Natural Hazards

, Volume 67, Issue 3, pp 991–1009 | Cite as

A structured approach to enhance flood hazard assessment in mountain streams

Original Paper

Abstract

An evidence-based flood hazard analysis in mountain streams requires the identification and the quantitative characterisation of multiple possible processes. These processes result from specific triggering mechanisms on the hillslopes (i.e. landslides, debris flows), in-channel morphodynamic processes associated with sudden bed changes and stochastic processes taking place at critical stream configurations (e.g. occlusion of bridges, failure of levees). From a hazard assessment perspective, such possible processes are related to considerable uncertainties underlying the hydrological cause-effect chains. Overcoming these uncertainties still remains a major challenge in hazard and risk assessment and represents a necessary condition for a reliable spatial representation of process intensities and the associated probabilities. As a result of an accurate analysis of the conceptual flaws present in the procedures currently employed for hazard mapping in South Tyrol (Italy) and Carinthia (Austria), we propose a structured approach as a means to enhance the integration of hillslope, morphodynamic and stochastic processes into conventional flood hazard prediction for mountain basins. To this aim, a functional distinction is introduced between prevailing one-dimensional and two-dimensional process propagation domains, i.e., between confined and semi- to unconfined stream segments. The former domains are mostly responsible for the generation of water, sediment and wood fluxes, and the latter are where flooding of inactive channel areas (i.e. alluvial fans, floodplains) can occur. For the 1D process propagation domain, we discuss how to carry out a process routing along the stream system and how to integrate numerical models output with expert judgement in order to derive consistent event scenarios, thus providing a consistent quantification of the input variables needed for the associated 2D domains. Within these latter domains, two main types of spatial sub-domains can be identified based on the predictability of their dynamics, i.e., stochastic and quasi-deterministic. Advantages and limitations offered by this methodology are finally discussed with respect to hazard and risk assessment in mountain basins.

Keywords

Natural hazards Hazard mapping River basin management Mountain basins Formative scenario analysis 

References

  1. Apel H, Merz B, Thieken AH (2009) Influence of dike breaches on flood frequency estimation. Comput Geosci 35(5):907–923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Autonome Provinz Bozen-Südtirol (2008) Informationssystem zu hydrogeologischen Risiken. Autonome Provinz Bozen-Südtirol, Methodischer Endbericht. BozenGoogle Scholar
  3. Barredo J (2007) Major flood disasters in Europe: 1950–2005. Nat Hazards 42(1):125–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blazkova S, Beven KJ (2009) Uncertainty in flood estimation. Structure and infrastructure engineering maintenance, management. Life-Cycle Design and Performance 5(4):325–332Google Scholar
  5. Christensen J, Christensen O (2003) Climate modelling: severe summertime flooding in Europe. Nature 421(6925):805–806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Comiti F, Mao L, Preciso E, Picco L, Marchi L, Borga M (2008) Large wood and flash floods: evidences from the 2007 event in the Davča basin (Slovenia). In: De Wrachien D, Brebbia CA, Lenzi MA (eds) Monitoring, simulation, prevention and remediation of dense and debris flow II. WIT Press, Southampton, pp 173–182Google Scholar
  7. Commission of the European Communities (2004) Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions—Flood risk management—Flood prevention, protection and mitigation, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2004:0472:fin:en:pdf. Access 27 October 2010
  8. Commission of the European Communities (2007) Directive 2007/60/EC of the European parliament and of the council of 23 October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood risks. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:288:0027:0034:en:pdf. Access 12 October 2010
  9. Eisenführ F, Weber M (2010) Rationales Entscheiden. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fuchs S, McAlpin MC (2005) The net benefit of public expenditures on avalanche defence structures in the municipality of Davos, Switzerland. Nat Haz Earth Syst Sci 5(3):319–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fuchs S, Thöni M, McAlpin MC, Gruber U, Bründl M (2007) Avalanche hazard mitigation strategies assessed by cost effectiveness analyses and cost benefit analyses—evidence from Davos, Switzerland. Nat Hazards 41(1):113–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Funtowicz S, Ravetz J (1994) Uncertainty, complexity and post-normal science. Environ Toxicol Chem 13(12):1881–1885CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gilboa I (2009) Theory of decision under uncertainty. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hoffman FO, Hammonds JS (1994) Propagation of uncertainty in risk assessments: the need to distinguish between uncertainty due to lack of knowledge and uncertainty due to variability. Risk Anal 14(5):707–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Holub M, Fuchs S (2009) Mitigating mountain hazards in Austria–Legislation, risk transfer, and awareness building. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 9(2):523–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Huggel C, Kääb A, Haeberli W, Krummenacher B (2003) Regional-scale GIS-models for assessment of hazards from glacier lake outbursts: evaluation and application in the Swiss Alps. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 3(6):647–662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Keiler M, Knight J, Harrison S (2010) Climate change and geomorphological hazards in the eastern European Alps. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 368:2461–2479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kienholz H, Keller H, Ammann W, Weingartner R, Germann P, Hegg Ch, Mani P, Rickenmann D (1998) Zur Sensitivität von Wildbachsystemen. vdf Hochschulverlag, ZürichGoogle Scholar
  19. Kienholz H, Frick E, and Gertsch E (2010) Assessment tools for mountain torrents: SEDEX and bed load assessment matrix. In: Chen SC (ed) Internationales symposion interpraevent in the Pacific Rim—Taipei (26–30 April). Internationale Forschungsgesellschaft Interpraevent, Klagenfurt, pp 245–256Google Scholar
  20. Klein R, Scholl A (2004) Planung und Entscheidung: Konzepte, Modelle und Methoden einer modernen betriebwirtschaftlichen Entscheidungsanalyse. Verlag Franz Vahlen, MünchenGoogle Scholar
  21. Kolkman M, Kok M, van der Veen A (2005) Mental model mapping as a new tool to analyse the use of information in decision-making in integrated water management. Phys Chem Earth 30(4–5):317–332Google Scholar
  22. Kundzewicz Z, Ulbrich U, Brücher T, Graczyk D, Krüger A, Leckebusch G, Menzel L, Pińskwar I, Radziejewski M, Szwed M (2005) Summer floods in Central Europe—climate change track? Nat Hazards 36(1–2):165–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mazzorana B, Fuchs S (2010) Fuzzy formative scenario analysis for woody material transport related risks in mountain torrents. Environmental Modelling and Software 25(10):1208–1224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mazzorana B, Hübl J, Fuchs S (2009) Improving risk assessment by defining consistent and reliable system scenarios. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 9(1):145–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mazzorana B, Hübl J, Zischg A, Largiader A (2011) Modelling woody material transport and deposition in alpine rivers. Nat Hazards 56(2):425–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mazzorana B, Comiti F, Volcan C, Scherer C (in press) Determining flood hazard patterns through a combined stochastic–deterministic approach. Natural Hazards. doi:10.1007/s11069-011-9755-2
  27. Mitchell JK (2003) European river floods in a changing world. Risk Anal 23(3):567–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Paté-Cornell E (1996) Uncertainty in risk analysis: six levels of treatment. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 54(2–3):95–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Refsgaard J, van der Sluijs J, Højberg A, Vanrolleghem P (2007) Uncertainty in the environmental modelling process—a framework and guidance. Environmental Modelling and Software 22(11):1543–1556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rigon E, Comiti F, Mao L, Lenzi MA (2008) Relationships among basin area, sediment transport mechanisms and wood storage in mountain basins of the Dolomites (Italian Alps). In: De Wrachien D, Brebbia CA, Lenzi MA (eds) Monitoring, simulation, prevention and remediation of dense and debris flow II. WIT Press, Southampton, pp 163–172Google Scholar
  31. Schäfer M (2006) Computational engineering: introduction to numerical methods. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  32. Scholz R, Tietje O (2002) Embedded case study methods. London, SageGoogle Scholar
  33. Zischg A, Fuchs S, Keiler M, Stötter, J (2005) Temporal variability of damage potential on roads as a conceptual contribution towards a short-term avalanche risk simulation. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 5(2):235–242 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Hydraulic EngineeringAutonomous Province of Bolzano South TyrolBolzanoItaly
  2. 2.Faculty of Science and TechnologyFree University of BolzanoBolzanoItaly
  3. 3.Institute of Mountain Risk EngineeringUniversity of Natural Resources and Life SciencesViennaAustria
  4. 4.Research Laboratory of Snow Avalanches and Debris Flows, Faculty of GeographyLomonosov Moscow State UniversityMoscowRussian Federation

Personalised recommendations