Rainfall-Induced Debris Flow Risk Reduction: A Strategic Approach Open image in new window

  • Mike G. WinterEmail author
Conference paper


Rainfall-induced debris flows frequently cause disruption to the Scottish road network. A regional assessment of debris flow hazard and risk allows risk reduction actions to be targeted effectively. To this end a strategic approach to landslide risk reduction, which incorporates a classification scheme for landslide management and mitigation has been developed, in order to provide a common lexicon (or group of words) that can be used to describe goals, outcomes, approaches and processes related to risk reduction, and to allow a clear focus on those goals, outcomes and approaches. The focus is thus first on the desired outcome from risk reduction: whether the exposure, or vulnerability, of the at-risk infrastructure and people (and their associated socio-economic activities, which may be impacted over significant areas) is to be targeted for reduction or whether the hazard itself is to be reduced (either directly or by affecting the physical elements at risk).


Debris flow Rainfall Hazard Risk Reduction Management Mitigation 


  1. Bromhead EN (1997) The treatment of landslides. Proc Inst Civ Eng (Geotech Eng) 125:85–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Coppin NJ, Richards IG (2007) Use of vegetation in civil engineering. CIRIA report C708. CIRIA, London. (Reprinted from CIRIA Report B10, 1990)Google Scholar
  3. Coppola L, Nardone R, Rescio P, Bromhead E (2009) The ruined town of Campomaggiore Vecchio, Basilicata, Italy. Q J Eng Geol Hydrogeol 42:383–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Milne FD, Werritty A, Davies MCR, Browne MJ (2009) A recent debris flow event and implications for hazard management. Q J Eng GeolHydrogeol 42:51–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. VanDine DF (1996) Debris flow control structures for forest engineering. Ministry of Forests Research Program, Working paper 22/1996. Ministry of Forests, Victoria, BCGoogle Scholar
  6. Versace P (ed) (2007) La mitigazione del rischio da collate di fango: a Sarno e negli altri comuni colpiti dagle eventi del Maggio 1998. Commissariato do Governa per l’Emergenze Idrogeologica in Campania, Naples, p 401Google Scholar
  7. Winter MG (2014) A strategic approach to landslide risk reduction. Int J Landslide Environ 2:14–23Google Scholar
  8. Winter MG, Bromhead EN (2012) Landslide risk—some issues that determine societal acceptance. Nat Hazards 62:169–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Winter MG, Corby A (2012) A83 Rest and be Thankful: ecological and related landslide mitigation options. Published Project Report PPR 636. Transport Research Laboratory, WokinghamGoogle Scholar
  10. Winter MG, Heald AP, Parsons JA, Macgregor F, Shackman L (2006) Scottish debris flow events of August 2004. Q J Eng Geol Hydrogeol 39:73–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Winter MG, Macgregor F, Shackman L (eds) (2005) Scottish Road network landslides study. Edinburgh, Scottish Executive, p 119Google Scholar
  12. Winter MG, Macgregor F, Shackman L (eds) (2009) Scottish road network landslides study: implementation. Edinburgh, Transport Scotland, p 278Google Scholar
  13. Winter MG, Dent J, Macgregor F, Dempsey P, Motion A, Shackman L (2010) Debris flow, rainfall and climate change in Scotland. Q J Eng Geol Hydrogeol 43:429–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Winter MG, Harrison M, Macgregor F, Shackman L (2013a) “Landslide hazard assessment and ranking on the Scottish road network. Proc Inst of Civ Eng (Geotech Eng) 166:522–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Winter MG, Kinnear N, Shearer B, Lloyd L, Helman S (2013b) A technical and perceptual evaluation of wig-wag signs at the A83 Rest and be Thankful. Published Project Report PPR 664. Transport Research Laboratory, WokinghamGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Transport Research Laboratory (TRL)EdinburghUK
  2. 2.School of Earth and Environmental SciencesUniversity of PortsmouthPortsmouthUK

Personalised recommendations