Debris-flow impact, vulnerability, and response

被引:0
作者
P. M. Santi
K. Hewitt
D. F. VanDine
E. Barillas Cruz
机构
[1] Colorado School of Mines,Department of Geology and Geological Engineering
[2] Wilfrid Laurier University,Cold Regions Research Centre
[3] VanDine Geological Engineering Limited,undefined
[4] Servicios Geológicos Profesionales,undefined
来源
Natural Hazards | 2011年 / 56卷
关键词
Debris flow; Socio-cultural; Mitigation; Vulnerability;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页码:371 / 402
页数:31
相关论文
共 82 条
[1]  
Adhikari DP(2005)Debris flow disaster at Larcha, upper Bhotekoski Valley, central Nepal Island Arc 14 410-423
[2]  
Koshimizu S(2009)A debris-flow alarm system for the Alpine Illgraben catchment: design and performance Nat Hazards 49 517-539
[3]  
Badoux A(2007)Prediction of debris flow inundated areas using empirical mobility relationships Geomorphology 90 144-161
[4]  
Graf C(2004)Postfire seeding for erosion control: Effectiveness and impacts on native plant communities. USDA Forest Service Conserv Biol 18 947-956
[5]  
Rhyner J(2009)Managing natural disaster risks in a changing climate Environ Hazards Human Policy Dimens 8 209-225
[6]  
Kuntner R(1993)Vulnerability, hunger and famines GeoJournal 30 2-20
[7]  
McArdell BW(2008)Storm rainfall conditions for floods and debris flows from recently burned areas in southwestern Colorado and southern California Geomorphology 96 250-269
[8]  
Berti M(2008)Representative rainfall thresholds for landslides in the Nepal Himalaya Geomorphology 100 429-443
[9]  
Simoni A(2008)Effective debris flow mitigation at Lemon Dam, LaPlata County, Colorado Geomorphology 96 366-377
[10]  
Beyers J(1999)Risk transference and related trends: driving forces towards more mega-disasters Environ Hazards 1 69-75