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
[11]  
Boetzen WJW(2001)An empirical-statistical model for debris flow travel distance Can Geotech J 38 982-994
[12]  
Van den Bergh JCJM(2008)Empirical models to predict the volumes of debris flows generated by recently burned basins in the western U.S Geomorphology 96 339-354
[13]  
Bohle HG(2001)Understanding landslide systems Pak J Environ Sci 1 59-69
[14]  
Cannon SH(1993)Torrential rains in the Central Karakoram, September 1992. Geomorphological impacts and implications for climatic change Mt Res Develop 13 117-141
[15]  
Gartner JE(1984)Quantitative analysis of debris torrent hazards for design of remedial measures Can Geotech J 21 663-677
[16]  
Wilson RC(1995)A model for the runout analysis of rapid flow slides, debris flows, and avalanches Can Geotech J 32 610-623
[17]  
Bowers JC(2005)A debris-flow monitoring devices and methods bibliography Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 5 971-977
[18]  
Laber JL(1998)Objective delineation of lahar-inundation zones Geol Soc Am Bull 110 972-984
[19]  
Dahal RK(1983)A preliminary geomorphological assessment of part of the Karakoram Highway Q J Eng Geol 16 331-355
[20]  
Hasegawa S(2004)Estimation of debris-flow magnitude in the eastern Italian Alps Earth Surf Proc Land 29 207-220