the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 03 Aug 2023
Assessing Landslide Damming susceptibility in Central Asia
Abstract. Central Asia regions are characterized by active tectonics, high mountain chains with extreme topography with glaciers and strong seasonal rainfall events. These key predisposing factors make large landslides a serious natural threat in the area, causing several casualties every year. The mountain crests are divided by wide lenticular or narrow, linear intermountain tectonic depressions, which are incised by many of the most important Central Asia rivers and are also subject to major seasonal river flood hazard. This multi-hazard combination is a source of potential damming scenarios which can bring cascading effects with devastating consequences for the surrounding settlements and population. Different hazards can only be managed with a multi-hazard approach coherent within the different countries, as suggested by the requirements of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction.
This work was carried out within the framework of the SFRARR Project (“Strengthening Financial Resilience and Accelerating Risk Reduction in Central Asia”) as a part of a multi-hazard approach with the aim of providing a damming susceptibility analysis at a regional scale for Central Asia. To achieve this, a semi-automated GIS-based mapping method, centred on a bivariate correlation of morphometric parameters defined by a morphological index, originally designed to assess the damming susceptibility at basin/regional scale, was modified to be adopted nationwide and applied to spatially assess the obstruction of the river network in Central Asia for mapped and newly formed landslides. The proposed methodology represents an improvement of the previously designed, requiring a smaller amount of data, bringing new information on the damming hazard management and risk reduction for the Central Asia regions.
- Preprint
(3698 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on nhess-2023-140', Anonymous Referee #1, 19 Aug 2023
The paper concerns the susceptibility assessment of landslide dams in a large area of Central Asia.
The paper is well structured and undoubtedly represents a good, albeit preliminary, attempt to identify the landslides that can potentially obstruct the riverbeds in this area.
However, the scale used is too small to allow us to go into detail and for this reason the study represents a preliminary phase of investigation which, however, can allow to subsequently concentrate the attention on the areas identified as more critical. This should be said more explicitly.....
A limitation of the paper is the scarce attention paid to the geology of the studied area, only summarily described in chapter 2. One suggestion is to insert a geological map, even if on a small scale, of the study area, which allows to identify the possible relationships between outcropping lithotypes (and formations) and the degree of entrenchment of the hydrographic network, which is certainly an element predisposing to the possibility of riverbed occlusion due to landslides.
Finally, one doubt concerns the plot of Figure 2 and the resulting linear equations, on which the whole methodology described and applied is based.
Do the plot and the proposed equations have a general meaning? For extreme combination values between the two parameters considered (volume of the landslide and width of the valley), the answer is surtely yes;; this is not the case for intermediate values, so much so that the authors insert a central band which presumably represents a field of uncertainty... Is it true?! If so, this should be explained better...
Or the linear equations have been deduced from an analyzed series (Where? For how many cases?).
The suggestion is to better explain the meaning of the plot of Figure 2 and of the linear equations that follow from it, clarifying the above doubts.
Other minor details and typos are indicated in the attached PDF file.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Carlo Tacconi Stefanelli, 27 Aug 2023
Thanks for the detailed and careful review. We will certainly take his comments and observations into account.
Due to the size of the studied area, our work is certainly a preliminary study. Perhaps this important aspect has not been sufficiently highlighted, thank you for pointing it out.
Verifying the link between lithology and the degree of entrenchment of the river network is certainly a very important and interesting aspect that could perhaps require a separate study. We will try to follow your advice but our doubt is whether such a small scale map can provide information or confusion by weighing down the manuscript.
The equations proposed in Figure 2 are the result of other works to which reference is made in the text for greater detail. However, we will try to better explain the meaning of the figure and clarify any doubts.
Thanks again for the careful review, I will try to incorporate your comments in the next version of the manuscript.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2023-140-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Carlo Tacconi Stefanelli, 27 Aug 2023
-
RC2: 'Comments on nhess-2023-140', Anonymous Referee #2, 06 Sep 2023
Dear authors,
thank you for your contribution. I have following suggestions.
General comment: I understand that according to the scale the results have some limits and authors agree with more detailed study in future. Nevertheless, would it be possible to include a chapter (into Discussion) about verification? I mean to consider significant landslide (rockfall) events from the literature review a compare how they fit (or not?) with the presented results.
Another doubt is about the geological setting. I agree that using this scale is impossible to consider geological setting because of large variability of the region. Nevertheless, what about to consider main fault zones? Because those structures predispose more frequent jointing and could serve as detachment zones for large slope movements. As well as relation to seismic zoning (seismic intensity) will higher the credibility. On the other hand, this comment is just for authors, for next possible more detailed paper. It is not necessary to enlarge the scope of this paper.
Specific comments: What is important is to improve the content of Conclusion. It is to general, vague, and rather short. Main results from the paper will stress the scientific value.
Technical comments: For detailed comments see the enclosure, please.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Carlo Tacconi Stefanelli, 25 Oct 2023
Thank you for your careful input in reviewing our work.
We will certainly try to incorporate more information on the geological setting of the area by inserting a geological map following the advice recived by both the reviewers. While we are concerned about making the article too heavy by including too many maps, we will do our best to incorporate a section for verifying the results.
We will certainly improve the Conclusions as recommended and include your comments on the manuscript in its next versionCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2023-140-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Carlo Tacconi Stefanelli, 25 Oct 2023
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on nhess-2023-140', Anonymous Referee #1, 19 Aug 2023
The paper concerns the susceptibility assessment of landslide dams in a large area of Central Asia.
The paper is well structured and undoubtedly represents a good, albeit preliminary, attempt to identify the landslides that can potentially obstruct the riverbeds in this area.
However, the scale used is too small to allow us to go into detail and for this reason the study represents a preliminary phase of investigation which, however, can allow to subsequently concentrate the attention on the areas identified as more critical. This should be said more explicitly.....
A limitation of the paper is the scarce attention paid to the geology of the studied area, only summarily described in chapter 2. One suggestion is to insert a geological map, even if on a small scale, of the study area, which allows to identify the possible relationships between outcropping lithotypes (and formations) and the degree of entrenchment of the hydrographic network, which is certainly an element predisposing to the possibility of riverbed occlusion due to landslides.
Finally, one doubt concerns the plot of Figure 2 and the resulting linear equations, on which the whole methodology described and applied is based.
Do the plot and the proposed equations have a general meaning? For extreme combination values between the two parameters considered (volume of the landslide and width of the valley), the answer is surtely yes;; this is not the case for intermediate values, so much so that the authors insert a central band which presumably represents a field of uncertainty... Is it true?! If so, this should be explained better...
Or the linear equations have been deduced from an analyzed series (Where? For how many cases?).
The suggestion is to better explain the meaning of the plot of Figure 2 and of the linear equations that follow from it, clarifying the above doubts.
Other minor details and typos are indicated in the attached PDF file.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Carlo Tacconi Stefanelli, 27 Aug 2023
Thanks for the detailed and careful review. We will certainly take his comments and observations into account.
Due to the size of the studied area, our work is certainly a preliminary study. Perhaps this important aspect has not been sufficiently highlighted, thank you for pointing it out.
Verifying the link between lithology and the degree of entrenchment of the river network is certainly a very important and interesting aspect that could perhaps require a separate study. We will try to follow your advice but our doubt is whether such a small scale map can provide information or confusion by weighing down the manuscript.
The equations proposed in Figure 2 are the result of other works to which reference is made in the text for greater detail. However, we will try to better explain the meaning of the figure and clarify any doubts.
Thanks again for the careful review, I will try to incorporate your comments in the next version of the manuscript.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2023-140-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Carlo Tacconi Stefanelli, 27 Aug 2023
-
RC2: 'Comments on nhess-2023-140', Anonymous Referee #2, 06 Sep 2023
Dear authors,
thank you for your contribution. I have following suggestions.
General comment: I understand that according to the scale the results have some limits and authors agree with more detailed study in future. Nevertheless, would it be possible to include a chapter (into Discussion) about verification? I mean to consider significant landslide (rockfall) events from the literature review a compare how they fit (or not?) with the presented results.
Another doubt is about the geological setting. I agree that using this scale is impossible to consider geological setting because of large variability of the region. Nevertheless, what about to consider main fault zones? Because those structures predispose more frequent jointing and could serve as detachment zones for large slope movements. As well as relation to seismic zoning (seismic intensity) will higher the credibility. On the other hand, this comment is just for authors, for next possible more detailed paper. It is not necessary to enlarge the scope of this paper.
Specific comments: What is important is to improve the content of Conclusion. It is to general, vague, and rather short. Main results from the paper will stress the scientific value.
Technical comments: For detailed comments see the enclosure, please.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Carlo Tacconi Stefanelli, 25 Oct 2023
Thank you for your careful input in reviewing our work.
We will certainly try to incorporate more information on the geological setting of the area by inserting a geological map following the advice recived by both the reviewers. While we are concerned about making the article too heavy by including too many maps, we will do our best to incorporate a section for verifying the results.
We will certainly improve the Conclusions as recommended and include your comments on the manuscript in its next versionCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2023-140-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Carlo Tacconi Stefanelli, 25 Oct 2023
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 341 | 108 | 21 | 470 | 14 | 15 |
- HTML: 341
- PDF: 108
- XML: 21
- Total: 470
- BibTeX: 14
- EndNote: 15
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1