the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Assessing the impact of climate change to landslides using public data, a case study from Vejle, Denmark
Abstract. The possibility of increased landslide activity as a result of climate change has often been suggested, but few studies quantify this connection. Here, we present and utilize a workflow for using publicly available data to assess the impact of future changes in landslide dynamic conditioning factors on landslide movement. In our case of three slow-moving coastal landslides at Vejle, Denmark the examined dynamic conditioning factor is modelled water table depth (WTD). The DK-HIP-model simulates historic and future WTD and the data shows a clear correlation with landslide movement as recorded by InSAR time series, for the period 2015 to 2019. Movement occurs especially during wet winter seasons when normalized WTD exceeds +0.5 m. In dry winters no, or very little, seasonal landslide movement is observed. The DK-HIP-model predicts an increase of up to 0.7 m in WTD at the field site by 2100 AD under the RCP8.5 scenario (95 % confidence). With such an increase, the WTD will exceed levels above what this area has experienced in recent decades. This will result in increased landslide activity and acceleration of movement. In a previous episode of increased landslide activity in early 1980’ies (1981 was the then wettest year on record), one of the examined landslides accelerated, causing damage to infrastructure and buildings. Our study highlights the potential of utilizing high-quality, publicly available data to address complex scientific questions. The quality and quantity of such data is ever increasing and so is the potential of such approach.
- Preprint
(2150 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on nhess-2023-68', J. Pfeiffer, 06 Jun 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://nhess.copernicus.org/preprints/nhess-2023-68/nhess-2023-68-RC1-supplement.pdf
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Kristian Svennevig, 28 Aug 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on nhess-2023-68', Anonymous Referee #2, 10 Jul 2023
The manuscript (MS) provides based on analysis of public data, an assessment of current landslide movements and a projection in future climate scenarios of the Fifth IPCC assessment report.
The manuscript is well written and the topic is within the scope of the journal. In my opinion the manuscript has moderate scientific novelty. Also some points may be better discussed and framed, for instance the low correlation between displacement and rainfall, and climate change modeling.
Specific comments
- L 147: Here you state that by DoD you were able to evaluate the vertical change in elevation for landslides. But how is the procedure accurate? In other words, what happens for the areas outside the landslides? Are there changes in elevation even there? Which is their order of magnitude respect to landslide areas? More details on this should be added in my opinion to the manuscript.
- LL217-233: Here you describe the post-processing of the water table depth (WTD) data originally provided by the DK-HIP model. It is unclear if and how this post-processing might have affected your analysis, both in the historical and in the future periods. This issue should be further explored. For instance, what would have been the variations between future and control scenarios with the original data taken from the DK-HIP model? Would they be way more different of the results you presented? I am imagine that in spite of the bias in the WTD data, this assessment could be still done, as you would be comparing future and control scenarios have similar “biases”.
- LL332-333 you state that “no correlation was found between the accumulated weekly precipitation and the InSAR movement”. That is an issue of processing the data. I think that some correlation may be spotted if you consider the cumulative rainfall, i.e. by cumulating all the weekly precipitation from a starting time up to any given time. Of course a certain lag is present between cumulative rainfall and displacement as some time is needed for rainfall to infiltrate. This statement and the related discussion (cf. LL386-391) needs to be revised with a more sound interpretation of the analyses.
- LL415-420 This statement is quite daring. I would be more cautious about this extrapolation of current behavior for the future.
- Section 3.3 It is unclear how climate model data were used within DK-HIP. As far as I understand you just took that data provided by the public service and made some analyses of changes. It this is correct, I think that presenting just an exploratory analysis of model data available from other authors is quite limited in terms of novelty for a research paper. Please explain.
- The discussion section presents various conceptual repetitions
Technical corrections
L71 correct “dynmaic".
L221 we first normalize -> we have first normalized.
Fig. 6 I would suggest showing the scatter plots instead of only the Spearman correlation values; this would give a clearer insight of what’s going on.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2023-68-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Kristian Svennevig, 28 Aug 2023
-
RC3: 'Comment on nhess-2023-68', Daniel Ben-Yehoshua, 16 Jul 2023
Dear Editors and Authors,
I had the pleasure to review the manuscript titled “Assessing the impact of climate change to landslides using public data, a case study from Vejle, Denmark”. The manuscript is well structured and well-illustrated and addresses the natural hazard of coastal landslides. It describes three such coastal landslides in Denmark and uses publicly available data sources (in Denmark) to assess the driving factors. The study finds that the water table depth is the main controlling factor of slope destabilization, and that short-term precipitation doesn’t have a direct correlation with the motion of these landslides. In a final part, the development of the water table depth for the last decades of the 21st century is calculated based on RCP8.5 and RCP4.5 climate scenarion. The manuscript highlights the importance of ground water table thresholds for coastal landslide motion and finds that those thresholds are more likely to be breached in future climate scenarios.
The data available through the described WTD model is specific to Denmark but the presented workflow can serve as a guideline for other studies assessing similar settings. I furthermore recommend to add a paragraph in the discussion, putting the three described landslides in a broader scientific context, addressing what the findings from this study signify for coastal bluffs/landslides (with a similar geology) elsewhere.
Overall, I believe that the manuscript fulfills the journal’s scientific standards and I recommend accepting this manuscript with minor revisions.Text specific comments and corrections are added to the attached, revised pdf file of the manuscript.
Sincerely,
Daniel Ben-Yehoshua- AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Kristian Svennevig, 28 Aug 2023
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on nhess-2023-68', J. Pfeiffer, 06 Jun 2023
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://nhess.copernicus.org/preprints/nhess-2023-68/nhess-2023-68-RC1-supplement.pdf
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Kristian Svennevig, 28 Aug 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on nhess-2023-68', Anonymous Referee #2, 10 Jul 2023
The manuscript (MS) provides based on analysis of public data, an assessment of current landslide movements and a projection in future climate scenarios of the Fifth IPCC assessment report.
The manuscript is well written and the topic is within the scope of the journal. In my opinion the manuscript has moderate scientific novelty. Also some points may be better discussed and framed, for instance the low correlation between displacement and rainfall, and climate change modeling.
Specific comments
- L 147: Here you state that by DoD you were able to evaluate the vertical change in elevation for landslides. But how is the procedure accurate? In other words, what happens for the areas outside the landslides? Are there changes in elevation even there? Which is their order of magnitude respect to landslide areas? More details on this should be added in my opinion to the manuscript.
- LL217-233: Here you describe the post-processing of the water table depth (WTD) data originally provided by the DK-HIP model. It is unclear if and how this post-processing might have affected your analysis, both in the historical and in the future periods. This issue should be further explored. For instance, what would have been the variations between future and control scenarios with the original data taken from the DK-HIP model? Would they be way more different of the results you presented? I am imagine that in spite of the bias in the WTD data, this assessment could be still done, as you would be comparing future and control scenarios have similar “biases”.
- LL332-333 you state that “no correlation was found between the accumulated weekly precipitation and the InSAR movement”. That is an issue of processing the data. I think that some correlation may be spotted if you consider the cumulative rainfall, i.e. by cumulating all the weekly precipitation from a starting time up to any given time. Of course a certain lag is present between cumulative rainfall and displacement as some time is needed for rainfall to infiltrate. This statement and the related discussion (cf. LL386-391) needs to be revised with a more sound interpretation of the analyses.
- LL415-420 This statement is quite daring. I would be more cautious about this extrapolation of current behavior for the future.
- Section 3.3 It is unclear how climate model data were used within DK-HIP. As far as I understand you just took that data provided by the public service and made some analyses of changes. It this is correct, I think that presenting just an exploratory analysis of model data available from other authors is quite limited in terms of novelty for a research paper. Please explain.
- The discussion section presents various conceptual repetitions
Technical corrections
L71 correct “dynmaic".
L221 we first normalize -> we have first normalized.
Fig. 6 I would suggest showing the scatter plots instead of only the Spearman correlation values; this would give a clearer insight of what’s going on.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2023-68-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Kristian Svennevig, 28 Aug 2023
-
RC3: 'Comment on nhess-2023-68', Daniel Ben-Yehoshua, 16 Jul 2023
Dear Editors and Authors,
I had the pleasure to review the manuscript titled “Assessing the impact of climate change to landslides using public data, a case study from Vejle, Denmark”. The manuscript is well structured and well-illustrated and addresses the natural hazard of coastal landslides. It describes three such coastal landslides in Denmark and uses publicly available data sources (in Denmark) to assess the driving factors. The study finds that the water table depth is the main controlling factor of slope destabilization, and that short-term precipitation doesn’t have a direct correlation with the motion of these landslides. In a final part, the development of the water table depth for the last decades of the 21st century is calculated based on RCP8.5 and RCP4.5 climate scenarion. The manuscript highlights the importance of ground water table thresholds for coastal landslide motion and finds that those thresholds are more likely to be breached in future climate scenarios.
The data available through the described WTD model is specific to Denmark but the presented workflow can serve as a guideline for other studies assessing similar settings. I furthermore recommend to add a paragraph in the discussion, putting the three described landslides in a broader scientific context, addressing what the findings from this study signify for coastal bluffs/landslides (with a similar geology) elsewhere.
Overall, I believe that the manuscript fulfills the journal’s scientific standards and I recommend accepting this manuscript with minor revisions.Text specific comments and corrections are added to the attached, revised pdf file of the manuscript.
Sincerely,
Daniel Ben-Yehoshua- AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Kristian Svennevig, 28 Aug 2023
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
658 | 202 | 34 | 894 | 24 | 23 |
- HTML: 658
- PDF: 202
- XML: 34
- Total: 894
- BibTeX: 24
- EndNote: 23
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1