Geomorphology 342 (2019) 127–139

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geomorphology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geomorph

Assessing strategies to mitigate debris-flow risk in Abancay province,

south-central Peruvian Andes
Clara Rodríguez-Morata a,c,⁎, Sandra Villacorta b, Markus Stoffel a,c,d, Juan Antonio Ballesteros-Cánovas a,c
a
Climate Change Impacts and Risks in the Anthropocene (C-CIA), Institute for Environmental Sciences, University of Geneva, Boulevard Carl-Vogt 66, 1205 Geneva, Switzerland
b
School of Environment, Charles Darwin University, Ellengowan Dr, Casuarina, NT 0810, Australia
c
Dendrolab.ch, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Geneva, Rue des Maraîchers 13, CH-1205 Geneva, Switzerland
d
Department F.-A. Forel for Environmental and Aquatic Research, University of Geneva, Boulevard Carl-Vogt 66, CH-1205 Geneva, Switzerland

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: During the 2011–12 austral summer, the Abancay province (south-central Peruvian Andes) experienced unprec-
Received 16 January 2019 edented, persistent precipitation in the records extending back locally to 1982. As a consequence, a large debris
Received in revised form 12 June 2019 flow was triggered in the upper part of the Sahuanay creek on March 18, 2012, with catastrophic consequences in
Accepted 12 June 2019
the highly populated downstream districts of Tamburco. After this event, structural measures were built in the
Available online 16 June 2019
form of an artificial channel and two sediment traps, so as to mitigate the negative impacts of future events.
Keywords:
Here, we reconstruct the 2012 event and assess the reliability of the new countermeasures during future events
Debris flow of similar size, with the final aim to obtain response times for inhabitants to reach safe areas. To this end, we
Intense rainfall employed a field-based assessment, numerical models (i.e., RAMMS) and GIS modelling based on a Statistic
Mitigation measures Least-Cost Distance (LCD). This assessment suggests that the implemented countermeasures are indeed able to
Andes retain most sediments of future, 2012-like events, yet the model also suggests that the new channel would be
overflown at the same locations where avulsion occurred prior to their construction. Our findings also indicate
that people living between the upper part of the torrent and the Maucacalle stadium would not have enough
time to evacuate between the beginning and the arrival of the debris flow. We also show that at least 380 build-
ings could be affected by future events and despite the existing mitigation structures, thereby illustrating that the
measures will not provide the expected protection.
© 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Debris flows are processes typical of steep torrential catchments and
formed by a moving mass of loose mud, sand, soil, rock, water and veg-
etation (Jakob and Hungr, 2005; Borga et al., 2014). The occurrence of
debris flows depends on predisposing factors such as geology, soil
type, topography, land use and vegetation (Jakob and Hungr, 2005).
The main trigger is usually related with intense rainfall and its influence
on slope stability through (i) increased pore water pressure facilitating
the occurrence of landslides on hillslopes (Iverson, 2000; Borga et al.,
2014) and/or (ii) an increase in runoff which consequently erodes and
entrains hillslope and channel materials (Larsen et al., 2006). The
water and sediment transported during debris flows often exceed the
channel capacity and result in widespread sedimentation across fans
(de Haas et al., 2018), thereby affecting buildings, infrastructures and
people (Canelli et al., 2012). Their highly destructive character is aggra-
vated by the limited time available for warning which then also results
in difficulties in predicting their occurrence and evolution (Jakob and
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Clara.Rodriguez@unige.ch (C. Rodríguez-Morata).
Hungr, 2005). Thus, debris flows are considered one of the most hazard-
ous phenomena in global mountain areas (e.g., McConnell and Brock,
1904; Heim, 1932; Eisbacher and Clague, 1984; Schuster and
Highland, 2001). The design and implementation of mitigation mea-
sures is essential to reduce the impact of debris-flow activity and to pro-
tect inhabitants living downstream (Huebl and Fiebiger, 2005; Holub
and Fuchs, 2008). According to Huebl and Fiebiger (2005), two types
of mitigation measures can be distinguished: passive measures focused
on the prevention and exposure reduction (e.g., land-use management,
hazard delimitation, evacuation) and active measures focused on the re-
duction of hazard levels (e.g., structural measures, protection forests;
Moos et al., 2018).
The reliability of structural countermeasures requires a proper de-
sign based on detailed information about the event, runout paths and
deposition zones (Crosta et al., 2006). Besides, kinematic parameters
such as debris-flow velocity, peak discharge or hydrograph and volumes
are also essential to properly design structure-based mitigation (Crosta
et al., 2006). Obtaining this information is challenging because system-
atic data of specific events is frequently inexistent or very scarce in
mountain areas (Stoffel et al., 2010), such that triggers and subsequent
movement mechanisms of debris flows are not completely understood

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2019.06.012
0169-555X/© 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
128 C. Rodríguez-Morata et al. / Geomorphology 342 (2019) 127–139

Fig. 1. Detail of the mitigation structures built after the 2012 debris flow to reduce disaster risk during future events: a) Artificial channel constructed within the natural channel;
b) Sediment trap near the new channel.

Fig. 2. Schematic map of the Sahuanay creek with the areas covered by the 2012 debris-flow event. a) Detail of the source area. b) Deposits of the phase 1 event in the upper part of the
torrent. c), d) Mapped deposition of the phase 2 event. Orange dots represent trees damaged by the event which have served as reference points for the estimation of maximum flow
heights. Red crosses 1 and 2 in b) and d) are control points where deposition thickness was estimated from videos and pictures recorded during and after the event.
 C. Rodríguez-Morata et al. / Geomorphology 342 (2019) 127–139
Table 1
Minimum rainfall intensity for the likely occurrence of debris flows based on different in-
tensity-duration (ID) thresholds. D represents the duration of persisting rainfall (139 h)
prior to the event in 2012.
Author Equation Mean rainfall intensity
(mm/h) D
= 139 h
Caine (1980) I = 14.82 ∗ D−0.39 I = 2.16
Innes (1983) I = 4.93 ∗ D−0.50 I = 0.4
Crosta and Frattini I = 0.48 + 7.2 ∗ D−1 I = 0.53
(2001)
Guzzetti et al. (2008) I = 2.2 ∗ D−0.44 I = 0.25
Guzzetti et al. (2008) I = 0.48 ∗ D−0.11(D ≫ 48 I = 0.28
h)
(Crosta et al., 2006). Moreover, and even if several studies have demon-
strated that these measures significantly reduce vulnerability and the
subsequent risk level of exposed communities (Huebl and Fiebiger,
2005; Fuchs et al., 2007), reliability of these structures also depends
on their maintenance, repair and potential system failures (Mazzorana
et al., 2009; Ballesteros-Cánovas et al., 2016). Thus, the implementation
of structural measures cannot guarantee complete safety (Schmid,
2005), and a residual risk of damage to buildings and infrastructure as
well as harm to people remains (Fell, 1994; BMLFUW, 2006; Holub
and Huebl, 2008). This is relevant if one considers that the long-term
vulnerability might increase due to enhanced attraction of safer areas
for settlement and anthropogenic uses (Mileti and Myers, 1997).
Under these assumptions, the combination of forecasting and early
warning systems (EWS) can complement the efficiency of structural
measures and thereby improve protection (Alfieri et al., 2012). Yet,
the efficiency of these strategies is limited due to a relatively short
time period between cause and effect (Collier, 2007; Alfieri et al.,
2012) and because preparedness for such events is closely linked to
people's behavior, in particular with respect to evacuation (Fell and
Hartford, 1997).
The definition of evacuation routes can be considered as a
temporary passive measure (Holub and Huebl, 2008). Evacuation
in remote mountain areas threatened by debris flows is more
likely to be based on self-evacuation (by foot) than on cars due
to the probable damage to roads or even to the absence of the lat-
ter. Self-evacuation needs to be recognized by the local emer-
gency managers in the evacuation planning process, particularly
during the warning stage where the area to be evacuated as
Fig. 3. Detail of the situation downstream of the Maucacalle stadium. At this point the flow
was restricted to the channel except at some smaller bridges where overflow occurred.
The flow consisted mostly of fine material with individual centimetric rock fragments.
129
well as secure zones have to be communicated to the community
well before a disaster situation arises (AIDR, 2017). Efforts to in-
clude pedestrian evacuation in the emergency plan have included
GIS-based, least-cost-distance (LCD) models (Jones et al., 2014) as
this approach allows defining the most efficient evacuation routes
in a given area (Wood and Schmidtlein, 2012).
Based on the above, this paper seeks to document an extreme
debris-flow event that occurred in the south-central Peruvian
Andes (Abancay province) in early 2012. In addition, the paper
assesses the suitability of the countermeasures realized after the
event, and, in particular, to assess the resilience of local residents
to future debris flows in this catchment. In the aftermath of the
disaster, the Peruvian Geological Institute (INGEMMET), Regional
Government of Apurimac, Peruvian Civil Defence (INDECI) and
Peruvian Survey of Natural Protected Areas (SERNANP) performed
post-event surveys and susceptibility analyses in the affected
areas (Villacorta and Valderrama, 2012). In addition, a reinforced
channel and two sediment traps were constructed at the site to
control the flow of potential future debris-flow events (Fig. 1).
For the purpose of the study, we assessed the effectiveness of
the new mitigation structures by combining field work and nu-
merical modelling. In addition, and based on the outcome of the
debris-flow modelling, we employed a Statistic Least-Cost Dis-
tance (LCD) model with the aim to investigate the time it takes
residents in the most likely affected areas to reach safer areas
by foot. Results from this study may contribute to a better under-
standing of potential debris-flow risks existing in Abancay and to
reduce fatalities in the future.
2. Study site and local setting
The study site is located in the south-central Peruvian Andes
(Fig. 2), and it is characterized by steep slopes and NE-SW ori-
ented fault systems. This combination results in the fracturing of
massive limestones underlined by sandstones and shales
(Marocco, 1975; Carlotto et al., 2006). Quaternary deposits
(mostly colluvial and postglacial sediments) often cover bedrock
and testify the presence of different episodes of moraine deposi-
tion, as well as old debris-flow and landslide activity at the site
(Villacorta et al., 2017).
Slope angles in the Sahuanay creek range from 20 to 60° in its
upper, 17–20° in its middle and 5–10° in the lower parts, with el-
evations comprised between 3247 and 2300 m above sea level
(asl). The limestones in the study area show evidence of intense
karstification (Villacorta et al., 2016) with cracked karstic aqui-
fers, especially at the headwaters of the creek. As a result of the
underlying sandstones and impermeable shales, 60 groundwater
springs have been inventoried in the area (Villacorta et al., 2016).
The region is dominated by an oceanic climate – typical of the
tropical mountains of Peru – and defined as “subtropical highland
variety” (Cwb) according to the Köppen-Geiger classification (Peel
et al., 2007). Climate in the study area is characterized by a cold
and dry season lasting from May to September with some frosts
between June and September; and a mild and rainy season lasting
from October to April (SERNANP, 2016). Average annual precipi-
tation in Abancay is around 618 mm, the wettest months typically
are between December and March (Hostnig and Palomino, 1997).
3. Methodology
3.1. Hydroclimatic analysis
We compared the austral winter precipitation totals of December
2011 to March 2012 (DJFM) in Apurímac with other years since 1981
to put the rainfall magnitude triggering the debris flow into context.
Due to the lack of systematic rainfall records in the area, we used
130 C. Rodríguez-Morata et al. / Geomorphology 342 (2019) 127–139
Fig. 4. a) Rank percentile map for DJFM 2011–12 precipitation across Peru. b) Focus on the DJFM 2011–12 cumulated rainfall over the wider study region.
PISCO (Peruvian Interpolation data of SENAMHI's Climatological and
Hydrological Observations) from the Peruvian Service of Hydrometeo-
rology (SENAMHI; Aybar et al., 2017). This dataset covers the period
1981–2017 with a spatial resolution of 0.05° × 0.05° and is available at
daily resolution. Results are presented in a percentile map of total
precipitation.
We then selected rainfall data from the creek's nearest PISCO node
(141 13.575°S/72.875°W) so as to assess daily rainfall distributions for
10-, 5-, and 3-days cumulated rainfall trends during the austral winter
(DJFM) 2011–12. In addition, hourly rainfall data retrieved from the
MERRA-2 dataset (GMAO, 2015) served the exploration of rainfall con-
ditions prior to the occurrence of the debris flow. We also computed
global rainfall intensity–duration (ID) thresholds as defined by Caine
(1980), Innes (1983), Crosta and Frattini (2001), or Guzzetti et al.
(2008) for debris-flow initiation (Table 1).
3.2. Debris-flow simulation
3.2.1. Numerical model RAMMS
Numerical models help in the optimization of the design of planned
or existing mitigation structures (Rickenmann et al., 2006). RAMMS
(Rapid Mass Movements) is a dynamic numerical modelling software
package developed by the Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and
Landscape research (WSL; Christen et al., 2010; Bühler et al., 2011;
Fischer et al., 2012) and can be used to model different types of mass
movements (Quan-Luna, 2007; Allen et al., 2009; Kowalski, 2008
among others). The software predicts runout paths, velocities, flow
heights, and impact pressures. Furthermore, RAMMS includes entrain-
ment of material along the debris-flow path. RAMMS uses the
Voellmy-Salm fluid flow continuum model (Salm, 1993) based on the
Voellmy-fluid flow law (Voellmy, 1955). The model divides frictional
resistance into two parts: a dry-Coulomb type friction, proportional to
the normal stress at the flow bottom (coefficient μ) and a viscous resis-
tance turbulent friction depending on the square of the velocity (coeffi-
cient ξ). Further details about the RAMMS model and equations are
provided in Christen et al. (2010) and Hussin et al. (2012).
3.2.2. Simulation parameters
The debris-flow event in March 2012 was simulated using a digital
elevation model (DEM) obtained from the combination of a 4-m resolu-
tion DEM of the main channel and a 12-m resolution ALOS PALSAR DEM
for the adjacent fan (Dataset: © JAXA/METI ALOS PALSAR L1.0 2007,
accessed through ASF DAAC on 9 September 2018). The starting volume
 C. Rodríguez-Morata et al. / Geomorphology 342 (2019) 127–139 131

Fig. 5. a) Plot showing the 3-, 5-, and 10-days cumulated rainfall totals at the PISCO node closest to the study area (located at 13.575°S/72.875°W) for DJFM 2011–12. b) Daily and
cumulated rainfall during DJFM 2011–12.

of the debris flow was defined at ~55,000 m3 based on the extension of deposits of the first phase. This second, more fluid and faster flow re-
the landslide (~91,000 m2) and scar depth (~6 m). sulted in greater runout distances, reaching the city 2 km downstream
We also employed videos shot by Caritas Abancay and eyewitness of the first deposits (Fig. 2c, d) and depositing most of its material in
reports to infer the evolution of the water: sediment ratio over the the Maucacalle stadium (Fig. 2d). Downstream of the stadium, the
course of the debris-flow event. Analysis of this information allows dis- flow was mostly restricted to the channel, causing only some damage
tinction of two different phases of the debris flow. The first phase was to smaller bridges and houses in the urban area (Fig. 3).
initialized as a shallow landslide (Fig. 2a) and was instantly channelized In this paper, the Voellmy-Salm friction coefficients were calibrated
in the Sahuanay creek. This phase was characterized by a high concen- to capture the two phases of the debris-flow event. The friction param-
tration of solid material. This material was deposited at the fan apex, eters μ and ξ were defined with field observations of depositions (i.e.
1 km downstream of the head of the landslide scar (Fig. 2b). The second area and maximum heights observed in each phase). Model calibration
phase consisted of subsequent underground water surges starting from was based on the ratio (AR) between the mapped and the modeled de-
the landslide failure area. These surges generated intense runoff, positional area as well as the volume ratio (VR) between the modeled
transporting fine material from the source area, channel, banks and volume falling into the mapped area and the total modeled volume.
Model selection was based on the highest AR and VR ratios, meaning
that most of the simulated depositional area/volume matches with ob-
Table 2 servations. Additionally, information on flow paths (Deubelbeiss and
Results of the back-analysis of friction parameters using depositional area (AR) and vol-
Graf, 2013), scar height on trees damaged during phase 1 (Stoffel,
ume ratios (VR) between reality (field observations) and model output for phase 1. We
choose the simulation S3 (highlighted in bold) to reconstruct the phase 1 debris flow as 2010; Ballesteros-Cánovas et al., 2011) and high water marks on con-
its presents the highest VR value (0.526). structions (Benito and Thorndycraft, 2004) was used as control points
to qualitatively validate model calibration.
Simulation AR (Mapped VR (Modeled volume in the Max. height
ID area/Modeled mapped area/Total of
For simulations of debris flows with RAMMS, the coefficient ξ may
area) modeled modeled be varied from 100 to 400 (m/s2), and μ from 0.1 up to 0.3. To match ob-
volume) deposit (m) servations, the best results are obtained with μ = 0.2 and ξ = 200 for
S3 0.484 0.526 2.66 the first phase; and μ = 0.1 and ξ = 400 for the second phase. These pa-
S9 0.639 0.474 14 rameters were then used for the simulation of similar, future debris
S8 0.591 0.459 13.31 flows but including the mitigation measures and houses built after the
S4 0.401 0.449 2.28
2012 event.
S17 0.412 0.444 2.84
S1 0.425 0.444 2
S21 0.375 0.440 2.59 3.3. Analysis of potential evacuation routes during comparable future
S5 0.831 0.423 4.64 events
S16 0.379 0.385 2.87
S14 0.298 0.384 3.25
S6 0.630 0.371 12.59
The analysis of potential evacuation routes was realized with the as-
S13 0.259 0.355 3.81 sumption that an event similar to the one in 2012 will occur in the fu-
S20 0.432 0.354 19.31 ture. We considered the two phases described in the previous section
S7 0.492 0.340 22.61 and included the mitigation structures. To perform the evacuation anal-
S18 0.991 0.320 7.4
ysis, we employed the Statistic Least-Cost Distance (LCD) model of the
S15 0.236 0.298 2.59
S10 0.308 0.272 1.62 ArcGIS Pedestrian evacuation tool developed by Jones et al. (2014).
S2 0.215 0.249 3.67 LCD models are based on an anisotropic (i.e., directionally dependent)
S19 0.697 0.248 12.18 path-distance modelling incorporating travel directionality, travel
S11 0.256 0.234 1.45 speed assumptions, and cost surfaces that reflect variations in slope
S12 0.207 0.012 5.4
and land cover (Wood and Schmidtlein, 2012, 2013). The model
132 C. Rodríguez-Morata et al. / Geomorphology 342 (2019) 127–139

Fig. 6. Results of the simulated deposits for the two phases of the March 2012 debris flow: a) Deposits of phase 1, b) phase 2 and at c) Maucacalle stadium where most sediments
transported during phase 2 where deposited.

estimates evacuation potential based on elevation, direction of move-
ment, land cover, and travel speed, and creates a map showing travel
times to safety across a hazard zone (Jones et al., 2014). The model pro-
vides a general view of the evacuation landscape at different pedestrian
travel speeds.
The LCD needs runs on a DEM to include altitudinal information. To
this end, we used the 4-m DEM described above and resampled it at
12 m to cover the full study area. Land cover is needed to estimate ge-
neric travel speed across different surfaces. In this case, land-cover
data have been generated using visual identification defining three
types of terrain: (i) developed terrain in urban areas with paved roads
and streets, (ii) heavy brush terrain with dense forests and shrubs
areas, and (iii) light brush representing crop areas. Velocity of people
has been fixed at 1.1 km/h (i.e., slow walking) which is valid for
 C. Rodríguez-Morata et al. / Geomorphology 342 (2019) 127–139 133

Table 3 criteria. In this paper, we consider safe those places that are: (i) well
Results of the back-analysis of friction parameters using depositional area (AR) and vol- communicated, (ii) preferably public buildings that can accommodate
ume ratios (VR) between reality (field observations) and model output for phase 2.
Highlighted in bold is the simulationes selected in order to reconstruct the phase 2 debris
many people (i.e., schools, stadiums) and (iii) if they are located far
flow. enough of likely affected areas. With all this information, the software
can be run with the following input data: DEM, a least cost-inverse ras-
Simulation AR (Mapped VR (Modeled volume in the Max. height
ter, safe zones and a determination of travel distance from every cell in
ID area/Modeled mapped area/Total of
area) modeled modeled the study area to the nearest safe zone, creating a path-distance surface.
volume) deposit (m) Then the target path-distance raster is multiplied by a travel speed to
S5 0.244 0.298 6.28 create an evacuation-time map with travel times (in minutes) to safety.
S6 0.244 0.298 6.28 In addition, by combining outputs of the RAMMS and LCD models,
S7 0.242 0.292 5.55 we created a warning time map indicating the time needed to arrive
S3 0.202 0.247 2.9 to safe zones before the hazardous process will have reached the point
S1 0.167 0.225 2.04
S10 0.150 0.210 17
of departure. To this end, 53 time steps were extracted from the maxi-
S9 0.143 0.204 15.92 mum height output file of RAMMS to estimate arrival times of the
S4 0.154 0.189 1.78 flow at different points in the city and to obtain a hazard arrival-time
S2 0.160 0.184 2.18 map. Finally, we subtracted evacuation-time map outputs from the haz-
S8 0.099 0.110 11.36
ard arrival map to obtain time differences between both maps and to
derive a warning time map.

mixed groups formed by any gender, age or disabilities (Wood and
Schmidtlein, 2012).
Next, hazard-safe zones were designed to provide escape directions
to the model. Hazard zone has been delimited by using RAMMS' maxi-
mum height output including mitigation structures. With highly confi-
dent hazard maps, one can consider safe zones those that are out of
the area affected by the hazard. However, since we assume uncer-
tainties in our model and because past evidence about larger debris
flows exist in the area; we preferred to select safe zones with additional
4. Results
4.1. Hydroclimatic triggers
Total DJFM precipitation in the austral winter 2011–12 was the
highest recorded in the north of the Apurimac region and in Abancay
since the start of measurements in 1981 (i.e., 100th percentile, pink
color in Fig. 4a) with cumulated rainfall reaching 819 mm between De-
cember 2011 and March 2012 (Fig. 4b).

Fig. 7. a) Aerial picture of the Maucacalle stadium the day of the event. b) Detail of depositions in the stadium. Note that the football goal, with regulatory measures (2.44 × 7.32 m) is
almost completely covered by sediments. Deposition heights increase toward the right corner of the stadium, where control point 2 is located with a depositional depths of ~3 m.

Fig. 8. a) Modeled deposits in the upper part of the Sahuanay creek. Average height of modeled deposits is ~0.2 m. b) Detail of super-elevated deposits near SERNANP's visitor center of the
“Ampay Sanctuary”.
134 C. Rodríguez-Morata et al. / Geomorphology 342 (2019) 127–139

Table 4 of the Voellmy equation. Results of the calibration based on AR and VR

Simulated maximum flow heights of the phase 1 debris flow and scar heights in damaged values are displayed in Tables 2 (phase 1) and 3 (phase 2).
trees. Note that scar height was measured two years after the event. By this time parts of
the original deposit were removed such that scar height has been measured from the pres-
To reconstruct the phase 1 debris flow, we selected simulation (S3)
ent-day surface. The estimated maximum heights thus represent the sum of simulated de- as it presents the highest VR value (0.526) and a ratio of area coinci-
posits and scar heights measured on current topography. Values do not therefore give real dence (AR) of 0.484 (Table 2). In this simulation, the maximum height
values but represent approximations. of the deposit (2.66 m) is consistent with observations in the videos re-
ID 1 ID 3 ID 5 ID 6 ID 7 ID 8 corded during the event at control point 1 (Fig. 6a). For phase 2, the se-
lected simulation (S3) presents only the fourth best VR value (0.247,
Simulated max. heights in phase 1 (in m) 0.84 2.83 2.59 2.41 2.29 2.14
Scar heights (m) 1.8 1.8 0.7 1.8 1.1 1.8 Table 3). This decision was motivated by the fact that simulations with
Deposition phase 1 (m) 0.73 1.15 1.5 1.82 1.92 1.89 better VR values yielded unrealistic maximum heights at control point
Estimated max. height (m) 2.53 2.95 1.85 3.62 3.02 3.69 2 (S5: 6.28 m, S6: 6.28 m, and S7: 5.55 m, Table 3). In fact, maximum
Estimated max – simulated max. heights 1.69 0.12 −0.74 1.21 0.73 1.55 heights observed at Maucacalle stadium were approximatively 3 m
(m)
(see Fig. 7). Flow paths (Fig. 6), locations of the three main depositional
zones identified in the field (Fig. 6a, b, c) as well as the areas affected
Rainfall show a gradual increase in daily precipitation totals from with super elevated deposits in bends (Fig. 8) are well reproduced by
December 2011 and up to February 2012 (Fig. 5b). Between December the selected simulations, even if one considers larger simulated
2011 and January 2012, total cumulated rainfall represents 26% of the deposits.
total (214 mm). A substantial increase of precipitation is recorded in Simulated maximum flow heights during phase 1 ranged from 0.84
February 2012 when daily precipitation was normally above average to 2.83 m (Table 4), while differences between these values and the
(6.7 mm/day). Values exceeding those recorded in December and Janu- maximum heights as derived from damage in trees ranged from 0.12
ary persisted during March 2012. Total rainfall recorded between Febru- to 1.69 m (Table 4). Tree ID.3 (Fig. 9) thereby represents the control
ary and March accounts for 74% of the total rainfall for the period point with the best match between simulations and estimations with
(605 mm). a difference of 12 cm.
Precipitation records show that rainfall affected the study area al- At the same time, however, we realize that the simulation does not
most continuously between January 27 and the occurrence of the debris yield satisfactory results downstream of the Maucacalle stadium with
flow on March 18, 2012. Even if the highest 10-day precipitation of the a poor fit with field observations as well as excessive spread and depo-
austral summer (DJFM) 2011–12 was recorded on February 20, 2012 sition of the water flow. We interpret this as being the result of the DEM
with 198.64 mm (Fig. 5a), values remained high thereafter and above and its poorer resolution in the city, and irregularities related to build-
the average 10-day value (69.7 mm) until the day of the event when ings and bridges introducing noise into the model. In terms of the calcu-
they dropped to 59.8 mm. The day of the event, however, the 3-day lated volume involved in the debris flows, model output (118,046 m3) is
and 5-day sums were slightly above the average of the period with very close to the 120,000 m3 estimated in the field during post-event
25 mm and 37 mm, respectively). The cumulative rainfall plot, shown surveys.
in Fig. 5b, depicts a substantial increase in rainfall between March 5 to
17 with a cumulated rainfall of 129.4 mm. Regarding the duration 4.3. Debris-flow simulations and risk reduction effectiveness
(D) of persisting rainfall (139 h) prior to the event and the total rainfall
accumulated in this period (77.86 mm), it has been derived an average Fig. 10 shows the differences between the simulations of the 2012
rainfall intensity (I) of 0.56 mm/h. event with and without consideration of the mitigation structures
built after the event. Fig. 10b1,2 shows that a large proportion of the ma-
4.2. Model performance terial transported by a debris flow similar to the one in 2012 would ef-
fectively be retained by the first sediment trap. According to model
For both debris-flow phases, the RAMMS model was run using a results, around 15,790 m3 would be confined in this new structure
trial-and-error procedure aimed at optimizing the friction parameters with a maximum deposition thickness of 10.3 m (Fig. 10b1). On the

Fig. 9. Plot showing the location of trees damaged by the debris-flow of phase 1. Scar heights were used to validate simulation results.
 C. Rodríguez-Morata et al. / Geomorphology 342 (2019) 127–139 135

Fig. 10. Difference in simulated deposition (a, b, c) and maximum heights (d, e, f) using the situation in March 2012 (pre) and after (post) the inclusion of the defence and trapping
structures realized at the study site. The zooms are on (1) the sediment traps in the upper part of the affected area and (2) the Maucacalle stadium.

other hand, the second trap retains 2335 m3 of sediment according to
the model output. At the same time, however, the reinforced channel
will not likely be able to retain all the flow and would thus overflow
its walls (Fig. 10b, c). Deposition related to this overflow is observed
in the same areas that have been affected in 2012, yet with a much
smaller volume and more limited spatial extent of deposits. According
to the model, the Maucacalle stadium would again be affected by a fu-
ture event (Fig. 10b2), even if maximum deposition heights (Fig. 10d,
e, f) would be smaller than in 2012. Downstream of the stadium, the
simulated flow spreads over a big section of the city, even if the total
area would be smaller in extent, to reach the lower parts of Abancay
(Fig. 10b, c, e, f).
4.4. Evacuation routes analysis
The outputs of the pedestrian evacuation model are represented in
Fig. 11, with the hazard arrival-time map being illustrated in Fig. 11b.
We see that arrival times range from 0 (blueish colors) in the upper
parts of the torrent to 48 min in the lower part of Abancay (reddish
colors). Fig. 11c represents the evacuation-time map where the times
136 C. Rodríguez-Morata et al. / Geomorphology 342 (2019) 127–139

Fig. 11. Outputs of the LCD model. a) Inputs needed to run the model in the form of obstacles and land use units. b) Arrival time of a debris flow at each point within Abancay affected by an
event. Time is in minutes and denotes the time a debris flow needs to reach a specific point. c) Map of the time needed for persons at any given location to reach safe areas. The calculation
of evacuation times takes account of the obstacles (i.e., channel, deposits from phase 1, rivers and buildings) and the type of terrain (i.e. developed, heavy brush and light brush) shown in
a) and an average travel speed of 1.1 m s−1. d) Synthesis of the hazard arrival time and evacuation time, indicating the time that people have to evacuate any given location after the actual
triggering of a debris flow. Negative values (from white to violet) indicate zones from which time is insufficient to evacuate people before a future debris flow arrival.

for residents to reach safe zones range from 0 to 268 min which means
that the maximum time needed to reach safety is for persons staying in
the upper sector to the right of the channel. Fig. 11d shows the warning-
time map: negative values (from white to purple) indicate those areas
in which people would not be in a position to evacuate the location in
time. This means that people between the upper part of the torrent
and the Maucacalle stadium should be evacuated prior to the start of
an actual debris flow. In the other zones, people will have between 1
and 43 min to evacuate the site after the actual triggering of an event.
Fig. 12 presents the negative impacts of future debris flows in terms
of constructions affected during each debris-flow phase. A first surge
(phase 1 in March 2012) would affect 28 buildings (Fig. 12a) and any
people staying in these would not have time to evacuate (Fig. 12b). In
phase 2, 352 buildings would be affected, of which 288 are located in
areas from which people would have time to reach a safe zone once
that a future debris flow has started. Still, people staying in the remain-
ing 64 buildings would not have time to evacuate in time once that the
debris flow has started.
5. Discussion and conclusions
In this paper, we document the occurrence of a debris flow in the
province of Abancay, in the south-central Peruvian Andes, and the con-
sequences in the Tamburco district. We also investigate the effective-
ness of the mitigation measures realized after the event and look into
possible management options in case of future disasters by addressing
evacuation times.
The debris flow of March 18, 2012 was released after an exception-
ally long period of continuous rainfall, and not by an exceptionally in-
tense, yet short-lived rainfall event. Heavy rainfalls affected the area
repeatedly since February 2012 and culminated on March 5, 13 days be-
fore the debris-flow event. Rainfall was again more intense immediately
prior to the triggering, with excessive 3- and 5-day antecedent rainfall
totals. We argue that the combination of massive rainfalls in February
and early March 2012, together with the above-average precipitation
episode just before the occurrence of the debris-flow, saturated the ter-
rain and likely triggered the severe debris flow in 2012. This conclusion
is supported by the geological context of the source area of the landslide
leading to the debris flows (Chuyllurpata hill), consisting of highly frac-
tured limestones with a cracked-karstic aquifer. In fact, in the release
zone of the 2012 debris flow, Villacorta et al. (2016) identified a very
low resistivity anomaly, at 55 m depth, with values smaller than 200
Ω. This anomaly has been interpreted as groundwater infiltrated in frac-
tured rocks of low material resistance. This is in line with previous work
where the occurrence of mass movements has been related to the satu-
ration of the unconsolidated, fractured material by prolonged rainfall, a
rise in pore water pressure, and the initiation of a shallow landslide
which subsequently develops into a debris flows (Cojean, 1994; Chen
et al., 2006). Comparison of the mean rainfall intensity observed during
the rainfall episode preceding the Abancay disaster with Intensity-
Density (ID) thresholds determined by Guzzetti et al. (2008) also indi-
cates that both the single global threshold and the threshold for long du-
ration of rainfall events were exceeded in the present case. Although
values are derived from a single event in case, it implies a minimum
 C. Rodríguez-Morata et al. / Geomorphology 342 (2019) 127–139
Fig. 12. Illustration of the areas and buildings affected by (a) the first debris flow (phase 1) where an evacuation is no longer possible once that the event has been triggered. (b) Illustration
of areas from which people can be evacuated (brown) even if an event should start unexpectedly and with no early warning in the future.
rainfall amount and intensity above which the debris flow may occur in
the study area.
The extraordinary wet rainfall season recorded during the austral
summer 2011–12 was coincident with a moderate La Niña phase
(based on the Multivariate ENSO Index, Wolter and Timlin, 2011). La
Niña phases have been linked in the past to above-average precipitation
in the south-central Peruvian Andes where Abancay is located (Lavado-
Casimiro and Espinoza, 2014; Rodríguez-Morata et al., 2018b). During
moderate La Niña austral summers, precipitation totals regularly show
an increase in sums of 50–150 mm (e.g., Cuzco station).
Local and governmental institutions have been directly involved in
the evaluation, planning and prevention of this and similar disasters in
the province since the 1990s (Dávila and Zavala, 1997; INGEMMET,
2002, 2003; Madueño, 2011; Villacorta et al., 2012). Nonetheless, the
debris flow of March 2012 and its consequences pointed to some defi-
ciencies regarding disaster preparedness in Abancay. After the 2012 de-
bris flows, immense efforts were undertaken by both local and national
institutions in terms of disaster risk management (DRM) in Abancay
(CENEPRED, 2018). One of the first DRM measures realized at the site
was the construction of mitigation structures along the creek, but
their reliability has not yet been tested by any debris flow. At the
same time, the fan area affected by the phase 1 flow in 2012 is now
quite heavily populated, presumably as a result of a generalized feeling
of safety and belief in the mitigation structures. This paper therefore an-
alyzed the possible effects of a new debris flow and its effects on ex-
posed people. To this end, we identified areas that might be inundated
by future debris flows so as to quantify debris-flow hazard and to
allow for adequate land use planning. Even if numerical models imply
a certain level of simplification and some level of uncertainty (Chae
et al., 2017), they are also recognized to provide valuable insights into
potential impacts of future events and to help the optimization of the
137
design of planned or existing mitigation structures (Rickenmann et al.,
2006). Simulation results indicate that the sediment traps will retain a
substantial proportion of materials of future debris flows. At the same
time, however, model results also suggest that the structures will be
overflown by future events similar to the one in 2012, thus indicating
that the retention infrastructure and channel geometry could be further
optimized. In this study, we assume a 2012-like event to occur in the fu-
ture, and thereby knowingly ignore that the recent debris flow was in
fact only a reactivation of a much bigger event in 1951, which caused
the collapse of 10 houses and killed 11 persons (Amézquita et al.,
1988). Results presented here are therefore referring to a large, yet
not very rare event, and do not therefore present the worst-case sce-
nario at the study site. But even in this case, outputs from the combina-
tion of both the RAMMS and LCD-Pedestrian Evacuation Model indicate
that people living in the upper part of the torrent have little room for
evacuation, so risk-reduction measures in this highly vulnerable com-
munity should focus on the monitoring of debris-flow phenomena
and the setup of early warning systems.
Based on the above analysis, we conclude that the debris flow of
March 2012 is an illustrative example of the hydrogeomorphic impacts
that La Niña events can have in the south-central Peruvian Andes. This
suggests that, in general, DRM strategies in Peru should be active at all
times and irrespective of the phase of the El Niño Southern Oscillation
(ENSO). Expanding the focus from El Niño to the full range of variability
of South American modes of natural climate variability will help to man-
age disasters more sustainably and more effectively (Rodríguez-Morata
et al., 2018a, 2018b). On the other hand, and while acknowledging the
huge efforts of all institutions working on DRM strategies in the wider
study region, it is felt that some room for improvement persists so as
to better cope with potential future debris flows similar to or even big-
ger than the one in March 2012. We consider that the outputs of the
138 C. Rodríguez-Morata et al. / Geomorphology 342 (2019) 127–139
models used in this study can provide valuable information on vulnera-
bility to local residents living along the Sahuanay creek as well as to civil
protection agencies. The synergy between both approaches used in this
study has demonstrated to provide a place-based context of evacuation
potential and can therefore help individuals at risk and emergency man-
agers to initiate risk reduction and preparedness discussions within
communities.
Acknowledgements
We thank the Peruvian National Service of Protected Areas
(SERNANP), and especially the director of the Ampay National Sanctu-
ary, Amilcar Osorio and the biologist Jaime Valenzuela Trujillo for their
help during the field work. We also acknowledge the logistic assistance
provided by Ljubika Indira Ruiz and her team belonging to the Peruvian
Institute of Civil Defence (INDECI), as well as the important support of
the Peruvian Geological Institute (INGEMMET).
References
AIDR, 2017. Australian Disaster Resilience Handbook 4 Evacuation Planning. Australian
Institute for Disaster Resilience, Melbourne.
Alfieri, L., Salamon, P., Pappenberger, F., Wetterhall, F., Thielen, J., 2012. Operational early
warning systems for water-related hazards in Europe. Environ. Sci. Pol. 21, 35–49.
Allen, S.K., Schneider, D., Owens, I.F., 2009. First approaches towards modelling glacial
hazards in the Mount Cook region of New Zealand's Southern Alps. Nat. Hazards
Earth Syst. Sci. 9, 481–499. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-9-481-2009.
Amézquita, A., Gutiérrez, S., Concha, M., 1988. El Imponente Nevado Ampay y la Expuesta
Ciudad de Abancay. Informe técnico inédito. Corporación de Desarrollo de Apurímac.
Abancay (9 pp.).
Aybar, C., Lavado-Casimiro, W., Huerta, A., Fernández, C., Vega, F., Sabino, E., Felipe-
Obando, O., 2017. Uso del Producto Grillado “PISCO” de precipitación en Estudios,
Investigaciones y Sistemas Operacionales de Monitoreo y Pronóstico
Hidrometeorológico. Nota Técnica 001 SENAMHI-DHI-2017, Lima.
Ballesteros-Cánovas, J.A., Eguíbar, M., Bodoque, J.M., Díez-Herrero, A., Stoffel, M.,
Gutiérrez-Pérez, I., 2011. Estimating flash flood discharge in an ungauged mountain
catchment with 2D hydraulic models and dendrogeomorphic paleostage indicators.
Hydrol. Process. 25 (6), 970–979.
Ballesteros-Cánovas, J.A., Stoffel, M., Corona, C., Schraml, K., Gobiet, A., Tani, S., Sinabell, F.,
Fuchs, S., Kaitna, R., 2016. Debris-flow risk analysis in a managed torrent based on a
stochastic life-cycle performance. Sci. Total Environ. 557, 142–153.
Benito, G., Thorndycraft, V.R., 2004. Systematic, palaeoflood and historical data for the im-
provement of flood risk estimation, methodological guidelines. CSIC, Madrid.
BMLFUW, 2006. Flood protection in Austria, Bundesministerium für Land- und
Forstwirtschaft. Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft, Wien.
Borga, M., Stoffel, M., Marchi, L., Marra, F., Jakob, M., 2014. Hydrogeomorphic response to
extreme rainfall in headwater systems: flash floods and debris flows. J. Hydrol. 518
(PB), 194–205.
Bühler, Y., Christen, M., Kowalski, J., Bartelt, P., 2011. Sensitivity of snow avalanche simu-
lations to digital elevation model quality and resolution. Ann. Glaciol. 52, 72–80.
Caine, N., 1980. The rainfall intensity—duration control of shallow landslides and debris
flows. Geogr. Ann. A. 62 (1–2), 23–27.
Canelli, L., Ferrero, A.M., Migliazza, M., Segalini, A., 2012. Debris flow risk mitigation by the
means of rigid and flexible barriers – experimental tests and impact analysis. Nat.
Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 12, 1693–1699.
Carlotto, V., Tintaya, D., Cárdenas, J., Carlier, G., Rodríguez, R., 2006. Fallas transformantes
permo-triásicas: la falla Patacancha-Tamburco (Sur del Perú). Resúmenes 13o.
Congreso Peruano de Geología.
CENEPRED, 2018. Plan de prevención y reducción del riesgo de desastres de la provincial
de Abancay. Gobierno Regional de Apurímac, Apurímac.
Chae, B.-G., Park, H.J., Catani, F., Simoni, A., Berti, M., 2017. Landslide prediction, monitor-
ing and early warning: a concise review of state-of-the-art. Geosci. J. 21 (6),
1033–1070. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12303-017-0034-4.
Chen, H., Dadson, S., Chi, Y.G., 2006. Recent rainfall-induced landslides and debris flow in
northern Taiwan. Geomorphology. 77, 112–125.
Christen, M., Kowalski, J., Bartelt, P., 2010. RAMMS: Numerical simulation of dense snow
avalanches in three-dimensional terrain. Cold Reg. Sci. Technol. 63, 1–14.
Cojean, R., 1994. Role of groundwater as a triggering factor for landslides and debris flow.
Proc. Int. Workshop on Flood and Inondations Related to Large Earth Movements.
A13, pp. 1–19 (Trento, Italy).
Collier, C.G., 2007. Flash flood forecasting: what are the limits of predictability? Q. J. Roy.
Meteor. Soc. 133 (622), 3–23.
Crosta, G.B., Frattini, P., 2001. Rainfall thresholds for triggering soil slips and debris
flow. In: Mugnai, A., Guzzetti, F., Roth, G. (Eds.), Mediterranean Storms. Proceed-
ings of the 2nd EGS Plinius Conference on Mediterranean Storms, Siena,
pp. 463–487.
Crosta, G.B., Chen, H., Frattini, P., 2006. Forecasting hazard scenarios and implications for
the evaluation of countermeasure efficiency for large debris avalanches. Eng. Geol. 83,
236–253.
Dávila, S., Zavala, B., 1997. Inspección de riesgo geológico en el área de Ccocha y
Pumaranra (Distrito de Tamburco, provincia de Abancay y departamento de
Apurímac). Informe técnico INGEMMET. Dirección de Geotecnia. 24 p. 1 mapa,
Lima.
Deubelbeiss, Y., Graf, C., 2013. Two Different Starting Conditions in Numerical Debris-flow
Models – Case Study at Dorfbach, Randa (Valais, Switzerland) (Jahrestagung der
Schweizerischen Geomorphologischen Gesellschaft).
Eisbacher, G.H., Clague, J.J., 1984. Destructive mass movements in high mountains: hazard
and management. Geol. Surv. Can. Paper 84-16, 230.
Fell, R., 1994. Landslide risk assessment and acceptable risk. Can. Geotech. J. 31, 261–272.
Fell, R., Hartford, D., 1997. Landslide risk management. In: Cruden, D., Fell, R. (Eds.), Land-
slide Risk Assessment, pp. 51–109 Rotterdam.
Fischer, J.T., Kowalski, J., Pudasaini, S.P., 2012. Topographic curvature effects in applied av-
alanche modeling. Cold Reg. Sci. Technol. 74–75, 21–30.
Fuchs, S., Heiss, K., Huebl, J., 2007. Towards an empirical vulnerability function for use in
debris flow risk assessment. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 7, 495–506.
Global Modeling and Assimilation Office (GMAO), 2015. MERRA-2 tavg1_2d_flx_Nx: 2d,
1-hourly, Time-averaged, Single-level, Assimilation, Surface Flux Diagnostics
V5.12.4. Goddard Earth Sciences Data and Information Services Center (GES DISC),
Greenbelt, MD, USA https://doi.org/10.5067/7MCPBJ41Y0K6 Accessed: 7/9/2018.
https://disc.gsfc.nasa.gov/datasets/M2T1NXFLX_5.12.4/summary.
Guzzetti, F., Peruccacci, S., Rossi, M., Stark, C.P., 2008. The rainfall intensity–duration con-
trol of shallow landslides and debris flows: an update. Landslides 5 (1), 3–17. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10346-007-0112-1.
de Haas, T., Densmore, A., Stoffel, M., Suwa, H., Imaizumi, F., Ballesteros-Canovas, J.A.,
Wasklewicz, T., 2018. Avulsions and the spatio-temporal evolution of debris-flow
fans. Earth Sci. Rev. 177, 53–75.
Heim, A., 1932. Bergsturz und Menschenleben. Beiblatt zur Vierteljahrschrift der
Naturforschenden Gesellschaft (Zürich 77).
Holub, M., Fuchs, S., 2008. Benefits of local structural protection to mitigate torrent-
related hazards. WIT Transactions on Information and Communication Technologies
39, 401–411.
Holub, M., Huebl, J., 2008. Local protection against mountain hazards? State of the art and
future needs. Nat. Hazard Earth Syst. Sci. 8 (1), 81–99.
Hostnig, R., Palomino, C., 1997. El Santuario Nacional Ampay: Refugio de la Intimpa en
Apurímac (Perú. 153 pp.).
Huebl, J., Fiebiger, G., 2005. Debris flow mitigation measures. In: Jakob, M., Hungr, O.
(Eds.), Debris Flow Hazard and Related Phenomena. Springer, Heidelberg,
pp. 445–485.
Hussin, H.Y., Quan-Luna, B., van Westen, C.J., Christen, M., Malet, J.P., van Asch, W.J., 2012.
Parameterization of a numerical 2-D debris flow model with entrainment: a case
study of the Faucon catchment, Southern French Alps. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci.
12, 3075–3090.
Innes, J.L., 1983. Debris flows. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 7, 469–501.
Instituto Geológico Minero y Metalúrgico (INGEMMET), 2002. Estudio de Riesgos
Geológicos del Perú Franja N° 2. INGEMMET, Serie C: Geología e Ingeniería Geológica,
Boletín N° 27, Dirección de Geología Ambiental, 368 p., 20 figs., 145 fotos., 27 mapas,
Lima.
Instituto Geológico Minero y Metalúrgico (INGEMMET), 2003. Estudio de Riesgos
Geológicos del Perú Franja N°3, INGEMMET, Serie C: Geología e Ingeniería Geológica,
Boletín N° 28, Dirección de Geología Ambiental, 373 p., 21 figs., 159 fotos., 17 mapas,
Lima.
Iverson, R.M., 2000. Landslide triggering by rain infiltration. Water Resour. Res. 36,
1897–1910.
Jakob, M., Hungr, O., 2005. Debris Flow Hazard and Related Phenomena. Springer, Berlin.
Jones, J.M., Ng, P., Wood, N.J., 2014. The Pedestrian Evacuation Analyst: geographic infor-
mation systems software for modeling hazard evacuation potential. Section C: Geo-
graphic Information Systems Tools and Applications. USGS, Reston.
Kowalski, J., 2008. Two-phase Modeling of Debris Flows. Ph.D. thesis. Eidgenössische
Technische Hochschule (ETH), Zurich, Switzerland (135 pp.).
Larsen, I.J., Pederson, J.L., Schmidt, J.C., 2006. Geologic versus wildfire controls on hillslope
and debris flow initiation in the Green River canyons of Dinosaur National Monu-
ment. Geomorphology. 81, 114–127.
Lavado-Casimiro, W., Espinoza, J., 2014. Impactos de El Niño y La Niña en las lluvias del
Perú (1965–2007). Revista Brasileira de Meteorología. 29, 171–182.
Madueño, M., 2011. Inspección de la Seguridad Física del sector Ampay. Informe técnico,
Subgerencia de Defensa Civil Apurímac. 16 p. Inédito.
Marocco, R., 1975. Geología de los cuadrángulos de Andahuaylas, Abancay y Cotabambas.
Boletin No. 27. Instituto de Geología y Minería, Ministerio de Energía y Minas,
República del Perú.
Mazzorana, B., Huebl, J., Fuchs, S., 2009. Improving risk assessment by defining consistent
and reliable system scenarios. Nat. Hazard Earth Syst. Sci. 9 (1), 145–159.
McConnell, R.G., Brock, R.W., 1904. Report on the great landslide at Frank, Alberta,
Canada. Canadian Department of Interior, Annual Report, pp. 1902–1903
(Part 8).
Mileti, D., Myers, M.F., 1997. A bolder course for disaster reduction: imagining a sustain-
able future. Revista Geofisica. 47, 41–58.
Moos, C., Bebi, P., Schwarz, M., Stoffel, M., Sudmeier, K., Dorren, L., 2018. Ecosystem-based
disaster risk reduction in mountains. Earth Sci. Rev. 177, 497–513.
Peel, M.C., Finlayson, B.L., McMahon, T.A., 2007. Updated world map of the Köppen-Geiger
climate classification. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sc. 11, 1633–1644.
Quan-Luna, B., 2007. Assessment and Modelling of Two Lahars Caused by “Hurricane
Stan” at Atitlan, Guatemala. October 2005, MS.c. thesis. University of Oslo, Oslo,
Norway.
Rickenmann, D., Laigle, D., McArdell, B.W., Huebl, J., 2006. Comparison of 2D debris-flow
simulation models with field events. Comput. Geosci. 10 (2), 241–264.
 C. Rodríguez-Morata et al. / Geomorphology 342 (2019) 127–139
Rodríguez-Morata, C., Diaz, H.F., Ballesteros-Cánovas, J.A., Rohrer, M., Stoffel, M., 2018a.
The anomalous 2017 coastal El Niño event in Peru. Clim. Dynam. 52 (9–10),
5605–5622.
Rodríguez-Morata, C., Ballesteros-Cánovas, J.A., Rohrer, M., Espinoza, J.C., Beniston, M.,
Stoffel, M., 2018b. Linking atmospheric patterns with hydro-geomorphic disasters
in Peru. Int. J. Climatol. 38 (8), 3388–3404.
Salm, B., 1993. Flow, flow transition and runout distances of flowing avalanches.
Ann. Glaciol. 18, 221–226.
Schmid, F., 2005. Gefahrenzonenplan–Fluch oder Segen? Wildbach- und Lawinenverbau.
152 pp. 93–104.
Schuster, R.L., Highland, M.L., 2001. Socieconomic and environmental impacts of
landslides in the Western Hemisphere. Open File Report 01-0276. USGS.
SERNANP Ampay, 2016. DIAGNÓSTIGO-Plan Maestro del Santuario Nacional de Ampay
2015–2019 (Lima, Perú).
Stoffel, M., 2010. Magnitude–frequency relationships of debris-flows—a case study
based on field surveys and tree-ring records. Geomorphology. 116, 67–76.
Stoffel, M., Bollschweiler, M., Butler, D.R., Luckman, B.H., 2010. Tree Rings and Nat-
ural Hazards: A State-of-the-art. Springer, Heidelberg, Berlin, New York.
Villacorta, S., Valderrama, P., 2012. Informe Técnico N° A6595: Evaluación del Flujo de
Detritos de Tamburco, Provincia de Abancay, Región Apurímac. INGEMMET, Lima,
Peru.
139
Villacorta, S., Valderrama, P., Roa, R., 2012. Primer reporte de Zonas críticas de la región
Apurímac. Informe técnico DGAR-INGEMMET. http://repositorio.ingemmet.gob.pe/
handle/ingemmet/1566.
Villacorta, S.P., Rodríguez-Morata, C., Peña, F., Jaimes, F., Luza, C., 2016. Geodynamic
characterization and dendrochronology as a basis for the evaluation of geohy-
drologic processes in the Mariño river basin, Abancay (Peru). Journal of the Ac-
ademical Institute for Geological Correlation 32, 25–42.
Villacorta, S.P., Peña, F., Jaimes, F., Rodriguez-Morata, C., Luza, C., Pari, W., 2017. First Re-
sults of the Integral Analysis of Geo-hydrological Events Associated With Climatic
Changes in the City of Abancay (Peru). Special Publication, 12. Proceedings of the
18th Peruvian Congress of Geology. Geological Society of Peru, Lima, pp. 568–572.
Voellmy, A., 1955. On the Destructive Force of Avalanches. SLF, Davos.
Wolter, K., Timlin, M.S., 2011. El Niño/Southern Oscillation behaviour since 1871 as diag-
nosed in an extended multivariate ENSO index (MEI.ext). Int. J. Climatol. 31,
1074–1087.
Wood, N., Schmidtlein, M., 2012. Anisotropic path modeling to assess
pedestrianevacuation potential from Cascadia-related tsunamis in the US Pa-
cific Northwest. Nat. Hazards 62 (2), 275–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11069-011-9994-2.
Wood, N., Schmidtlein, M., 2013. Community variations in population exposure to
nearfield tsunami hazards as a function of pedestrian travel time to safety. Nat. Haz-
ards 65 (3), 1603–1628.