the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 30 Sep 2024
A worldwide event-based debris-flow barrier dam dataset from 1800 to 2023
Abstract. Debris flows, as a special kind of landslides, often block rivers to form barrier dams and trigger a series of disasters such as upstream aggradation and outburst floods. The understanding of debris-flow barrier dams (DFBDs) is poor, mostly due to existing researches focusing on individual events and a lack of summarization of multiple DFBD events. The existing global or regional datasets of landslide barrier dams (LDs) contain only a few cases of DFBDs, and ignore the differences between DFBDs and other landslide barrier dams (LDs), such as the dams of rock slide, debris avalanche, or earth slide. To fill this gap, we reviewed 2519 literatures and media reports with high quality. Focusing on identified debris-flow damming events, a rigorous data review and validation process was conducted using Google Earth. A systematic approach was employed to prioritize conflicting information from various data sources. Consequently, a global dataset was compiled, encompassing 555 historical DFBDs from 1800 to 2023.
This pioneering global dataset includes five categories and 36 attributes, detailing DFBDs. It captures basic information (location, the date of formation, etc.), dam characteristics (height, length, volume, etc.), lake characteristics (area, capacity, length), debris flow characteristics (velocity, discharge, volume, etc.), and failure characteristics (peak discharge, loss of life, etc.). Our dataset elucidates that DFBDs exhibit key features of instability, complete blockage, and overtopping failure. The number of such dams has notably increased, especially in China. 15 % of channels showed recurrent debris flows, resulting in DFBDs that make up 35 % of all DFBDs. Further analysis recommends the Ls (AHV) model is recommended for priority use, followed by the DBI model, for the stability assessment of DFBDs. Compared to other barrier dam datasets, our dataset is more targeted, lays a greater emphasis on the review of raw data, and stresses the unification of terminology and concepts (such as blockage modes and stability), ensuring the consistency and accuracy of the data. The dataset and results in this work may help to deepen the understanding of DFBD formation, distribution, and evolution. The DFBD dataset can be accessed through this link: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13382846 (Cheng et al., 2024).
- Preprint
(1915 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
CC1: 'Comment on essd-2024-382', Thanh-Nhan-Duc Tran, 30 Sep 2024
Publisher’s note: the content of this comment was removed on 2 October 2024 since the comment was posted by mistake.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-382-CC1 -
RC1: 'Comment on essd-2024-382', Thanh-Nhan-Duc Tran, 30 Sep 2024
First and foremost, the proposed idea of constructing a dataset of debris-flow barrier dams (DFBDs) is unique and novel, and I believe it is significantly important to publish. Additionally, I acknowledge the substantial amount of work the authors have done to construct this dataset, which involved carefully reviewing over 2,500 high-quality literature sources and media reports. Regrettably, I must decline the work in its current form, but I would be happy to review it again after substantial revisions have been added. Specifically, there are several major concerns with this dataset that are unacceptable and must be addressed.
- While the dataset is proposed as a worldwide collection, covering data back to the 1800s, which is impressive, only 555 dams were included. This number seems unreasonably low for a 'worldwide' scale. I am generally doubtful of this outcome.
- The data review and validation process was conducted using Google Earth. While this is a traditional and effective approach that I believe many other researchers use when building datasets on dams and reservoirs, it raises the question of how far back the authors were able to retrieve data, especially to validate the geographical coordinates and dates of formation going as far back as 1800. This is a difficult question that I believe the authors need to revisit and carefully consider. Furthermore, the manuscript points out discrepancies between the reported formation dates from data sources (literature) and Google Earth. This raises the question: which source is correct, and how can this be confirmed?
- The dataset is described as worldwide, but the majority of the dams are located in China. While this may be reasonable, given the authors' location, it creates a significant bias when only 39 dams are recorded in Italy, 43 in Japan, 33 in the United States, and 64 in other locations, compared to 333 in China. The authors should carefully reconsider whether they intend to maintain a global scale or refocus the dataset only within China mainland.
- In Figure 7, I understand that the authors aim to highlight some DFBDs using remote sensing imagery; however, I honestly cannot distinguish the DFBDs from the surrounding areas. I recommend using higher-resolution imagery, such as data from Planet, which can provide resolutions as high as 1 to 3 meters.
- When reviewing the dataset provided by the authors at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13382846, I have the following major concerns:
(1) Many DFBDs (EFBD_ID 1 to 31) are listed in languages other than English. While I understand that translating or converting the names to English can be challenging, the authors are proposing a worldwide dataset. How can others utilize this data if the names are in languages like Taiwanese or Japanese (e.g., 姫川・大所川・赤禿)? After consulting with my Chinese colleague, I believe these names could be converted to English.
(2) Many DFBDs are missing data on important parameters such as debris flow channel slope gradient (%) and debris flow channel length (km). I highly recommend filling in these missing pieces of information before the dataset can be considered for publication.
(3) The dam material information for several entries (EFBD_ID 3-33) is listed in Japanese. Please ensure this information is provided in English.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-382-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2024-382', Anonymous Referee #2, 01 Nov 2024
The paper presents a global debris-flow barrier dam dataset spanning from 1800 to 2023, which holds significant scientific value and practicality for the field of debris flow protection. The dataset encompasses a wide range of dam characteristics and debris flow parameters, combined with historical events and geographical distribution information, providing robust data support for future research and practical applications. Here are some suggestions to enhance the study.
1、 It is recommended that the paper includes detailed metadata about the dataset, specifying the sources, collection, and validation methods of the data. Particularly, information regarding climatic and environmental factors could further enhance the applicability of the data.
2、Providing the data analysis tools and algorithms used would facilitate readers in understanding the specific steps and methods of data processing, enhancing the reproducibility of the study.
3、A detailed explanation of the sources and validation processes for each data item in the dataset is advised, especially for data obtained from news reports. The accuracy of these data may vary due to regional and source differences.
4、While the paper offers a global dataset, it is crucial to ensure that the findings are universally applicable, especially under varying geographical and climatic conditions. This may require additional analysis or disclaimers regarding the limitations of the dataset in different global contexts.
5、The paper discusses the applicability of existing landslide dam (LD) stability models and peak discharge models to debris-flow barrier dams (DFBDs). Does the paper sufficiently consider the limitations of these models and clearly point out them in the results.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-382-RC2 -
RC3: 'Comment on essd-2024-382', Anonymous Referee #3, 02 Dec 2024
The authors have successfully constructed a dataset covering 555 DFBD events worldwide from 1800 to 2023. This is the first dataset in this field specifically targeting DFBDs, filling the gap in the systematic data integration of DFBD events in existing research. Therefore, this study is innovative.
The authors have ensured the richness and diversity of the data by integrating multiple data sources, including academic literature, data from government agencies, proceedings of professional conferences, and reports from authoritative news media, totaling 2,519 data sources. Moreover, the dataset provides references on the sources of case data, and this dataset has been made public on Zenodo, which increases the transparency and repeatability of this study. The data collection process was comprehensive and systematic. Additionally, the data processing steps were rigorous. Therefore, it can be considered that the methods of data collection and processing in this paper are reasonable.
My judgment is that this is an innovative work in this field, which is of great significance for understanding and predicting the formation, distribution, and evolution of DFBDs.
This dataset provides valuable basic data and perspectives, contributing to a certain extent to research in this field. However, there are still some aspects that need to be improved in this paper.
- The introduction part needs to further summarize and analyze the research status.
- Figure 4 is missing the title for (c).
- The authors have pointed out the phenomenon of repeatedly river blockage by DFBDs, which is an important and interesting finding. It is recommended to further explain the causes and consequences of this phenomenon.
- Based on the DFBD dataset, the authors further discussed the applicability of existing landslide barrier dam stability models and peak discharge models to debris-flow barrier dams, which is a meaningful exploration. It is suggested that the authors further summarize the limitations of these models and potential directions for improvement.
- The format of the reference in line 743, 'Costa, J. E. and Schuster, R. L.: The formation and failure of natural dams, Geological Society of America Bulletin, 100(7), 1054-1068, 1988.', seems to be incorrect.
- It is recommended that the authors unify the language in the dataset to English to facilitate readers in reading and accessing the data.
- The authors claimed that this is a worldwide dataset. However, the number of DFBDs in China in the dataset was much greater than that in other countries and regions. Considering that there are still 179 DFBDs in other countries and regions in this dataset and the value of these data themselves, I think it is acceptable to name this data on a 'worldwide' scale. Nevertheless, it is recommended that the authors supplement the reasons for the large number of DFBDs in China in this dataset. Alternatively, in Section 4.4 'Limitations in this work,' the authors should discuss the spatial distribution limitations of the DFBDs included in the dataset and outline plans for future research.
- In view of the fact that the construction of the dataset is an ongoing process, it is recommended that the authors continue to refine and update the dataset in future work.
- Can the author supplement the gradation parameters of debris flow barrier dam?
- It is suggested that the author further explains how to define the ' stability ' of the debris flow barrier dam? Because the structure of the debris flow dam is very stable.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-382-RC3
Data sets
A worldwide event-based debris-flow barrier dam dataset from 1800 to 2023 Haiguang Cheng et al. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13382846
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 328 | 73 | 217 | 618 | 6 | 8 |
- HTML: 328
- PDF: 73
- XML: 217
- Total: 618
- BibTeX: 6
- EndNote: 8
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1