 56:425–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mazzorana B, Comiti F, Volcan C, Scherer C (2011) Determining flood hazard patterns through a combined stochastic–deterministic approach. Nat Hazards 59:301–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Merz B, Thieken AH, Blöschl, G (2002) Uncertainty analysis for flood risk estimation. In: Spreafico M, Weingartner R. (eds) International conference on flood estimation. CHR Report II-17, pp 577–585Google Scholar
  43. Merz B, Thieken AH, Gocht M (2007) Flood risk mapping at the local scale: concepts and challenges. In: Begum S, Stive MJF, Hall JW (eds) Flood risk management in Europe: innovation in policy and practice. Series: advances in natural and technological hazards research, vol 25. Springer, Dordrecht, Chapter 13, pp 231–251Google Scholar
  44. Merz B, Hall J, Disse M, Schumann A (2010) Fluvial flood risk management in a changing world. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 10:509–527. doi: 10.5194/nhess-10-509-2010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Messner F, Meyer V (2005) Flood damage, vulnerability and risk perception. Challenges for flood damage research. UFZ, Leipzig 26 pGoogle Scholar
  46. Messner F, Penning-Rowsell E, Green C, Meyer V, Tunstall S, van der Veen A (2007) Guide- lines for socio-economic flood damage evaluation. FLOODsite-Report T09-06-01, 176 ppGoogle Scholar
  47. MFE (2011) El Mapa Forestal de España 1:25000 (MFE), Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente (MARM).
  48. NRC (National Research Council) (2000) Risk analysis and uncertainty in flood damage reduction studies. National Academy Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  49. Ollero A (2013) ¿Por qué NO hay que limpiar los ríos?
  50. Pappenberger F, Frodsham K, Beven J, Frodsham K, Romanovicz R, Matgen P (2006) Fuzzy set approach to calibrating distributed flood inundation models using remote sensing observations. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci Discuss 3:2243–2277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Paté-Cornell ME (1996) Uncertainties in risk analysis: six levels of treatment. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 54:95–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. PATRICOVA (2002) Plan de acción territorial de carácter sectorial sobre prevención del riesgo de inundación en la comunidad valenciana. Documento No 1. Dirección General de Urbanismo y Ordenación Territorial, Generalitat Valenciana, ValenciaGoogle Scholar
  53. Reese S, Markau HJ, Sterr H (2003) MERK—Micro-scale evaluation of risks in flood-prone coastal lowlands. Research project on commission of the Federal Ministry of Research and the State of Schleswig-Holstein GovernmentGoogle Scholar
  54. Reis DS, Stedinger JR (2005) Bayesian MCMC flood frequency analysis with historical information. J Hydrol 313(1–2):97–116. doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.02.028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Reiter P (2000) International methods of risk analysis, damage evaluation and social impact studies concerning dam-break accidents. PR Water Consulting, HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  56. Rickenmann D (1997) Schwemmholz und hochwasser. Wasser Energie Luft 89(5/6):115–119Google Scholar
  57. Robison EG, Beschta RL (1990) Identifying trees in riparian areas that can provide coarse woody debris to streams. For Sci 36:790–801Google Scholar
  58. Romanowicz R, Beven KJ (2003) Bayesian estimation of flood inundation probabilities as conditioned on event inundation maps. Water Resour Res 39:3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ruiz-Villanueva V, Bodoque JM, Díez-Herrero A, Eguibar MA, Pardo-Igúzquiza E (2012) Reconstruction of an ungauged flash flood event with large wood transport and its influence on hazard patterns. Hydrol Process. doi: 10.1002/hyp.9433 Google Scholar
  60. Ruiz-Villanueva V, Díez-Herrero A, Bodoque JM, Ballesteros JA, Stoffel M (2013) Characterization of flash floods in small ungauged mountain basins of central Spain using an integrated approach. Catena 110:32–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ruiz-Villanueva V, Bladé-Castellet E, Sánchez-Juny M, Martí B, Díez Herrero A, Bodoque JM (2014a) Two dimensional numerical modelling of wood transport. J Hydroinf. doi:  10.2166/hydro.2014.026
  62. Ruiz-Villanueva V, Díez-Herrero A, Ballesteros JA, Bodoque JM (2014b) Potential Large Woody Debris recruitment due to landslides, bank erosion and floods in mountain basins: a quantitative estimation approach. River Res Appl 30:81–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Russo B, Gómez M, Macchione F (2011) Experimental approach to determine flood hazard criteria in urban areas. 12th international conference on urban drainage, Porto Alegre/Brazil, 10–15 September 2011Google Scholar
  64. Schmocker L, Hager W (2010) Drift accumulation at river bridges. In: Dittrich A, Koll K, Aberle J, Geisenhainer P (eds) River flow 2010. Bundesanstalt für WasserbauGoogle Scholar
  65. Schmocker L, Hager W (2011) Probability of drift blockage at bridge decks. J Hydraul Eng 137(4):470–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Schmocker L, Weitbrecht V (2013) Driftwood: risk analysis and engineering measures. J Hydraul Eng 139(7):683–695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Shand TD, Cox RJ, Blacka MJ, Smith GP (2010) Appropriate safety criteria for vehicles 14. Report number: P10/S1/006. Australian Rainfall and Runoff, 28 ppGoogle Scholar
  68. Swanson FJ (2003) Wood in rivers: a landscape perspective. Am Fish Soc Symp 37:299–313Google Scholar
  69. Yen BC, Tung YK, (1993) Some recent progress in reliability analysis for hydraulic design. In: Yen BC, Tung YK. (eds) Reliability and uncertainty analysis in hydraulic design: A report prepared by the subcommittee on uncertainty and reliability analysis in design of hydraulic structures of the technical committee on probabilistic approaches to hydraulics. ASCE, New York, pp 35–79Google Scholar
  70. USACE (1992) (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). Guidelines for risk and uncertainty analysis in water resources planning. Institute for Water Resources, IWR report 92-R-1, Fort Belvoir, VAGoogle Scholar
  71. Versteeg HK, Malalasekera W (2007) An introduction to computational fluid dynamics. Pearson Education Limited, Harlow. ISBN 978-0-13-127498-3Google Scholar
  72. Waldner P, Rickli C, Köchli D, Usbeck T, Schmocker L, Sutter F (2007) Schwemmholz [driftwood]. In: Bezzola GR, Hegg C (eds) Umwelt-Wissen 0707, pp 181–193 (in German)Google Scholar
  73. Wallingford HR (2005) The flood risk to people methodology. Flood risks to people, phase 2 R&D output FD2321/TR1. Defra/Environment Agency Flood and Coastal Defence R&D ProgrammeGoogle Scholar
  74. Wind HG, Nierop TM, de Blois CJ, de Kok JL (1999) Analysis of flood damages from the 1993 and 1995 Meuse floods. Water Resour Res 35(11):3459–3465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Yeo SW (1998) Controls on flood damages, Ba River Valley, Fiji. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Natural Hazards Research Centre, School of Earth Sciences, Macquarie UniversityGoogle Scholar
  76. Young WJ (1991) Flume study of the hydraulic effects of large woody debris in lowland rivers. Regul Rivers Res Manag 6:203–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • V. Ruiz-Villanueva
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • J. M. Bodoque
    • 1
  • A. Díez-Herrero
    • 1
  • E. Bladé
    • 1
  1. 1.Geological Survey of Spain (IGME)MadridSpain
  2., Institute of Geological SciencesUniversity of BernBernSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations