Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Debris-flow impact, vulnerability, and response

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Natural Hazards Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper calls attention to vulnerable groups that are disproportionately affected by smaller, less-publicized debris flow events and do not always receive the advantages of recent technical advances. The most vulnerable groups tend to be economically restricted to live in relatively inexpensive and more dangerous locations, are often forced to live in topographically cramped areas due to expansion and development, and have limited influence and power needed to bring about mitigative efforts. Technical issues have long been the focus for debris-flow hazard reduction, but the collective judgment of many of those working toward natural hazards reduction, especially in developing countries, is that socio-cultural issues are at least as important as technical choices on the effectiveness of hazard and risk-reduction efforts. This awareness may result in (1) selecting simple designs that use local materials, local construction techniques and skills, and that recognize limited financial means; (2) selecting mitigative methods that require minimal maintenance, can withstand exposure to vandalism and scavenging, and will minimize misappropriation of resources; and (3) capitalizing on local techniques of dealing with other hazards, such as flooding, earthquakes, and landslides. Because of the difficulty in predicting and controlling debris flows, it is useful if mitigative systems can employ multiple elements to enhance the chance of success. These can include: education of the local populace, avoidance and warning to the degree possible, and some combination of channelization and interception of debris. For watersheds disturbed by fire, logging, mining, or construction, hillside treatment can be added to the mitigative methods to reduce water flow and sediment transport. Examples provided in this paper show that these mitigative systems can be tailored to fit widely varying socio-cultural settings, with different geological characteristics and different debris flow–triggering events.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adhikari DP, Koshimizu S (2005) Debris flow disaster at Larcha, upper Bhotekoski Valley, central Nepal. Island Arc 14:410–423

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Badoux A, Graf C, Rhyner J, Kuntner R, McArdell BW (2009) A debris-flow alarm system for the Alpine Illgraben catchment: design and performance. Nat Hazards 49:517–539

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balducci V (2010) Rainfall thresholds for the initiation of landslides, Instituto di Ricerca per la Protezione Idrogeologica (IRPI). http://rainfallthresholds.irpi.cnr.it/. Accessed 25 Feb 2010

  • Bankoff G, Frerks G, Hilhorst D (eds) (2004) Mapping vulnerability: disasters, development and people. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Batista F, Baas S (2004) The role of local institutions in reducing vulnerability to recurrent natural disasters and in sustainable livelihoods development: consolidated report. FAO Rural Institutions and Participation Service, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernard D (2007) Estimation of inundation areas of post-wildfire debris flows. MS thesis, Colorado School of Mines

  • Berti M, Simoni A (2007) Prediction of debris flow inundated areas using empirical mobility relationships. Geomorphology 90:144–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beyers J (2004) Postfire seeding for erosion control: Effectiveness and impacts on native plant communities. USDA Forest Service. Conserv Biol 18:947–956

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bianco G, Franzi L (2000) Estimation of debris-flow volumes from storm events. In: Wieczorek GF, Naeser ND (eds) Debris-flow hazards mitigation: mechanics, prediction, and assessment. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 441–448

    Google Scholar 

  • Boetzen WJW, Van den Bergh JCJM (2009) Managing natural disaster risks in a changing climate. Environ Hazards Human Policy Dimens 8:209–225

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohle HG (1993) Vulnerability, hunger and famines. GeoJournal 30:2–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunsden D, Jones DKC (1984) The geomorphology of high magnitude—low frequency events in the Karakoram Mountains. In: Miller K (ed) International Karakoram Project. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 343–388

    Google Scholar 

  • Bustillo M (2003) Slide threat will persist, experts warn. Los Angeles Times, Dec 27, 2003

  • Calcaterra D, Parise M, Palma B, Pelella L (2000) Multiple debris-flows in volcaniclastic materials mantling carbonate slopes. In: Wieczorek GF, Naeser ND (eds) Debris-flow hazards mitigation: mechanics, prediction, and assessment. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 99–107

    Google Scholar 

  • California Geological Survey (2003) Hazards from “mudslides”…debris avalanches and debris flows in hillside and wildfire areas. CGS Note 33

  • Cannon SH, Gartner JE, Rupert MG, Michael JA (2003) Emergency assessment of debris-flow hazards from basins burned by the Grand Prix and Old Fires of 2003, southern California. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-475

  • Cannon SH, Gartner JE, Michael JA (2007) Methods for the emergency assessment of debris-flow hazards from basins burned by the fires of 2007, southern California. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 07-1384

  • Cannon SH, Gartner JE, Wilson RC, Bowers JC, Laber JL (2008) Storm rainfall conditions for floods and debris flows from recently burned areas in southwestern Colorado and southern California. Geomorphology 96:250–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cannon SH, Gartner JE, Rupert MG, Michael JA, Staley DM, Worstell BB (2010) Emergency assessment of postfire debris-flow hazards for the 2009 Station fire, San Gabriel Mountains, southern California. U.S. Geological Survey Open–File Report 2009-1227

  • Dahal RK, Hasegawa S (2008) Representative rainfall thresholds for landslides in the Nepal Himalaya. Geomorphology 100:429–443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Degg MR (1992) Some implications of the 1985 Mexican earthquake for hazard assessment. In: McCall GJH, Laming DJC, Scott SC (eds) 1992 geohazards: natural and man-made. Chapman and Hall, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Dekens J (2007) Herders of Chitral. The lost messengers? Local knowledge and disaster preparedness in Chitral District, Pakistan. ICIMOD, Kathmandu

    Google Scholar 

  • deWolfe VG, Santi PM (2009) Debris-flow erosion control treatments after wildfire: an evaluation of erosion control effectiveness. VDM Verlag Dr. Muller, Saarbrucken

    Google Scholar 

  • deWolfe VG, Santi PM, Ey J, Gartner JE (2008) Effective debris flow mitigation at Lemon Dam, LaPlata County, Colorado. Geomorphology 96:366–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies T (in press) Misconceptions about natural disasters. In: Bobrowsky P (ed) Encyclopedia of natural hazards. Springer, Heidelberg

  • Dilley M, Chen RS, Deichmann U, Lerner-Lam AL, Arnold M (2005) Natural disaster hotspots, a global risk analysis, disaster risk management series no. 5. The World Bank Hazard Management Unit, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas M, Wildavsky A (1982) Risk and culture: and essay on the selection of technical and environmental dangers. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Duffy JD, DeNatale JD (1996) Debris flow mitigation using flexible barriers. In: Proceedings of the 47th Annual Highway Geology Symposium

  • Easton JL, Hallstrom CW, Senzaki K (1979) Debris dams and basins design manual: Los Angeles County Flood Control District. http://ladpw.org/des/Design_Manuals/. Accessed 12 Nov 2009

  • EM-DAT (2010) The international database of OFDA/CRED, Universite Carolique de Louvain, Brussels, http://www.emdat.be/. Accessed 7 May 2010

  • Enarson E, Morrow B (eds) (1998) The gendered terrain of disaster: through women’s eyes. Greenwood/Praeger, Westport

    Google Scholar 

  • Etkin D (1999) Risk transference and related trends: driving forces towards more mega-disasters. Environ Hazards 1:69–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fannin RJ, Wise MP (2001) An empirical-statistical model for debris flow travel distance. Can Geotech J 38:982–994

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Florey M (2004) personal communication. San Bernardino National Forest Ranger, retired

  • Fuchs S, Kaitna R, Scheidl C, Hubl J (2008) The application of the risk concept to debris flow hazards, Geomechanik und Tunnelbau 1 (in English). Heft 2, pp 120–129

  • Garcia-Martinez R, Lopez JL (2005) Debris flow of December 1999 in Venezuela. In: Jakob M, Hungr O (eds) Debris-flow hazards and related phenomena. Praxis-Springer, Berlin, pp 519–538

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gartner JE, Cannon SH, Santi PM, deWolfe VG (2008) Empirical models to predict the volumes of debris flows generated by recently burned basins in the western U.S. Geomorphology 96:339–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geier-Hayes K (1997) The impact of post-fire seeded grasses on native vegetative communities in central Idaho. In: Greenlee JM (ed) Proceedings: first conference on fire effects on rare and endangered species and habitats. International Association of Wildland Fire, Fairfield

    Google Scholar 

  • Geotimes (2005) Landslides bury Guatemala. December 2005 issue. American Geological Institute, Alexandria

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerasimov IP, Zvonkova TV (1974) Natural hazards in the territory of the USSR: study, control and warning. In: White GW (ed) Natural hazards: local, regional, global. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 243–351

    Google Scholar 

  • Giraud RE (2005) Guidelines for the geologic evaluation of debris-flow hazards on alluvial fans in Utah. Utah Geological Survey Miscellaneous Publication 05-6

  • Griswold JP (2004) Mobility statistics and hazard mapping for non-volcanic debris flows and rock avalanches. MS thesis, Portland State University

  • Guadagno FM, Revellino P (2005) Debris avalanches and debris flows of the Campania Region (southern Italy). In: Jakob M, Hungr O (eds) Debris-flow hazards and related phenomena. Praxis-Springer, Berlin, pp 489–494

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Haigh MJ (2001) Understanding landslide systems. Pak J Environ Sci 1:59–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen R (1997) Remembering hazards as “coping strategies”: local perceptions of the disastrous snowfalls and rainfalls of September, 1992 in Astor valley, Northwestern Himalaya. In: Stellrecht I, Winiger M (eds) Ruedigger Koeppe. Verlag, Koeln, pp 361–377

    Google Scholar 

  • Hewitt K (1993) Torrential rains in the Central Karakoram, September 1992. Geomorphological impacts and implications for climatic change. Mt Res Develop 13:117–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hewitt K (1997) Regions of risk: a geographical approach to disasters. Addison Wesley Longman, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Hewitt K (2004) Geomorphic hazards in mountain environments. In: Owens P, Slaymaker O (eds) Mountain geomorphology. Hodder Scientific, London, pp 187–218

    Google Scholar 

  • Hewitt K (2007) Preventable disasters: addressing social vulnerability, institutional risk and civil ethics. Geographische Rundschau, International Edition, 3:43–52

  • Hubbert and Associates (2005) Treatment effectiveness monitoring for Southern California wildfires: 2003 to 2004, the Cedar, Grand Prix/Old, Piru, and Padua Fires. Unpublished consulting report

  • Hungr O, Morgan GC, Kellerhals R (1984) Quantitative analysis of debris torrent hazards for design of remedial measures. Can Geotech J 21:663–677

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hungr O (1995) A model for the runout analysis of rapid flow slides, debris flows, and avalanches. Can Geotech J 32:610–623

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ICIMOD (2009) Culture and risk: understanding the sociocultural settings that influence risk from natural hazards: synthesis report from a global e-conference. ICIMOD and The Mountain Forum, Kathmandu, Nepal (Prepared by K. Hewitt with the assistance of the ICIMOD E-Conference team) Kathmandu, Nepal

  • Itakura Y, Inaba H, Sawada T (2005) A debris-flow monitoring devices and methods bibliography. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 5:971–977

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iverson RM, Schilling SP, Vallance JW (1998) Objective delineation of lahar-inundation zones. Geol Soc Am Bull 110:972–984

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson LE (1987) Debris flow hazard in the Canadian Rocky Mountains. Geological Survey of Canada Paper 86-11

  • Jaeggi MNR, Pellandini S (1997) Torrent check dams as a control measure for debris flows. In: Armanini A, Michiue M (eds) Recent developments on debris flows. Springer, Berlin, pp 186–207

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jakob M (2005) Debris-flow hazard analysis. In: Jakob M, Hungr O (eds) Debris-flow hazards and related phenomena. Praxis-Springer, Berlin, pp 411–443

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jones DKC (1992) Landslides hazard assessment in the context of development. In: McCall GJH, Laming DJC, Scott SC (eds) 1992 geohazards: natural and man-made. Chapman and Hall, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones DKC, Brunsden D, Goudie AS (1983) A preliminary geomorphological assessment of part of the Karakoram Highway. Q J Eng Geol 16:331–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li T (2004) Mountain hazards in China. In: Owens PN, Slaymaker O (eds) Mountain geomorphology. Arnold, London, pp 219–241

    Google Scholar 

  • Lo DOK (2000) Review of natural terrain landslide debris-resisting barrier design: GEO report no. 104, Geotechnical Engineering Office, Civil Engineering Department, The Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. http://www.cedd.gov.hk/eng/publications/geo_reports/index.htm. Accessed 12 Nov 2009

  • Los Angeles County (2009) Emergency home protection—sandbags. http://ladpw.org/wmd/HomeOwners/sandbags.cfm. Accessed 12 Nov 2009

  • Malibu Surfside News (2008) Malibu holds its own during triple-storm offensive, Jan 10, 2008

  • Marchi L, D’Agostino V (2004) Estimation of debris-flow magnitude in the eastern Italian Alps. Earth Surf Proc Land 29:207–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin DC, Piteau DR, Pearce RA, Hawley PM (1984) Remedial measures for debris flows at the Agassiz Mountain Institution, British Columbia. Can Geotech J 21:505–517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maskrey A (1989) Disaster mitigation: a community-based approach. Oxfam, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy G (2004) A Christmas to forget, San Bernardino Sun, June 27, 2004

  • Munich Re (2009) Geo natural catastrophes 2008: topics, analyses, assessments, positions. Munich Re Group, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Nakagawa H, Takahashi T, Satofuka Y (2000) A debris-flow disaster on the fan of the Harihara River, Japan. In: Wieczorek GF, Naeser ND (eds) Debris-flow hazards mitigation: mechanics, prediction, and assessment. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 193–201

    Google Scholar 

  • Nakano T (1974) Natural hazards: report from Japan. In: White GW (ed) Natural hazards: local, regional, global. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 231–243

    Google Scholar 

  • Nasmith HW, Mercer AG (1979) Design of dykes to protect against debris flows at Port Alice, British Columbia. Can Geotech J 16:748–757

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nasseri I, Klippel S, Willardson B, Soriano L, Moyer J, Gaplandzhyan M (2006) Sedimentation manual, 2nd edn. Los Angeles County Department of Public Works–Water Resources Division. http://ladpw.org/wrd/Publication/index.cfm. Accessed 12 Nov 2009

  • National Research Council (2004) Partnerships for reducing landslide risk—assessment of the national landslide hazards mitigation strategy. National Academies Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • NOAA-USGS Debris Flow Task Force (2005) NOAA-USGS debris-flow warning system—final report. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1283

  • Okubo S, Ikeya H, Ishikawa Y, Yamada T (1997) Development of new methods for countermeasures against debris flows. In: Armanini A, Michiue M (eds) Recent developments on debris flows. Springer, Berlin, pp 166–185

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Oliver-Smith AS, Hoffman SM (eds) (2003) The angry earth; disaster in anthropological perspective. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Ozerdem A, Jacoby T (2006) Disaster management and civil society: earthquake relief in Japan, Turkey, and India. I.B. Tuaris, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelling M (2003) The vulnerability of cities: natural disasters and social resilience. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Prochaska AB, Santi PM, Higgins JD, Cannon SH (2008a) Debris flow runout predictions based on the average channel slope. Eng Geol 98:29–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prochaska AB, Santi PM, Higgins JD (2008b) Debris basin and deflection berm design for fire-related debris-flow mitigation. Environ Eng Geosci 14:297–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prochaska AB, Santi PM, Higgins JD, Cannon SH (2008c) A study of methods to estimate debris flow velocity. Landslides 5:431–444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rickenmann D (2005) Runout prediction methods. In: Jakob M, Hungr O (eds) Debris-flow hazards and related phenomena. Praxis-Springer, Berlin, pp 305–324

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Roussel V (2003) New moralities of risk and political responsibility, chap. 5. In: Ericson RV, Doyle A (eds) Risk and morality. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, pp 117–144

    Google Scholar 

  • Rorem E (2005) Performance of flexible debris flow barriers in fire burned areas, State Route 18, San Bernardino County, CA, USA. In: Proceedings of the 56th annual highway geology symposium, pp 379–392. http://www.highwaygeologysymposium.org/past_proceedings.asp. Accessed 15 June 2010

  • Said M (1994) Natural hazards in Shigar Valley, Northern Pakistan. In: Stellrecht I, Winiger M (eds) Karakoruam-Hindukush-Himalaya: dynamics of change, vol 4, pp 251–268

  • San Bernardino County Flood Control District (2004) Debris and erosion control. County of San Bernardino Economic Development and Public Services Group

  • Santi PM, Higgins JD, Cannon SH, DeGraff JV (2006) Evaluation of post-wildfire debris flow mitigation methods and development of decision-support tools. Joint Fire Science Program, JFSP Contract 03-1-4-14, 50 p. http://www.firescience.gov/. Accessed 13 Nov 2009

  • Santi PM, deWolfe VG, Higgins JD, Cannon SH, Gartner JE (2007) Effectiveness of debris flow mitigation methods in burned areas. First north American landslide conference, AEG Special Publication No. 23

  • Schuster RL, Salcedo DA, Valenzuela L (2002) Overview of catastrophic landslides of South America in the twentieth century. In: Evans SG, DeGraff JV (eds) Catastrophic landslides: effects, occurrence, and mechanisms. Reviews in engineering geology. Geological Society of America, Boulder, pp 1–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen A (1981) Poverty and famines: an essay on entitlement and deprivation. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott KM (2000) Precipitation-triggered debris-flow at Casita Volcano, Nicaragua: implications for mitigation strategies in volcanic and tectonically active steeplands. In: Wieczorek GF, Naeser ND (eds) Debris-flow hazards mitigation: mechanics, prediction, and assessment. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 3–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Selby M (1993) Hillslope materials and processes, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheridan MF, Connor C, Connor L, Stinton A, Galacia OR, Barrios G (2007) October 2005 Debris flows at Panabaj, Guatemala: hazard assessment. American Geophysical Union Spring Meeting 2007

  • Strunk H (1992) Reconstructing debris flow frequency in the Southern Alps back to AD 1500 using dendrogeomorphological analysis: erosion, debris flows and environment in mountain regions. In: Proceedings of the Chengdu symposium, IAHS Publ. no. 209, pp 299–306

  • Thommen RA, Duffy JD (1997) Testing and application of flexible wire rope netting barriers to retain mud and debris flow, Geobrugg Technical Bulletin #10

  • UNDP (2004) A global report: reducing disaster risk; a challenge for development. United Nations Development Programme, Bureau of Crisis Prevention and Management, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations (2005) Report of the world conference on disaster reduction, Kobe, Hyogo Japan January 2005. United Nations, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2000) Debris method—Los Angeles District method for prediction of debris yield. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Geological Survey (2001) Natural hazards on alluvial fans: the Venezuela debris flow and flash flood disaster. USGS Fact Sheet FS 103 01

  • U.S. Geological Survey (2005) A NOAA-USGS demonstration flash-flood and debris-flow early-warning system. USGS Fact Sheet FS 2005-3104

  • VanDine DF (1985) Debris flows and debris torrents in the southern Canadian Cordillera. Can Geotech J 22:44–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • VanDine DF (1996) Debris flow control structures for forest engineering: British Columbia Ministry of Forests Research Program, Victoria, B.C., Working Paper 08/1996. www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/pubs/Docs/Wp/Wp22.htm. Accessed 12 Nov 2009

  • Wagenbrenner J, Macdonald L, Rough D (2006) Effectiveness of three post-fire rehabilitation treatments in the Colorado Front Range. Hydrol Process 20:2989–3006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White S, Garcia-Ruiz J, Marti C, Valero B, Errea M, Gomex-Villar A (1998) The 1996 Biescas campsite disaster in the Central Spanish Pyrenees, and its temporal and spatial context. Hydrol Process 11:1797–1812

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilford D, Sakals ME, Innes J, Bergerud WA (2004) Recognition of debris flow, debris flow and flood hazard through watershed morphometrics. Landslides 1:61–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams SR, Lowe M (1990) Process-based debris-flow prediction method. In: French RH (ed) Proceedings—hydraulics/hydrology of arid lands. American Society of Civil Engineers, San Diego, pp 66–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman M, Mani P, Romang H (1997) Magnitude-frequency aspects of Alpine debris Flows. Eclogae Geologicae Helvetiae 90:415–420

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geology and Geological Engineering, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO, USA

    P. M. Santi

  2. Cold Regions Research Centre, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, ON, Canada

    K. Hewitt

  3. VanDine Geological Engineering Limited, Victoria, BC, Canada

    D. F. VanDine

  4. Servicios Geológicos Profesionales, Guatemala City, Guatemala

    E. Barillas Cruz

Authors
  1. P. M. Santi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. K. Hewitt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. D. F. VanDine
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. E. Barillas Cruz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. M. Santi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Santi, P.M., Hewitt, K., VanDine, D.F. et al. Debris-flow impact, vulnerability, and response. Nat Hazards 56, 371–402 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-010-9576-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-010-9576-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation