What drives landslide risk? Disaggregating risk analyses, an example from the Franz Josef Glacier and Fox Glacier valleys, New Zealand

Abstract

Abstract. We present a quantitative risk analysis (QRA) case study from the Kā Roimata o Hine Hukatere / Franz Josef Glacier and Te Moeka o Tuawe / Fox Glacier valleys, on the west coast of the South Island, Aotearoa / New Zealand. The glacier valleys are important tourist destinations that are subject to landslide hazards. Both valleys contain actively retreating glaciers; experience high rainfall; and are proximal to the Alpine Fault, which is a major source of seismic hazard on the west coast. We considered the life safety risk from rockfalls, soil/rock avalanches, and flows that either are seismically triggered or occur aseismically. To determine the range in risk values and dominant contributing variables to the risk, we modelled nine different risk scenarios where we incrementally changed the variables used in the risk model to account for the underlying uncertainty. The scenarios represent our central estimate of the risk, e.g. neither optimistic nor conservative, through to our upper estimate of the risk. We include in these estimates the impact time-variable factors, such as a recently reactivated landslide, have had on locally increasing risk and the time-elapsed since the last major earthquake on the nearby Alpine Fault. We disaggregated our risk results to determine the dominant drivers in landslide risk, which highlighted the importance of considering dynamic time-variable risk scenarios and the changing contributions to risk from aseismic versus seismic landslides. A detailed understanding of the drivers of landslide risk in each valley is important to determine the most efficient and appropriate risk management decisions.

Exploratory analysis of the annual risk to life from debris flows

“…If the Melton-R value or other evidence suggests that a catchment may be susceptible to debris flows, and there are existing or proposed dwellings on the debris flow fan, then it is necessary to calculate the risk to life and evaluate its tolerability. To do this, we use a modified form of a commonly used calculation of the annual risk to life from exposure to a single landside (see Walker et al, 2007;Porter and Morgenstern, 2012;de Vilder et al, PH can also be specified in terms of its inverse, the average recurrence interval ARI (years) 120 for a debris flow occurrence.…”

Considering uncertainty in the collapse fragility of New Zealand buildings for risk‐targeted seismic design

“…select the risk target based on an acceptable AIFR . Acceptable values of AIFR have been studied in other contexts, such as flooding and landslides 12–14 . Therefore, AIFR is considered more meaningful than collapse risk from a policy perspective, as it can be related to fatality risks in other sectors to allow for effective risk management.…”

“…Acceptable values of AIFR have been studied in other contexts, such as flooding and landslides. [12][13][14] Therefore, AIFR is considered more meaningful than collapse risk from a policy perspective, as it can be related to fatality risks in other sectors to allow for effective risk management. It is also more closely linked to the New Zealand Building Code objective to "safeguard people from injury caused by structural failure."…”