Abstract
Landslide dams, forming when a landslide blocks a watercourse, are significant components of slope-river systems. Dams can fail suddenly and catastrophically, threatening downstream populations and structures. So it is important to understand where they could form, how long they persist in the landscape, and the extent of downstream inundation once they fail. To investigate dam formation, longevity, and stability effectively in Aotearoa New Zealand, we present version 1.0 of the New Zealand Landslide Dam Database (NZLDD). The database includes compilation, mapping, and/or remapping of 1036 dams, including those generated by the 2016 Kaikōura Earthquake. A representative subset of 265 dams was selected to analyse dam stability and breaching in detail (ongoing work). The database architecture, description of datasets included, attribute definitions, and some summary statistics are presented here. Many dams in the database have formed in greywacke bedrock terrain, by earthquake-triggered rock avalanches, falls, and slides. Most are small (Dam Type I—small dam that does not reach opposite valley side), and have since failed and no longer impede or impound water. The NZLDD represents a significant increase in catalogued landslide dams—almost doubling the existing number of known and studied dams worldwide.
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction and background
Landslide dams are well-known but relatively poorly studied. They are defined here as significant,Footnote 1 ephemeral or enduring blockages of a watercourse by a landslide, and can be analysed as part of multi-hazard, cascading slope-river systems where dam breaching and downstream inundation can be extremely damaging and dangerous (Costa and Schuster 1988; Davies et al. 2007; Dunant 2019; Fan et al. 2020). For example, the Dadu River landslide dam in China breached 10 days after formation in 1786 and killed over 100,000 people downstream (Dai et al. 2005).
In this communication, we present version 1.0 (v1.0) of the New Zealand Landslide Dam Database (NZLDD)—the most comprehensive database of landslide dams in Aotearoa New Zealand to date, including landslide dams triggered by the 2016 Kaikōura Earthquake. We describe the database architecture and design, list compiled datasets, present basic statistics on the database, and provide a detailed data dictionary that includes a categorical measure of data quality. Of the > 1000 landslide dams in the database, we selected a representative subset of 265 sites that were assessed in detail. Key quantitative variables and their definitions, such as landslide and dam dimensions and the Dimensionless Blockage Index (DBI), are also included for this subset in NZLDD v1.0. The database is published on the Open Science Framework platform (https://osf.io).Footnote 2 It will be used in subsequent analysis to investigate landslide dam formation potential, stability, and breaching mechanisms.
Database architecture and design
The NZLDD comprises an ArcGIS geodatabase in New Zealand Transverse Mercator 2000 (NZTM2000) projection and contains five feature classes and one table. The landslide dam site point feature class (DamSite) indicates the location of the landslide dam along the river centreline, and the four polygon feature classes outline each landslide Source, Debris Trail, and Dam as well as the landslide-dammed Lake, where mapped (Figs. 1 and 2). Note that Debris Trail and Dam, as mapped here, together comprise the landslide deposit, with the Dam limited to the part of the deposit damming its respective watercourse (i.e., the Dam polygon is limited to the valley width). The table contains metadata, including quality rankings. See the “Data dictionary” section and Supplementary information for full definitions of attributes listed in Fig. 2Footnote 3.
Datasets included
The database is a compilation of previously mapped published and unpublished landslide dams, as well as newly identified dams. The datasets span a range of event-based inventories, which include both rainfall- and earthquake-induced landslides, as well as individual case studies, compilation datasets, and composite events with unknown triggers (Table 1).
As part of creating the NZLDD, extensive new mapping was completed. This included mapping recent landslides, dams, and lakes, particularly in Southland, Fiordland (including those formed during the 2003 and 2009 Fiordland earthquakes), and Kaikōura, as well as remapping many previously mapped landslide dams (Table 1) to a higher level of accuracy and detail. To do this, all available maps and digital data on landslides were collated from earlier studies into a GIS. This included polygon, line, and point data of landslides and landslide dams (where available) captured at a range of accuracies and scales.
The following base data were used to facilitate the new mapping and remapping:
-
The national 8 m Digital Elevation Model (DEM) and associated hillshade model, created primarily from 20 m contours (LINZ 2012)
-
National c. 1.5 m resolution 2012–2014 cloud-minimised mosaics of SPOT 6 satellite imagery (Ministry for the Environment 2014)
-
The LINZ 1:50,000 topographic map and NZ-Imagery service on ArcGIS Online
-
Time-series Planet Labs 3 m resolution satellite imagery
-
Google Earth imagery
-
The LINZ 1:50,000 (Topo50) lake and river polygons (LINZ 2020a, b)
-
Landslides in the Landslide Database (Rosser et al. 2017) and GNS large landslide inventory (Hancox and Perrin unpublished)
-
QMAP 1:250,000 series landslide layers and landslide deposit geological units compiled at 1:50,000 scale (e.g. Cox and Barrell 2007; Forsyth et al. 2008; Rattenbury et al. 2010; Turnbull 2000; Turnbull et al. 2010)
-
Digital Surface Models (DSMs), hillshades and orthomosaics captured using Terrestrial Laser Scanning (TLS) and/or Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) were used for detailed case studies (e.g. Hapuku Rock Avalanche; see Wolter et al. 2022)
-
In the Kaikōura area, the following datasets were used to locate landslide dams immediately post-earthquake that were not captured in versions 1, 2, and 3 of the Kaikōura Earthquake landslide inventory (Massey et al. 2018, 2019, 2021; Jones et al. in prep):
-
1.
2015 30 cm regional aerial imagery (Environment Canterbury 2015)
-
2.
2016 1 m Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data and associated hillshade model (GNS Science 2022a; GNS Science et al. 2022a)
-
3.
2017 1 m LiDAR data and associated hillshade model (GNS Science 2022b)
-
4.
2017 30 cm regional aerial imagery (GNS Science et al. 2022b)
-
5.
2 m InSAR-corrected difference model between 2015 and 2017 DSMs (Massey et al. 2020)
-
6.
2019 30 cm regional aerial imagery (GNS Science 2022c)
-
1.
Summary statistics
The NZLDD v1.0 geodatabase includes 1036 landslide dams throughout Aotearoa New Zealand. This is a significant increase in the number of documented dams in New Zealand and worldwide—previous global inventories include up to ~ 1800 dams worldwide (cf. Fan et al. 2020; Shen et al. 2020).
Of these 1036 dams, 60–68% occurred in terrain of Cambrian to Mesozoic (510 to 100 Ma) basement rock (usually metamorphosed argillites and sandstones—“greywacke”) and 14–18% in Neogene (23 to 3 Ma) sedimentary rock terrains (depending on whether the Kaikōura dataset is included or not; Fig. 3). Most dam-forming landslides were classified according to Hungr et al. (2014) as rock avalanches, falls, slides, and topples (51–52%), compared with 26% in Fan et al. (2020).
Many dams in the NZLDD (30–62%) formed because of earthquakes (Fig. 3; Table 2). For example, 470 landslides that formed dams in the database were triggered by the 2016 Kaikōura Earthquake. Miscellaneous triggers, such as progressive weakening, fluvial erosion, snowmelt, volcanic eruption, undercutting, creep, collapse, orientation of rocks, and changing reservoir levels, total 13% (if the Kaikōura Earthquake dams are not included) or 7% (if the Kaikōura Earthquake dams are included). Rainfall-induced landslides account for just 3–5% of the dams in the NZLDD. Dams with unknown or unclassified triggers comprise 52% or 28% of the NZLDD v1.0. In contrast, according to Fan et al. (2020), ~ 20% and ~ 45% of landslide dams worldwide were triggered by earthquakes and rainfall, respectively. In their database, miscellaneous triggers (snowmelt, volcanism, human, etc.) totalled 19% and unknown triggers totalled 16%. Note that earthquake-triggered landslides are typically mapped systematically in New Zealand after a seismic event. This was certainly the case in the Kaikōura region, where the landslide inventory (Jones et al. in prep) included even small dams and used high-resolution datasets that would have been unavailable for earlier events. Hence, the database may be biased towards more recent, earthquake event inventories. We have therefore included summary statistics both with and without the Kaikōura Earthquake dataset.
Dam Types I and II, as defined in Fan et al. (2020) and the “Landslide dam sites” section, are the most common in the database (Fig. 3), unlike the global database, where Type III is most common. Most dams have failed completely, which aligns with international findings.
The landslides that dammed watercourses range in source volume from 4 m3 to 180 M m3, and the runout calculated aligns well with international landslide datasets (Brideau et al. 2021; Fig. 4). Some smaller landslides have a greater runout than international examples.
Data dictionary
Landslide dam sites
This point feature class signifies the location of landslide dams and is situated at the upstream end of the dam. There is always one DamSite point for one Dam (see below). The point position is exactly on the river centreline so that river and catchment metrics can be systematically calculated. For consistency, river centrelines were generated using the 8 m national DEM (LINZ 2012; see the “Watershed analysis methodology” section for more details). For this reason, landslide dam points (DamSite in Fig. 2) may not always be immediately adjacent to the landslide dam polygons (Dam in Fig. 2). This is particularly the case in areas of low topographic gradient, due to the coarse resolution of the national DEM, and where the river centreline might not represent the most recent watercourse, for example, due to digitising errors or channel avulsion.
The DamSite feature class contains most attributes specific to each landslide dam. A summary is presented in Supplementary Information SI Table 1. Note that we followed the definitions in Fan et al. (2020) as closely as possible. Variations from these definitions are mentioned in the table and Figs. 5 and 6.
Watershed analysis methodology
The national DEM of New Zealand (LINZ 2012) was used for catchment analysis, which has a grid resolution of 8 m.
The following methodology was used to generate river centrelines and define catchment areas for each landslide dam using ArcGIS:
-
1.
The national 8 m DEM was ‘filled’ to remove artificial ‘sinks’ or depressions—the assumption was made that all sinks are artefacts.
-
2.
Flow direction and flow accumulation grids were created to establish the flow path of streams and rivers throughout Aotearoa New Zealand.
-
3.
The flow accumulation raster was reclassified so that only values > 5000Footnote 4 showed. These are the river centrelines used for the NZLDD.
-
4.
The landslide DamSite points were snapped to the river centrelines and then used as ‘pour points’, defined as points on the surface where water exits the catchment (ESRI 2018). Each of these pour points was assigned a unique identifier that could be matched to its corresponding catchment. The ArcGIS Snap Pour Point tool moves each point to the highest flow accumulation, so a search radius of 4 m (corresponding to half the resolution of the DEM) was used to make sure that a point is snapped to the nearest river centreline.
-
5.
The catchment upstream of each pour point, or dam, was then delineated using the Watershed tool. Each point was calculated individually to make sure that the full catchment upstream of each dam point was captured, as the tool delineates only the catchment area up to the next upstream pour point. This process was scripted so that each dam catchment was generated separately, converted to a polygon, and incorporated into a single dataset of catchment polygons. Maximum and minimum elevation for each dam catchment were also calculated.
-
6.
The area of each polygon, which represents the upstream catchment area for each dam, was joined back to the original landslide DamSite point using the unique identifier.
Landslide sources
This polygon feature class signifies the source area(s) of the landslide that formed the landslide dam. The Source was delineated using a variety of methods from manual mapping on 1 m resolution LiDAR to unsupervised techniques using remote sensing. The quality of data (e.g. resolution and accuracy) therefore varies depending on the technique used, as detailed in the Quality Rankings table (see the “Quality rankings” section).
This feature class contains attributes that are specific to the landslide source. A summary is presented in SI Table 2.
Landslide debris trails
This polygon feature class signifies the debris trail(s) of the landslide, defined as the deposit between the Source and Dam, and it can also include debris that did not block the watercourse (see below). Debris trails were not mapped if the deposit extent matched the Dam extent. Like the landslide Source, the Debris Trail was delineated using a variety of methods from manual mapping on 1 m resolution LiDAR to unsupervised techniques using remote sensing. The quality of data (e.g. resolution and accuracy) therefore varies depending on the technique used, as described in the Quality Rankings table (see the “Quality rankings” section).
This feature class contains attributes that are specific to the landslide debris trail. A summary is presented in SI Table 3.
Landslide dams
This polygon feature class signifies the area of landslide debris that blocked the watercourse, forming the landslide dam. Where possible, this includes only the debris that formed the dam while other debris that did not block the watercourse has been mapped separately into the Debris Trail feature class. Occasionally, the Dam polygon may be representative of the whole landslide deposit. In some instances, the dam no longer exists in the landscape and its extent has been interpreted. Like the landslide Source, the Dam was delineated using a variety of methods from manual mapping on 1 m resolution LiDAR to unsupervised techniques using remote sensing. The quality of data (e.g. resolution and accuracy) therefore varies depending on the technique used, as described in the Quality Rankings table (see the “Quality rankings” section).
This feature class contains attributes that are specific to the landslide dam. A summary is presented in SI Table 4.
Landslide-dammed lakes
This polygon feature class signifies the known or inferred area inundated by landslide-dammed lakes. In many instances, the lake no longer exists in the landscape and its extent was inferred based on geomorphic features such as sedimentary plains, wetlands, and deltas. If no obvious signs of a past lake exist for a particular case study, a lake was not mapped. Where the landslide-dammed lakes still exist today (typically for large, enduring dams), the current lake extent was taken from the LINZ topographic 1:50,000 scale mapping (LINZ 2020a, b). These are likely not the initial or maximum lake extents, particularly for old dams. Using the datasets available, we were able to map lakes for ~ 80% of landslide dams in the v1.0 dataset. The lake was delineated using a variety of methods from manual mapping on 1 m resolution LiDAR to using the LINZ 1:50,000 scale map data. The quality of data (e.g. resolution and accuracy) therefore varies depending on the technique used, as described in the Quality Rankings table (see the “Quality rankings” section).
This feature class contains attributes that are specific to the landslide-dammed lake. A summary is presented in SI Table 5.
Quality rankings
This table records the quality of each source dataset or reference. Where multiple references are given in the feature classes, the ranking of the highest overall quality record is assigned to the dataset. For example, if the dataset was originally mapped by Perrin and Hancox (unpublished) but updated by the NZLDD v1.0 authors using more recent satellite imagery or terrain models, then the metadata record for the updated mapping is linked to the landslide DamSite points via the Metadata ID field. Only the highest quality records (i.e. those linked to the DamSite point by the MetadataID) have quality rankings provided for v1.0 of the database.
In v1.0 of the database, this table contains attributes that are specific to the quality of each whole source dataset, not individual landslide dams. In v2.0, the quality rankings will be landslide-specific. A summary is presented in SI Table 6.
Data Availability
The database is published on the Open Science Framework platform (https://osf.io).
Notes
We define significant blockages here as features that impede the flow of a watercourse.
The database can also be accessed via the GNS Science Dataset Catalogue at https://data.gns.cri.nz/metadata/srv/eng/catalog.search#/metadata/73C75E33-ECF2-4563-B22B-C16ED559E18C
See ESRI (2016) for definitions of primary and foreign keys.
The value of the flow accumulation grid is the number of cells that flow to a particular location. The value of 5000 was chosen as a minimum threshold as it best delineates river centrelines.
References
Adams J (1981) Earthquake-dammed lakes in New Zealand. Geology 9:215–219. https://doi.org/10.1130/0091-7613(1981)9<215:ELINZ>2.0.CO;2
Allen SK, Cox SC, Owens IF (2011) Rock avalanches and other landslides in the central Southern Alps of New Zealand: a regional study considering possible climate change impacts. Landslides 8(1):33–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-010-0222-z
Bainbridge R (2017) Lost landslides: Rock-avalanche occurrence and fluvial censoring processes on South Island, New Zealand. Unpublished PhD thesis, Northumbria University
Barth NC (2014) The Cascade rock avalanche: implications of a very large Alpine Fault-triggered failure, New Zealand. Landslides 11(3):327–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-013-0389-1
Beaumont S (2011) Callery Landsldie Dam Initial Assessment amended. Unpublished report to West Coast Regional Council. 8 pages
Brideau, M, de Vilder S, Massey C, Mitchell A, McDougall S, Aaron J (2021) V1.0 Empirical Landslide Runout Relationships, compiled from international examples, for various landslide types. DesignSafe-CI. https://doi.org/10.17603/ds2-9qbx-n796v1
Carey JM, Hancox GT, McSaveney MJ (2015) The January 2013 Wanganui River debris flood resulting from a large rock avalanche from Mt Evans, Westland, New Zealand. Landslides 12(5):961–972. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-015-0607-0
Cave M et al (unpublished) 2020 Gisborne storm event landslide dams
Chevalier G, Davies TR, McSaveney MJ (2009) The prehistoric Mt Wilberg rock avalanche, Westland, New Zealand. Landslides 6(3):253–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-009-0156-5
Costa JE, Schuster RL (1988) The formation and failure of natural dams. Geol Soc Am Bull 100(7):1054–1068
Costa JE, Schuster RL (1991) Documented historical landslide dams from around the world (No 91–239). US Geological Survey, Vancouver WA, USA, 494 pps, USGS Publications Warehouse. https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr91239
Cowan HA (1992) Structure, seismicity and tectonics of the Porters Pass-Amberley Fault Zone, North Canterbury, New Zealand. PhD (Geology) thesis, University of Canterbury
Cowan HA, Nicol A, Tonkin P (1996) A comparison of historical and paleoseismicity in a newly formed fault zone and a mature fault zone, North Canterbury, New Zealand. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 101(B3):6021–6036
Cox SC, Allen SK (2009) Vampire rock avalanches of January 2008 and 2003, Southern Alps, New Zealand. Landslides, 6(2):161–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-009-0149-4
Cox SC, Barrell DJA (comps) (2007) Geology of the Aoraki area: scale 1:250,000. Lower Hutt:GNS Science Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences 1:250,000 geological map 15. 71 p + 1 folded map
Cox SC, Barrell DJA, Dellow GD, McColl ST, Horspool NA (2015) Landslides and ground damage during the Mw58 Matukituki Earthquake, 4 May 2015, central Otago, New Zealand. Lower Hutt, NZ: GNS Science GNS Science report 2015/17 12 p
Cox SC, Rattenbury MS, McSaveney MJ, Hamling IJ (2014) Activity of the landslide Te Horo and Te Koroka fan, Dart River, New Zealand during January 2014. Lower Hutt, NZ: GNS Science GNS Science report 2014/07 45 p
Cox SC, Sirguey P (2020) Landscape change in the Te Koroka tōpuni, Dart Valley, Otago with implications for kaitiakitanga of taonga. GNS Science consultancy report 2020/89LR 12 p
Crozier MJ, Deimel MS, Simon JS (1995) Investigation of earthquake triggering for deep-seated landslides, Taranaki, New Zealand. Quatern Int 25:65–73
Crozier MJ, Pillans BJ (1991) Geomorphic events and landform response in south-eastern Taranaki. New Zealand Catena 18(5):471–487
Dai FC, Lee CF, Deng JH, Tham LG (2005) The 1786 earthquake-triggered landslide dam and subsequent dam-break flood on the Dadu River, southwestern China. Geomorphology 65(3–4):205–221
Davies TR, McSaveney MJ (2011) Rock-avalanche size and runout: implications for landslide dams. p. 441–462. IN: Evans SG, Hermanns RL, Strom A, Scarascia-Mugnozza G (eds). Natural and artificial rockslide dams. Lecture notes in earth sciences 133. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04764-0_17
Davies TR, Manville V, Kunz M, Donadini L (2007) Modeling landslide dambreak flood magnitudes: case study. J Hydraul Eng 133:713–720
de Vilder SJ, Massey CI, Archibald GC, Morgenstern R (2020) The geomorphic impact of large landslides: a case-study of the actively moving Alpine Gardens Landslide, Fox Glacier Valley, West Coast, New Zealand. (abstract) EGU2020–12411. In: European Geosciences Union General Assembly 2020, Online, 4–8 May 2020 Goettingen, Germany: Copernicus Gesellschaft Geophysical research abstracts 22. https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu2020-12411
Drummond RG (1968) Landslide in Tuki Tuki River: Soil and Water. December issue, Ministry of Works, Wellington, pp.22–23
Dufresne A, Davies TR, McSaveney MJ (2010) Influence of runout-path material on emplacement of the Round Top rock avalanche, New Zealand. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 35(2):190–201. https://doi.org/10.1002/esp1900
Dunant A (2019) Quantification of multi-hazard risk from natural disasters. University of Canterbury, PhD
Dymond JR, Ausseil AG, Shepherd JD, Buettner L (2006) Validation of a region-wide model of landslide susceptibility in the Manawatu-Wanganui region of New Zealand. Geomorphology 74(1–4):70–79
Environment Canterbury (2015) Canterbury 03m rural aerial photos (2014–2015). Collected by Aerial Surveys, distributed by LINZ at https://data.linz.govt.nz/layer/52602-canterbury-03m-rural-aerial-photos-2014-2015/, https://doi.org/10.21420/K3H6-Z038
Ermini L, Casagli N (2003) Prediction of the behaviour of landslide dams using a geomorphological dimensionless index. Earth Surf Proc Land 28(1):31–47
ESRI (2016) Relationship class properties. Accessed online from https://desktop.arcgis.com/en/arcmap/latest/manage-data/relationships/relationship-class-properties.htm#GUID-C4FA49CB-0841-4F63-8A08-B05DD6FA6FA4
ESRI (2018) ArcMap 1051. ESRI Inc, Redlands California
Fan X, Dufresne A, Subramanian SS, Strom A, Hermanns R, Stefanelli CT, Hewitt K, Yunus AP, Dunning S, Capra L, Geertsema M (2020) The formation and impact of landslide dams–State of the art. Earth Sci Rev 203:p103116
Forsyth PJ, Barrell DJA, Jongens R (comps) (2008) Geology of the Christchurch area: scale 1:250,000. Lower Hutt: GNS Science Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences 1:250,000 geological map 16. 67 p + 1 folded map
GNS Science (2022a) Kaikōura, Canterbury, New Zealand 2016. Additional LiDAR GNS Science. https://doi.org/10.21420/CZZW-CS82
GNS Science (2022b) Kaikōura, Canterbury, New Zealand 2017. LiDAR GNS Science. https://doi.org/10.21420/HMC6-QV40
GNS Science (2022c) 2019 Kaikōura regional orthomosaic . GNS Science. https://doi.org/10.21420/ZA38-7335
GNS Science, Environment Canterbury Regional Council, Marlborough District Council, Kaikōura District Council, Hurunui District Council, Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency, Earthquake Commission, Toitū Te Whenua Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) (2022a) Kaikōura, Canterbury, New Zealand 2016. Collected by AAM, distributed by OpenTopography and LINZ. https://doi.org/10.5069/G9HD7SWJ
GNS Science, Environment Canterbury Regional Council, Marlborough District Council, Kaikōura District Council, Hurunui District Council, Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency, Earthquake Commission, Toitū Te Whenua Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) (2022b) 2016–2017 Kaikoura 030m Rural Aerial Photos . Collected by Aerial Surveys, distributed by LINZ. https://doi.org/10.21420/ZSJ5-N017
Hancox GT, Cox SC, Jongens R (2010) The nature and significance of landslides caused by the Mw 7.6 earthquake of 15 July, 2009 in Fiordland, New Zealand. p 219–228 (paper 027). IN: Williams, AL, Pinches, GM, Chin, CY, McMorran, TJ, Massey, CI (eds) Geologically active: delegate papers 11th Congress of the International Association for Engineering Geology and the Environment, Auckland, Aotearoa, 5–10 September 2010 Boca Raton, Fla:CRC Press
Hancox GT, Cox SC, Turnbull IM, Crozier MJ (2004) Landslides and other ground damage caused by the Mw 7.2 Fiordland earthquake of 22 August 2003 p 747–753. IN: Farquhar, G, Kelsey, P, Marsh, J, Fellows, D (eds) To the eNZ of the earth: proceedings of the 9th Australia New Zealand Conference on Geomechanics Auckland: Centre for Continuing Education, University of Auckland
Hancox GT, McSaveney MJ, Manville VR, Davies TR (2005) The October 1999 Mt Adams rock avalanche and subsequent landslide dam-break flood and effects in Poerua River, Westland, New Zealand. NZ J Geol Geophys 48(4):683–705
Hancox GT, Perrin ND (unpublished) GNS large landslide inventory
Hancox GT, Perrin ND (1994) Green Lake landslide: an ancient large-scale wedge failure in glaciated terrain, Fiordland, New Zealand. Lower Hutt: Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences. Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences science report 93/18. 50 p
Hancox GT, Perrin ND (2009) Green Lake landslide and other giant and very large postglacial landslides in Fiordland, New Zealand. Quater Sci Rev 28(11/12):1020–1036. https://doi.org/10.1016/jquascirev200808017
Hancox GT, Perrin ND, Dellow GD (1997) Earthquake-induced landsliding in New Zealand and implications for MM intensity and seismic hazard assessment. Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences client report 43601B. ii, 141 p., apps, figs
Hancox GT, Perrin ND, Dellow GD (2002) Recent studies of historical earthquake-induced landsliding, ground damage, and MM intensity in New Zealand. Bull N Z Soc Earthq Eng 35(2):59–95
Hancox GT, Perrin N, Reyners M (2007) The John Inglis Valley Landslide on 15 December 2006, South Westland, South Island, New Zealand. GNS Landslide Response Report, GNS File LD9 (E39) 942
Hancox GT, Ries WF, Lukovic B, Parker RN (2014) Landslides and ground damage caused by the Mw 7.1 Inangahua earthquake of May 1968 in northwest South Island, New Zealand Lower Hutt, NZ: GNS Science. GNS Science report 2014/06. 89 p + folded map
Hancox GT, Ries WF, Parker RN, Rosser BJ (2016) Landslides caused by the MS 7.8 Murchison earthquake of 17 June 1929 in northwest South Island, New Zealand Lower Hutt, NZ: GNS Science GNS Science report 2015/42 vii. 131 p + 4 maps
Hancox GT, Wright KC (2005) Landslides caused by the February 2004 rainstorms and floods in southern North Island, New Zealand. Lower Hutt: Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Limited Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences science report 2005/10. 32 p
Heron DW (custodian) (2018) Geological map of New Zealand 1:250,000: digital vector data [map] 3rd ed. Lower Hutt (NZ): GNS Science 1 USB (GNS Science geological map, 1)
Howard ME (2001) Holocene surface-faulting earthquakes along the Porters Pass fault. MSc (Engineering Geology) thesis. University of Canterbury 165 p
Hungr O (1981) Dynamics of rock avalanches and other types of mass movements. PhD thesis, University of Alberta, 526 pps
Hungr O, Evans SG (2004) Entrainment of debris in rock avalanches: an analysis of a long run-out mechanism. GSA Bull 116(9–10):1240–1252
Hungr O, Leroueil S, Picarelli L (2014) The Varnes classification of landslide types, an update. Landslides 11(2):167–194
Jones KE et al (in prep) Kaikōura landslide inventory, v3.0
Jones KE, Levick SR, Page MJ (2011) Processing and classifying satellite imagery to assess the April 2011 storm induced landsliding in Hawke's Bay. GNS Science consultancy report 2011/265. 21 p
Korup O (2002) Landslide dams in an active collisional orogen: implications for alpine sediment flux, south Westland, New Zealand. Eos 83(47:supplement):F551
Korup O (2004) Geomorphometric characteristics of New Zealand landslide dams. Eng Geol 73(1/2):13–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2003.11.003
Korup O (2005) Geomorphic hazard assessment of landslide dams in South Westland, New Zealand: fundamental problems and approaches. Geomorphology 66(1/4):167–188
Korup O (2006) Rockslide and rock-avalanche dams in the Southern Alps, New Zealand. Ital J Eng Geol Environ Special Issue 1:33–43. https://doi.org/10.4408/IJEGE2006-01S-04
Korup O (2011) Rockslide and rock avalanche dams in the Southern Alps, New Zealand p 123–145. In: Evans SG, Hermanns RL, Strom A, Scarascia-Mugnozza G (eds) Natural and artificial rockslide dams. Lect Notes in Earth Sci 133. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04764-0_4
Larsen IJ, Montgomery DR, Korup O (2010) Landslide erosion controlled by hillslope material. Nat Geosci 3(4):247–251
Lee J, Davies T, Bell D (2009) Successive Holocence rock avalanches at Lake Coleridge, Canterbury, New Zealand. Landslides 6:287–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-009-0163-6
LINZ (2012) 8m Digital Elevation Model (DEM). https://data.linz.govt.nz/layer/51768-nz-8m-digital-elevation-model-2012/
LINZ (2020a) NZ Lake Polygons (Topo, 1:50k). https://data.linz.govt.nz/layer/50293-nz-lake-polygons-topo-150k/
LINZ (2020b) NZ River Polygons (Topo, 1:50k). https://data.linz.govt.nz/layer/50328-nz-river-polygons-topo-150k/metadata/
Massey CI, McSaveney MJ, Davies T (2011) Evolution of an overflow channel across the Young River landslide dam, New Zealand, p 395 IN: Catani, F, Margottini, C, Trigila, A, Iadanza, C (eds). The Second World Landslide Forum, Rome, 3–9 October 2011: abstract book Rome, Italy: Italian National Institute for Environmental Protection and Research
Massey CI, Townsend D, Jones K, Lukovic B, Rhoades D, Morgenstern R, Rosser B, Ries W, Howarth J, Hamling I, Petley D (2020) Volume characteristics of landslides triggered by the MW 7.8 2016 Kaikōura Earthquake, New Zealand, derived from digital surface difference modelling. J Geophys Res Earth Surf 125(7):pe2019JF005163
Massey CI, Townsend DB, Rathje E, Allstadt KE, Lukovic B, Kaneko Y, Bradley B, Wartman J, Jibson RW, Petley DM, Horspool NA, Hamling IJ, Carey JM, Cox SC, Davidson J, Dellow GD, Godt JW, Holden C, Jones KE, Kaiser AE, Little M, Lyndsell BM, McColl S, Morgenstern RM, Rengers FK, Rhoades DA, Rosser BJ, Strong DT, Singeisen C, Villeneuve M (2018) Landslides triggered by the 14 November 2016 Mw 7.8 Kaikoura earthquake, New Zealand. Bull Seismol Soc Am 108(3B):1630–1648. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120170305
Massey CI, Townsend D, Rosser B, Morgenstern R, Jones K, Lukovic B, Davidson J (2021) Version 2.0 of the landslide inventory for the Mw 7.8 14 November 2016, Kaikōura Earthquake. DesignSafe-CI
McColl ST (2020) The anomalously old Bush Stream rock avalanche and its implications for landslide inventories in dynamic landscapes. Front Earth Sci 8:103. https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2020.00103/full
McColl ST, Davies TR (2011) Evidence for a rock-avalanche origin for ‘The Hillocks’ “moraine”, Otago, New Zealand. Geomorphology 127:216–224
McSaveney MJ, Massey CI (2011) Did radiative cooling trigger New Zealand’s 2007 Young River landslide? p 666 IN: Catani, F, Margottini, C, Trigila, A, Iadanza, C (eds) The Second World Landslide Forum, Rome, 3–9 October 2011: abstract book Rome, Italy: Italian National Institute for Environmental Protection and Research
Ministry for the Environment (2014) SPOTMaps 2014 Footprints. https://data.mfe.govt.nz/layer/53651-spotmaps-2014-footprints/
Morgenstern R, Massey CI, Rosser BJ, Archibald GC (2021) Landslide dam hazards: assessing their formation, failure modes, longevity and downstream impacts p 117–123. In: Vilímek, V, Wang, F, Strom, A, Sassa, K, Bobrowsky, PT, Takara, K (eds) Understanding and reducing landslide disaster risk [WLF 2020] Volume 5, Catastrophic landslides and frontiers of landslide science Cham: Springer ICL contribution to landslide disaster risk reduction. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60319-9_12
Nash T, Bell D, Davies T, Nathan S (2008) Analysis of the formation and failure of Ram Creek landslide dam, South Island, New Zealand. NZ J Geol Geophys 51(3):187–193
Nash TR (2003) Engineering geological assessment of selected landslide dams formed from the 1929 Murchison and 1968 Inangahua earthquakes. MSc (Engineering Geology) thesis, University of Canterbury 230 p + CD
Page MJ, Lukovic B (2011) An inventory of deep-seated landslides in the Waipaoa and Waimata catchments. Lower Hutt: GNS Science GNS Science report 2011/08 75 p
Perrin ND, Hancox GT (unpublished) Landslide-dammed lake inventory
Perrin ND, Hancox GT (1988) Landslide dammed lakes in New Zealand. Newsletter Geol Soc New Zealand 80:75–76
Perrin ND, Hancox GT (1992) Landslide-dammed lakes in New Zealand - preliminary studies on their distribution, causes and effects p 1457–1466 IN: Bell, DH (ed) Landslides: proceedings of the sixth international symposium 10–14 February 1992: Christchurch Rotterdam: AA Balkema
Ramsay G, Holyoake RJ (2000) Geotechnical aspects of the Otira viaduct project 6 p. IN: GeoEng2000: an International Conference on Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 19–24 November 2000, Melbourne, Australia: conference proceedings Melbourne, Australia: GeoEng2000
Rattenbury MS, Jongens R, Cox SC (comps) (2010) Geology of the Haast area: scale 1:250,000. Lower Hutt: GNS Science Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences 1:250,000 geological map 14 58 p + 1 folded map
Rosser BJ, Carey JM (2017) Comparison of landslide inventories from the 1994 Mw 6.8 Arthurs Pass and 2015 Mw 6.0 Wilberforce earthquakes, Canterbury, New Zealand. Landslides 14(3):1171–1180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-017-0797-8
Rosser BJ, Dellow GD, Haubrock SN, Glassey PJ (2017) New Zealand’s national Landslide Database. Landslides 14(6):1949–1959. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-017-0843-6
Rosser BJ, Massey CI, Archibald GC, Morgenstern R (In prep) GeoNet response to Kaiwhata landslide dam GNS Science report 2019/54
Shen D, Zhenming S, Peng M, Zhang L, Jiang M (2020) Longevity analysis of landslide dams. Landslides 17:1797–1821
Sherard JL, Woodward RJ, Gizienski SF, Clevenger WA (1963) Earth and earth-rock dams: New York, John Wiley and Sons 722p
Smith GM Bell DH, Davies TRH (2012) The Acheron rock avalanche deposit, Canterbury, New Zealand: age and implications for dating landslides. New Zealand J Geol Geophys 55(4):375–391. https://doi.org/10.1080/00288306.2012.733947
Sweeney CG, Brideau MA, Augustinus PC, Fink D (2013) Lochnagar landslide-dam, Central Otago, New Zealand: geomechanics and timing of the event p 447–454 IN: Chin, CY (ed) 19th New Zealand Geotechnical Society 2013 Symposium: Hanging by a thread?: lifelines, infrastructure and natural disasters, Queenstown, November 2013 : [proceedings] Wellington, NZ: Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand Proceedings of technical groups (Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand) 38(1)GM
Thomson R (2007) John Inglis Valley rockfall: an interpretation of the event from a preliminary site inspection 6 p, 4 maps
Turnbull IM (2000) Geology of the Wakatipu area: scale 1:250,000 Lower Hutt: Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences 1:250,000 geological map 18 72 p
Turnbull IM, Allibone AH, Jongens R (comps) (2010) Geology of the Fiordland area: scale 1:250,000 Lower Hutt: GNS Science Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences 1:250,000 geological map 17 97 p + 1 folded map
Webby MG, Jennings DN (1994) January Analysis of dam-break flood caused by failure of Tunawaea landslide dam. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Hydraulics in Civil Engineering 1994 (pp 163–68)
Whitehouse IE (1983) Distribution of large rock avalanche deposits in the central Southern Alps, New Zealand. NZ J Geol Geophys 26(3):271–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/00288306.1983.10422240
Whitehouse IE, Griffiths GA (1983) Frequency and hazard of large rock avalanches in the central Southern Alps. NZ Geol 11(6):331–334
Wolter A, Gasston C, Morgenstern R, Farr J, Rosser B, Massey C, Townsend DB, Tunnicliffe J (2022) The Hapuku Rock Avalanche: breaching and evolution of the landslide dam and outflow channel revealed using high spatiotemporal resolution datasets. Front Earth Sc 10:938068. https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2022.938068
Wood JR, Wilmshurst JM, Rawlence NJ (2011) Radiocarbon-dated faunal remains correlate very large rock avalanche deposit with prehistoric Alpine Fault rupture New Zealand. J Geol Geophys 54(4):431–434. https://doi.org/10.1080/00288306.2011.590212
Wright CA (1998) The AD 930 long-runout Round Top debris avalanche, Westland, New Zealand. NZ J Geol Geophys 41(4):493–497. https://doi.org/10.1080/00288306.1998.9514826
Yang JS (1992) Landslide mapping and major earthquakes on the Kakapo Fault, South Island, New Zealand. J Royal Soc New Zealand 22(3):205–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/03036758.1992.10426557
Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge Dr Oliver Korup for supplying data and reviewing the database. Perrin and Hancox hardcopies and the Ngamatapori datasets were supplied by Dr Michael Crozier at Victoria University. Dr Murry Cave supplied information on the 2020 Gisborne storm-induced landslide dams.
Funding
GeoNet funded response events, which provided initial data of the dams. The database compilation was funded through an MBIE (Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment) Endeavour grant for the Earthquake Induced Landscape Dynamics project and Strategic Science Investment Fund (SSIF).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
R.M. and A.W. designed and compiled the dams database, with input from all co-authors. R.M. and B.L. developed the watershed analysis methodology, and B.L. created the ArcPy scripts for automated parameter estimation. S.C.C., D.B., A.S., and Z.B. mapped landslide dams and reviewed database quality and paper. K.J., B.R., D.T., and C.M. mapped landslide dams, provided inventories from previous studies, and reviewed the database and paper. C.M. is the funding project lead.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Morgenstern, R., Wolter, A., Cox, S.C. et al. The New Zealand landslide dam database, v1.0. Landslides 21, 121–134 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-023-02133-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10346-023-02133-4