Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FlowR Articulo PDF
FlowR Articulo PDF
FlowR Articulo PDF
cess
Natural Hazards
Open Access
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 13, 869–885, 2013
www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/13/869/2013/
doi:10.5194/nhess-13-869-2013 and Earth System
© Author(s) 2013. CC Attribution 3.0 License. Sciences
Atmospheric
Open Access
Chemistry
and Physics
Flow-R, a model for susceptibility mapping of debris flows and other
Atmospheric
Open Access
gravitational hazards at a regional scale
Measurement
P. Horton1 , M. Jaboyedoff1 , B. Rudaz1 , and M. Zimmermann2 Techniques
1 Research Center on Terrestrial Environment (CRET), University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
2 Institute of Geography, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
Open Access
Correspondence to: P. Horton (pascal.horton@unil.ch)
Biogeosciences
Received: 4 June 2012 – Published in Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss.: –
Revised: 31 January 2013 – Accepted: 6 March 2013 – Published: 9 April 2013
Open Access
Abstract. The development of susceptibility maps for debris Climate between pro-
a 10 m DEM resolution as a good compromise
flows is of primary importance due to population pressure
in hazardous zones. However, hazard assessment by process-
of the Past
cessing time and quality of results. However, valuable results
have still been obtained on the basis of lower quality DEMs
based modelling at a regional scale is difficult due to the com- with 25 m resolution.
plex nature of the phenomenon, the variability of local con-
Open Access
trolling factors, and the uncertainty in modelling parameters.
A regional assessment must consider a simplified approach 1 Introduction Earth System
that is not highly parameter dependant and that can provide Dynamics
Landslide susceptibility has been defined by Fell et al. (2008)
zonation with minimum data requirements. A distributed em-
pirical model has thus been developed for regional suscepti- as “a quantitative or qualitative assessment of the classifica-
bility assessments using essentially a digital elevation model tion, volume (or area), and spatial distribution of landslides
which exist or potentially may Geoscientific
occur in an area”. Debris flows
Open Access
(DEM). The model is called Flow-R for Flow path assess-
ment of gravitational hazards at a Regional scale (available are expected to be moreInstrumentation
frequent in the most susceptible ar-
eas, but as time frame is not taken into account, the suscepti-
free of charge under www.flow-r.org) and has been success- Methods and
bility does not directly represent temporal occurrence prob-
fully applied to different case studies in various countries
with variable data quality. It provides a substantial basis for a
Datamapping
ability. Regional susceptibility Systems is used for delin-
preliminary susceptibility assessment at a regional scale. The eation of potentially threatened areas based on minimum data
requirements (Aleotti and Chowdhury, 1999; Glade, 2005;
Open Access
DEM is the only one that is really needed for both the source (He et al., 2003). Debris flow models rely on physical vari-
ables that cannot be acquired for a whole region at reason-
able costs (Carrara et Ocean
al., 2008). Science
area delineation and the propagation assessment; its quality
is of major importance for the results accuracy. We consider Iverson et al. (1998) sug-
gest the use of simplified spatially distributed models for
Solid Earth
870 P. Horton et al.: Flow-R, a model for susceptibility mapping of gravitational hazards
regional case studies based on empirical or semi-empirical cult to estimate. The software has a graphical user interface
approaches (Costa, 1984; Hungr et al., 1984; Johnson, 1984; (Fig. 1) which allows the user to specify criteria for the delin-
Rickenmann, 1999). Empirical parameters can usually be eation of the source areas and to choose the algorithms and
transposed to similar environments. It allows us to calibrate parameters for the assessment of the propagation.
the model for small areas where inventory of past events ex- Flow-R is a tool for susceptibility assessment, but it is not
ists, and to apply the optimal parameters set to a whole re- suitable for individual event modelling because the calcu-
gion. The weakness of this approach is that site-specific char- lated propagation provides a range of possible events. It is,
acteristics cannot be accounted for (Hürlimann et al., 2008; however, advisable to compare the assessed susceptible zone
Kappes et al., 2011). with specific events in order to evaluate the accuracy of the
The Flow-R model was built to process GIS-based re- results and to adjust the model parameters. Parameterization
gional susceptibility assessments of debris flows (see also is empirical and the user has to specify the parameters ac-
Carrara et al., 1995; Chung and Fabbri, 1999; Hofmeister cording to the hazard type. Different hazards, such as debris
and Miller, 2003; Melelli and Taramelli, 2004; Guinau et al., flow and mudflow, have to be modelled separately and can
2007). It allows the identification of potential source areas later be combined using a GIS software.
and corresponding propagation extent. A similar approach The model sets normalized or absolute values for the as-
was used for modelling either the propagation of glacier sessed initial source areas. These values are then propagated
lake outbursts (Huggel et al., 2003) or debris flows with a downslope and represent a notion of weight in a relative haz-
procedure called random walk based on multiple modelling ard scale, which can be adjusted according to the user’s need
of stochastic propagations with limited spreading (Gamma, to account, as an example, for frequency values (see Michoud
2000). Flow-R is available free of charge for Windows and et al., 2012). When normalized, the values never exceed 1,
Linux at www.flow-r.org. It is based on Matlab, but is a stand- and thus get close to a notion of spatial probability. For the
alone application thanks to the Matlab Compiler Runtime. sake of simplicity, we will further on use the term suscepti-
Flow-R has been used in different countries to produce bility value to denote this weight.
regional debris flow susceptibility maps with satisfying ac-
curacy. It was first used in Switzerland for the Canton de 2.1 Assessment of the source areas
Vaud (Horton et al., 2008) and the Val de Bagnes (Jaboyed-
off et al., 2012). Later, it was used also by other universi- The source area delineation uses an index-based approach.
ties and national geological services in France (Kappes et Input datasets can represent different types of spatial infor-
al., 2011), Italy (Blahut et al., 2010, Lari et al., 2011a, b), mation, and are handled with user-defined parameters. Ac-
Norway (Fischer et al., 2012), Argentina (Baumann et al., cordingly, grid cells of each input dataset are classified as
2011) and Pakistan (Horton et al., 2011). Flow-R is also part (1) favourable, when initiation is possible, (2) excluded when
of training materials (van Westen et al., 2010; Kappes et al., initiation is unlikely, or (3) ignored when no decision can be
2012). taken on this parameter (Fig. 2). Datasets are combined ac-
The goal of this paper is to give a full overview of the cording to the following rule: a cell is a source area if it was at
model and its recent improvements, and to provide relevant least once selected as favourable, but never excluded (Fig.2).
examples. The model and its algorithms are explained, along Alternatively, the user can directly import source areas which
with details of its implementation. Sensitivity analyses of the have been generated by another (GIS-based) approach.
various parameters are then performed to depict the influence The susceptibility value of the source cells is 1 by default.
of the DEM resolution, the processing precision, and the pa- However, the user can assign a spatial grid of susceptibility
rameterization of the propagation. or frequency values to characterize the source cells (see Mi-
choud et al., 2012).
According to Rickenmann and Zimmermann (1993) and
2 The model concepts Takahashi (1981), three criteria in a critical combination are
relevant for the initiation of a debris flow: terrain slope, water
Flow-R is a spatially distributed empirical model developed input, and sediment availability.
under Matlab® . Application of the model requires two dis- Most debris flows occur from terrain with a slope gradient
tinctive steps based on a digital elevation model (DEM): higher than 15◦ (Rickenmann and Zimmermann, 1993; Taka-
(1) the source areas are first identified by means of morpho- hashi, 1981). We normally consider this value as the lower
logical and user-defined criteria, and then (2) debris flows are initiation threshold. Plan curvature can be used to identify the
propagated from these sources on the basis of frictional laws gullies, provided DEM resolution is sufficient (Delmonaco
and flow direction algorithms. The debris flow volume and et al., 2003; Wieczorek et al., 1997), and thus allows refining
mass are not taken into account, as accurate values cannot the delineation of the source areas when the user is interested
be easily assessed over a large region and due to the signifi- in debris flows found in channels.
cant mass changes occurring through erosion and deposition Water input can be represented by the upslope contributing
(Iverson and Denlinger, 2001), which are excessively diffi- area (flow accumulation) as frequently done in distributed
50
45
40
35
Slopek(°)
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Upslopekareak(km2)
Heinmannk1998 1987kevents
Rarekfitting Extremekfitting
Fig. 3. Channel slopes and upslope area thresholds for debris flow
initiation for rare and extreme events. After Horton et al. (2008),
Fig. 2. Illustration of the combination of various datasets for the Heinimann (1998), and Rickenmann and Zimmermann (1993).
assessment of the source areas.
rough DEM, and thus curvature may become useless, if not real debris flow, whereas this cannot be reproduced by
misleading. any flow direction algorithm as none integrates a notion
Any other dataset can also be added, such as geological of height of the flow. The interest of this new algorithm
maps to account for sediment availability, or land use maps is illustrated in Sects. 4.1.1 and 4.1.3.
to help removing inaccurate source areas.
– The D8 (O’Callaghan and Mark, 1984; Jensen and
2.2 Assessment of the propagation Domingue, 1988) algorithm provides convergent but
unrealistically straight flow, and too limited spreading
The propagation routine provides a full assessment of pos- (Desmet and Govers, 1996; Endreny and Wood, 2003;
sible events in one run starting from the previously assessed Erskine et al., 2006; Tarboton, 1997). It can be, how-
source areas (see also Huggel et al., 2003). Two types of al- ever, useful for a rapid assessment of the parameters re-
gorithms are involved in the propagation assessment: lated to the runout distance.
w45 w45 in potential energy to the cell in direction i, and Efi is the
pi fd
energy lost in friction to the cell in direction i.
The friction loss can be assessed by two types of al-
w0 gorithms: the two parameters friction model by Perla et
al. (1980) and a simplified friction-limited model (SFLM).
Fig. 4. Illustration of the spreading of susceptibility value to the Both methods can result in similar propagation areas, de-
neighbouring cells. pending on the parameters choice (Jaboyedoff et al., 2011).
to the most distant point reached by the debris flow, along its Source
path:
Kinetic energy limitation
Eif = g1x tan ϕ, (9)
where Eif is the energy lost in friction from the central cell
to the cell in direction i, 1x the increment of horizontal dis-
placement, tan ϕ the gradient of the energy line, and g the Maximum runout
The result of the model is the total area that can potentially
no EnsureTcoherenceTbetweenT Three case study sites have been selected for parameters sen-
LimitTkineticT
energyTandTsusceptibility
energyT? sitivity analyses. These case studies are located in Switzer-
yes
land, in the Rhone River catchment (Fig. 8). The source ma-
NormalizeTandTscaleTsusceptibility
terial of debris flows originates either from glacial deposit,
KineticTenergyTlimitation colluvium, slope mass movement or/and fluvial deposits. The
HandleTsusceptibilityTthreshold
volumes of significant events are given for documentation,
but we would like to remind that these cannot be assessed by
NewTrunoutTcells
Flow-R.
CheckTforTtheTpresenceTofT
anotherTpropagationTwithT
yes QuickTmode 3.1 Fully
higherTsusceptibilityTandTenergy runT?
no The Fully case study is a well-documented debris flow
that occurred in October 2000 after heavy rainfall on
Fig. 6. Flow chart of main processes within Flow-R.
www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/13/869/2013/ Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 13, 869–885, 2013
876 P. Horton et al.: Flow-R, a model for susceptibility mapping of gravitational hazards
Processing level
Put every new runout cell in a list with
its susceptibility, energy and direction
Current propagation
Concentrate flow at
the frontal cells
Merge:
- sum or maximum of susceptibility
- maximum of energy
Fig. 7. Illustration of the 4 different layers of processing of the propagation and their associated data flow.
3.2 Saint-Barthélémy
3.3 Solalex
Fig. 13. Longitudinal profiles of the three case studies (see location
in Fig. 8).
Virtual topography − Perla’s model Fully − Perla’s model St−Barthélémy − Perla’s model
100 100 100
900
3000
2600
2000
90 90 90
5000 0
2400
600
2200
3040000
80 80 80
0
2000
0
0
10
0
1600
180
70 70 70
1800
1700
1600
1500
1400
1300
1200
1100
1000
2800
60 60 60
ω
2000
900
2600
00
6000
50 50 30 50
2400
00
0
1000
182000
220
0000
00
304050
40 40 0 40
160
30 30 30
1800
1700
1600
1500
1400
1300
1200
1100
1000
00 0
0
28
20 20 20
0
0000
200
2422 00 0 0 1000
26
20180 140
10 10 1600 10
5 10 15 20 5 10 15 20 5 10 15 20
φ [°] φ [°] φ [°]
Virtual topography − SFLM model Fully − SFLM model St−Barthélémy − SFLM model
20 20 20
00
0
0
2200
40
0
120
140
18 18 18 00
0
3000
32
280
30
0
340
2600
2400
16 16 16
00
2000
6000
20
240
velocity limit [m/s]
0
7000
14 14 14
500
1000
1800
1600
12 12 12
0
00
100
40 00
0
0
30
120
140
2800
10 10 0 10
2000
3 00
00
26
8 8 2402000 00 8
00 00
2000
2 0
21800 60 00 10
00
6 6 6 50
16
00
1800
1600
40000
0
3 00
100
4 4 4
0060400000
0 00
20
300
0
0
28 2 2 22 100
1600
0
1820
140
2 2 2
5 10 15 20 5 10 15 20 5 10 15 20
φ [°] φ [°] φ [°]
Fig. 14. Effect of the parameters of both algorithms for energy assessment on the runout distance for the virtual topography, Fully and
Saint-Barthélémy case studies, Switzerland.
of inputs and algorithms, which makes it versatile for very the SFLM models reproduce well the non-linearity of the re-
different case studies and even hazard types. lationship between the velocity and the terrain slope and that
Resulting propagation areas from the model are in gen- they can be used both in a similar way. The SFLM model
eral larger than observed events in the field, which is inten- presents the advantage that parameters like the velocity limit
tional in the framework of susceptibility mapping. Indeed, and the angle of reach can be estimated through simple ob-
the map should contain every possible event, even the worst servation of debris flow events.
case. Susceptibility maps offer a good overview to point out Flow-R is available to download for free at www.flow-r.
where field investigation should be conducted to establish a org. As the software utility has been proven and users’ inter-
detailed hazard map. est is growing, a new version will be developed in the near
Amongst the data input the DEM is the most important future. It will be written in C++ for performance purposes,
one. It allows source areas delineation by deriving morpho- will be cross platform, and will enclose a GIS engine.
logical criteria that were shown to be useful, and is the basis
of the propagation. Both the source areas identification and
the propagation strongly depend on the DEM quality. Its res- Acknowledgements. Authors would like to thank Eric Bardou, An-
olution and accuracy are key elements which condition the drea Pedrazzini and Alexandre Loye for important suggestions dur-
quality of outputs. Artefacts, such as smoothed gullies, im- ing the model conception. Thanks also to Clément Michoud for his
portant errors or a hidden flow, e.g. under a bridge or in deep support for the case study of avalanche modelling in the Bagnes
gorges, can be misleading. However, small irregularities do Valley. Jean-Philippe Malet and another reviewer helped to greatly
not affect the outputs if the algorithms and parameters are improve the paper quality.
chosen accordingly. If modelling with very coarse DEMs is We use some MATLAB libraries provided by the community:
performed, the user has to keep in mind that results are likely mexD8, mexDinf and mexSlope developed by Taylor Perron
to represent major torrents, but it is less probable that every (www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/perron/downloads.html), XMLTree
small debris flow in minor gullies will be shown. by Guillaume Flandin (www.artefact.tk/software/matlab/xml/),
The analysis of the parameters influencing the propagation INIfile by Primoz Cermelj (www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/
may help Flow-R users to choose their data and algorithms fileexchange/2976-inifile), Google Earth Toolbox by Scott
according to their needs. These choices mainly depend on Lee Davis (www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/
the study objectives. Over-precision is time consuming, as 12954-google-earth-toolbox). Thanks to all of them for these
processing time increases exponentially with the increasing precious contributions.
DEM resolution. If one aims at creating a susceptibility map
Edited by: A. Günther
over a large region, a 10 m resolution is sufficient. Fischer
Reviewed by: J.-P. Malet and one anonymous referee
et al. (2012) also noticed that a DEM with a 10 m resolu-
tion shows good agreement between the assessed source ar-
eas and the known flow tracks. A 25 m resolution produces
results of lower quality, but still usable, whereas the 50 m References
resolution is too coarse and the resulting extent should be in-
terpreted with care. If one aims at studying some torrents, a Aleotti, P. and Chowdhury, R.: Landslide hazard assessment: sum-
finer resolution can be recommended, but with the use of the mary review and new perspectives, B. Eng. Geol. Environ., 85,
21–44, doi:10.1007/s100640050066, 1999.
modified version of Holmgren’s algorithms exclusively.
Badoux, H. and Gabus, J.-H.: Atlas géologique de la Suisse, feuille
The modified version of Holmgren’s algorithm improves n◦ 1285, 1 : 25 000, Les Diablerets avec notice explicative, 1990
the spreading extent by making it less sensitive to DEM (in French).
small features, and so less dependent on the DEM resolu- Baumann, V., Wick, E., Horton, P., and Jaboyedoff, M.: Debris
tion. It provides a coverage that is more realistic, and allows flow susceptibility mapping at a regional scale along the National
for more accurate spreading in flat areas. We recommend us- Road N7, Argentina, in: Proceedings of the 14th Pan-American
ing it instead of the classic algorithms for any type of hazard Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering,
modelling, with a dh consistent with the studied phenomena. 2–6 October 2011, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 2011.
The analysis of the parameters acting on the runout dis- Bathurst, J., Burton, A., and Ward, T.: Debris flow run-
tance gives a useful overview of their respective influence out and landslide sediment delivery model tests, J. Hy-
in both the Perla and the SFLM models. The user can thus draul. Eng.-ASCE, 123, 410–419, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9429(1997)123:5(410), 1997.
have an idea of the governing parameters and their sensitiv-
Beguerı́a, S.: Validation and evaluation of predictive models in haz-
ity in the framework of real case studies. For Perla’s model, ard assessment and risk management, Nat. Hazards, 37, 315–
the linear friction parameter is globally more controlling the 329, doi:10.1007/s11069-005-5182-6, 2006.
runout distance than ω. For the SFLM the velocity limit is not Beguerı́a, S., Van Asch, Th. W. J., Malet, J.-P., and Gröndahl, S.:
a factor on which the user should play, but it should be fixed A GIS-based numerical model for simulating the kinematics of
to realistic values according to observations of the modelled mud and debris flows over complex terrain, Nat. Hazards Earth
hazard. Jaboyedoff et al. (2011) show that both the Perla and Syst. Sci., 9, 1897–1909, doi:10.5194/nhess-9-1897-2009, 2009.
Berti, M. and Simoni, A.: Prediction of debris flow inundation ar- Fairfield, J. and Leymarie, P.: Drainage Networks From Grid
eas using empirical mobility relationships, Geomorphology, 90, Digital Elevation Models, Water Resour. Res., 27, 709–717,
144–161, doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2007.01.014, 2007. doi:10.1029/90WR02658, 1991.
Blahut, J., Horton, P., Sterlacchini, S., and Jaboyedoff, M.: De- Fell, R., Corominas, J., Bonnard, C., Cascini, L., Leroi, E., and Sav-
bris flow hazard modelling on medium scale: Valtellina di age, W. Z.: Guidelines for landslide susceptibility, hazard and
Tirano, Italy, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 10, 2379–2390, risk zoning for land use planning, Eng. Geol., 102, 85–98, 2008.
doi:10.5194/nhess-10-2379-2010, 2010. Fischer, L., Rubensdotter, L., Sletten, K., Stalsberg, K., Melchiorre,
Bregoli, F., Bateman, A., Medina, V., Ciervo, F., Hürlimann, M., C., Horton, P., and Jaboyedoff, M.: Debris flow modeling for sus-
and Chevalier, G.: Development of preliminary assessment tools ceptibility mapping at regional to national scale in Norway, Pro-
to evaluate debris flow hazard, 5th Int. Conf. on Debris-Flow ceedings of the 11th International and 2nd North American Sym-
Hazards Mitigation, Padua, Italy, Italian Journal of Engineering posium on Landslides, 3–8 June 2012, Banff, Alberta, Canada,
Geology and Environment, 835–844, 2011. 2012.
Carrara, A., Cardinali, M., Guzzetti, F., and Reichenbach, P.: GIS FOWG (Federal Office for Water and Geology): Hochwasser 2000 –
technology in mapping landslide hazard, in: Geographical Infor- Les crues 2000, Analyse des événements, Cas exemplaires, Rap-
mation Systems in Assessing Natural Hazards, edited by: Car- ports de l’OFEG, série Eaux, 2, 248 pp., 2002 (in French).
rara, A. and Guzzetti, F., Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dor- Freeman, T. G.: Calculating catchment area with divergent flow
drecht, The Netherlands, 135–175, 1995. based on a regular grid. Comput. Geosci., 17, 413–422,
Carrara, A., Crosta, G., and Frattini, P.: Comparing models of doi:10.1016/0098-3004(91)90048-I, 1991.
debris-flow susceptibility in the alpine environment, Geomor- Gamma, P.: dfwalk – Ein Murgang-Simulationsprogramm zur
phology, 94, 353–378, doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2006.10.033, Gefahrenzonierung, Geographisches Institut der Universität
2008. Bern, 2000 (in German).
Chung, C. J. F. and Fabbri, A. G.: Probabilistic prediction models Glade, T.: Linking debris-flow hazard assessment
for landslide hazard mapping, Photogramm. Eng. Rem. S., 65, with geomorphology, Geomorphology, 66, 189–213,
1388–1399, 1999. doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2004.09.023, 2005.
Claessens, L., Heuvelink, G. B. M., Schoorl, J. M., and Veldkamp, Guinau, M., Vilajosana, I., and Vilaplana, J. M.: GIS-based debris
A.: DEM resolution effects on shallow landslide hazard and soil flow source and runout susceptibility assessment from DEM data
redistribution modelling, Earth Surf. Proc. Land., 30, 461–477, – a case study in NW Nicaragua, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.,
doi:10.1002/esp.1155, 2005. 7, 703–716, doi:10.5194/nhess-7-703-2007, 2007.
Corominas, J.: The angle of reach as a mobility index for small and He, Y. P., Xie, H., Cui, P., Wei, F. Q., Zhong, D. L., and Gardner,
large landslides, Can. Geotech. J., 33, 260–271,doi:10.1139/t96- J. S.: GIS-based hazard mapping and zonation of debris flows in
130, 1996. Xiaojiang Basin, southwestern China, Environ. Geol., 45, 286–
Costa, J. E.: Physical geomorphology of debris flows, in: Devel- 293, doi:10.1007/s00254-003-0884-0, 2003.
opments and Applications of Geomorphology, edited by: Costa, Heim, A.: Bergsturz und Menschenleben. Beiblatt zur Vierteljahrss-
J. E. and Fleischer, P. J., Springer, Berlin, Germany, 268–317, chrift der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft in Zurich, 1932 (in Ger-
1984. man).
Coussot, P.: Rhéologie des boues et laves torrentielles : étude de dis- Heinimann, H. R.: Methoden zur Analyse und Bewertung von
persions et suspensions concentrées, Thèse de l’Institut National Naturgefahren, Bundesamt für Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft
Polytechnique de Grenoble, Laboratoire de rhéologie, CEMA- (BUWAL), 85, 247 pp., 1998 (in German).
GREF, série Études montagnes, 416 pp., 1993 (in French). Hofmeister, R. J. and Miller, D. J.: GIS-based modeling of debris-
Crosta, G. B., Imposimato, S., and Roddeman, D. G.: Numer- flow initiation, transport and deposition zones for regional haz-
ical modelling of large landslides stability and runout, Nat. ard assessments in western Oregon, USA, in: Debris-Flow Haz-
Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 3, 523–538, doi:10.5194/nhess-3-523- ards Mitigation: Mechanics, Prediction, and Assessment, edited
2003, 2003. by: Rickenmann, D. and Chen, C. L.: Millpress, Rotterdam, The
Delmonaco, G., Leoni, G., Margottini, C., Puglisi, C., and Netherlands, 1141–1149, 2003.
Spizzichino, D.: Large scale debris-flow hazard assessment: a Holmgren, P.: Multiple flow direction algorithms for runoff mod-
geotechnical approach and GIS modelling, Nat. Hazards Earth elling in grid based elevation models: An empirical evaluation,
Syst. Sci., 3, 443–455, doi:10.5194/nhess-3-443-2003, 2003. Hydrol. Process., 8, 327–334, doi:10.1002/hyp.3360080405,
Desmet, P. J. J. and Govers, G.: Comparison of routing algorithms 1994.
for digital elevation models and their implications for predict- Horton, P., Jaboyedoff, M., and Bardou, E.: Debris flow susceptibil-
ing ephemeral gullies, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Syst., 10, 311–331, ity mapping at a regional scale, in: Proceedings of the 4th Cana-
doi:10.1080/02693799608902081, 1996. dian Conference on Geohazards, edited by: Locat, J., Perret, D.,
Endreny, T. A. and Wood, E. F.: Maximizing spatial con- Turmel, D., Demers, D., and Leroueil, S., Québec, Canada, 20–
gruence of observed and DEM-delineated overland 24 May 2008, 339–406, 2008.
flow networks, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci., 17, 699–713, Horton, P., Loye, A., and Jaboyedoff, M.: Debris Flows and
doi:10.1080/1365881031000135483, 2003. Avalanches Susceptibility Hazard Mapping for Pakistan – Mod-
Erskine, R., Green, T., Ramirez, J., and MacDonald, L.: elling of the two pilot districts Muzaffarabad and Manshera,
Comparison of grid-based algorithms for computing ups- Technical report, Faculty of Geosciences and Environment, In-
lope contributing area, Water Resour. Res., 42, W09416, stitute of Geomatics and Risk Analysis, University of Lausanne,
doi:10.1029/2005WR004648, 2006. Switzerland, 2009.
Horton, P., Jaboyedoff, M., Zimmermann, M., Mazotti, B., and Jakob, M.: Debris-flow hazard analysis, in: Debris-flow Hazards
Longchamp, C.: Flow-R, a model for debris flow susceptibil- and Related Phenomena, edited by: Jakob, M. and Hungr, O.,
ity mapping at a regional scale – some case studies, 5th Int. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 411–443, 2005.
Conf. on Debris-Flow Hazards Mitigation, Padua, Italy, Ital- Jenson, S. K. and Domingue, J. O.: Extracting topographic struc-
ian Journal of Engineering Geology and Environment, 875–884, ture from digital elevation data for geographic information sys-
doi:10.4408/IJEGE.2011-03.B-095, 2011. tem analysis, Photogramm. Eng. Rem. S., 54, 1593–1600, 1988.
Huggel, C., Kaab, A., Haeberli, W., Teysseire, P., and Paul, F.: Re- Johnson, A. M. and Rodine, J. R.: Debris Flow, in: Slope Instability,
mote sensing based assessment of hazards from glacier lake out- edited by: Brunsden, D. and Prior, D. B., John. Wiley and Sons,
bursts: a case study in the Swiss Alps, Can. Geotech. J., 39, 316– New York, USA, 257–361, 1984.
330, doi:10.1139/t01-099, 2002. Kappes, M. S., Malet, J.-P., Remaı̂tre, A., Horton, P., Jaboyedoff,
Huggel, C., Kääb, A., Haeberli, W., and Krummenacher, B.: M., and Bell, R.: Assessment of debris-flow susceptibility at
Regional-scale GIS-models for assessment of hazards from medium-scale in the Barcelonnette Basin, France, Nat. Hazards
glacier lake outbursts: evaluation and application in the Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 627–641, doi:10.5194/nhess-11-627-2011,
Swiss Alps, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 3, 647–662, 2011.
doi:10.5194/nhess-3-647-2003, 2003. Kappes, M. S., Gruber, K., Frigerio, S., Bell, R., Keiler,
Hungr, O.: A model for the runout analysis of rapid flow slides, M., and Glade, T.: The MultiRISK platform: The techni-
debris flows and avalanches, Can. Geotech. J., 32, 610–623, cal concept and application of a regional-scale multihazard
doi:10.1139/t95-063, 1995. exposure analysis tool, Geomorphology, 151–152, 139–155,
Hungr, O., Morgan, G. C., and Kellerhals, R.: Quantitative analysis doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2012.01.024, 2012.
of debris torrent hazards for design of remedial measures, Can. Lari, S., Frattini, P., Crosta, G. B., Jaboyedoff, M., and Horton, P.:
Geotech. J., 21, 663–677, doi:10.1139/t84-073, 1984. Rockfall and debris flow societal and economic risk assessment
Hürlimann, M., Rickenmann, D., Medina, V., and Bateman, at the regional scale, Acts 10th World Water Day, Accademia
A.: Evaluation of approaches to calculate debris-flow pa- Nazionale dei Lincei, Rome, 22 March 2010, Atti dei Convegni
rameters for hazard assessment, Eng. Geol., 102, 152–163, Lincei, 262, 179–187, 2011a.
doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2008.03.012, 2008. Lari, S., Crosta, G.B., Frattini, P., Horton, P., and Jaboyedoff, M.:
Iovine, G., D’Ambrosio, D., and Di Gregorio, S.: Applying Regional-scale debris-flow risk assessment for an alpine valley.
genetic algorithms for calibrating a hexagonal cellular au- 5th Int. Conf. on Debris-Flow Hazards Mitigation, Padua, Italy,
tomata model for the simulation of debris flows charac- Italian Journal of Engineering Geology and Environment, 933–
terised by strong inertial effects, Geomorphology, 66, 287–303, 940, doi:10.4408/IJEGE.2011-03.B-101, 2011b.
doi:10.1016/j.geomorph.2004.09.017, 2005. Melelli, L. and Taramelli, A.: An example of debris-flows hazard
Iverson, R. M.: The physics of debris flows, Rev. Geophys., 35, modeling using GIS, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 4, 347–358,
245–296, doi:10.1029/97RG00426, 1997. doi:10.5194/nhess-4-347-2004, 2004.
Iverson, R. M. and Denlinger, R. P.: Mechanics of debris flows and Michoud, C., Derron, M.-H., Horton, P., Jaboyedoff, M., Bailli-
debris-laden flash floods, Seventh Federal Interagency Sedimen- fard, F.-J., Loye, A., Nicolet, P., Pedrazzini, A., and Queyrel, A.:
tation Conference, Reno, Nevada, USA, 2001. Rockfall hazard and risk assessments along roads at a regional
Iverson, R. M., Schilling, S. P., and Vallance, J. W.: Objective de- scale: example in Swiss Alps, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 12,
lineation of lahar-inundation hazard zones, Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., 615–629, doi:10.5194/nhess-12-615-2012, 2012.
110, 972–984, 1998. O’Brien, J. S., Julien, P. Y., and Fullerton, W. T.: Two-
Jaboyedoff, M. and Labiouse, V.: Technical Note: Preliminary es- dimensional water flood and mudflow simulation, J. Hy-
timation of rockfall runout zones, Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., draul. Eng.-ASCE, 119, 244–261, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
11, 819–828, doi:10.5194/nhess-11-819-2011, 2011. 9429(1993)119:2(244), 1993.
Jaboyedoff, M., Michoud, C., Mazotti, B., Choffet, M., Dubois, J., O’Callaghan, J. F. and Mark, D. M.: The extraction of drainage net-
Breguet, A., Metraux, V., Derron, M. H., Horton, P., Loye, A., works from digital elevation data, Comput. Vision Graph., 28,
and Pedrazzini, A.: Cartes Indicatives de Dangers pour le Val de 328 –344, doi:10.1016/S0734-189X(84)80011-0, 1984.
Bagnes et de Vollèges : Carnet méthodologique, Technical re- Perla, R., Cheng, T. T., and McClung, D. M.: A two-parameter
port, 89 pp., 2010 (in French). model of snow-avalanche motion, J. Glaciol., 26, 197–207, 1980.
Jaboyedoff, M., Rudaz, B., and Horton, P.: Concepts and parame- Petrascheck, A.: Les événements extrêmes dans la perspective de
terization of Perla and FLM model using Flow-R for debris flow, l’être humain, OcCC (Organe consultatif sur les changements
Proceedings of the 5th Canadian Conference on Geotechnique climatiques; Éd.) : Evénements extrêmes et changements clima-
and Natural Hazards, 15–17 May 2011, Kelowna, BC, Canada, tiques, Berne, Switzerland, 38–41, 2003 (in French).
2011. Pirulli, M. and Mangeney, A.: Results of back-analysis of the prop-
Jaboyedoff, M., Choffet, Ch., Derron, M.-H., Horton, P., Loye, agation of rock avalanches as a function of the assumed rheol-
A., Longchamp, C., Mazotti, B., Michoud, C., and Pedrazzini, ogy, Rock Mech. Rock Eng., 41, 59–84, doi:10.1007/s00603-
A.: Preliminary Slope Mass Movements Susceptibility Mapping 007-0143-x, 2008.
Using DEM and LiDAR DEM, in: Terrigenous Mass Move- Quinn, P., Beven, K., Chevallier, P., and Planchon, O.: The pre-
ments: Detection, Modelling, Early Warning and Mitigation Us- diction of hillslope flow paths for distributed hydrological mod-
ing Geoinformation Technology, edited by: Pradhan, B. and elling using digital terrain models, Hydrol. Process., 5, 59–79,
Buchroithner, M., Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, Germany, doi:10.1002/hyp.3360050106, 1991.
109–170, doi:10.1007/978-3-642-25495-6 5, 2012.
Quinn, P., Beven, K., and Lamb, R.: The in(a/tanβ) index: How to van Westen, C. J., Quan Luna, B., Vargas Franco, R., Malet,
calculate it and how to use it within the topmodel framework, Hy- J. P., Jaboyedoff, M., Horton, P., and Kappes, M.: Develop-
drol. Process., 9, 161–182, doi:10.1002/hyp.3360090204, 1995. ment of training materials on the use of Geo-information for
Rickenmann, D.: Empirical relationships for debris flows, Nat. Haz- Multi-Hazard Risk Assessment in a Mountainous Environment.
ards, 19, 47–77, doi:10.1023/A:1008064220727, 1999. Proceedings of the Mountain Risks International Conference,
Rickenmann, D.: Runout prediction methods, in: Debris-Flow Haz- Firenze, Italy, 24–26 November 2010, 469–475, 2010.
ards and Related Phenomena, edited by: Jakob, M. and Hungr, Virieux, A.: Nouvelle contribution à l’étude du Saint-Barthélémy,
O., Springer Praxis, Chichester, 305–324, doi:10.1007/3-540- Bull. Soc. Vaud. Sci. Nat., No. 57, 1931 (in French).
27129-5 13, 2005. Voellmy, A.: Über die Zerstörungkraft von Lawinen, Schweiz-
Rickenmann, D. and Zimmermann, M.: The 1987 debris flows in erische Bauzeitung, 73, 212–285, 1955 (in German).
Switzerland: documentation and analysis, Geomorphology, 8, Wieczorek, G. F., Mandrone, G., and DeCola, L.: The Influence of
175–189, doi:10.1016/0169-555X(93)90036-2, 1993. Hillslope Shape on Debris-Flow Initiation, ASCE, First Interna-
Takahashi, T.: Estimation of potential debris flows and their haz- tional Conference Water Resources Engineering Division, San
ardous zones: Soft countermeasures for a disaster, Journal of Nat- Francisco, CA, 21–31, 1997.
ural Disaster Science, 3, 57–89, 1981. Zhang, W. and Montgomery, D.: Digital elevation model grid size,
Tarboton, D. G.: A new method for the determination of flow direc- landscape representation, and hydrologic simulations, Water Re-
tions and upslope areas in grid digital elevation models,. Water sour. Res., 30, 1019–1028, doi:10.1029/93WR03553, 1994.
Resour. Res., 33, 309–319, doi:10.1029/96WR03137, 1997. Zimmermann, M., Mani, P., and Gamma, P.: Murganggefahr und
van Westen, C. J., van Asch, T. W. J., and Soeters, R.: Landslide Klimaänderung – ein GIS-basierter Ansatz, NFP 31 Schluss-
hazard and risk zonation – why is it so difficult?, B. Eng. Geol. bericht, Hochschulverlag an der ETH, Zürich, 1997 (in German).
Environ., 65, 167–184, doi:10.1007/s10064-005-0023-0, 2006.