Sustainability 2015, 7, 15099-15118; doi:10.

3390/su71115099
OPEN ACCESS

sustainability
ISSN 2071-1050
www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Article

Hazard Assessment of Debris Flows in the Reservoir Region of

Wudongde Hydropower Station in China
Cencen Niu 1, Qing Wang 1, Jianping Chen 1, Wen Zhang 1,*, Liming Xu 2 and Ke Wang 3

1
College of Construction Engineering, Jilin University, Ximinzhu Street 938,
Changchun 130000, China; E-Mails: niucencen@jlu.edu.cn (C.N.); wangqing@jlu.edu.cn (Q.W.);
chenjp@jlu.edu.cn (J.C.)
2
The Third Railway Survey and Design Institute Group Corporation, Tianjin 300143, China;
E-Mail: liming61820@sina.com
3
Jilin Institute of Geological Environment Monitoring, Changchun 130000, China;
E-Mail: wk8625@126.com

* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mail: zhang_wen@jlu.edu.cn;

Tel.: +86-431-8850-2353.

Academic Editor: Vincenzo Torretta

Received: 9 September 2015 / Accepted: 10 November 2015 / Published: 13 November 2015

Abstract: The outbreak of debris flows in a reservoir region can affect the stability of
hydropower stations and threaten the lives of the people living downstream of dams.
Therefore, determining the hazard degree of debris flows in a reservoir region is of great
importance. SPOT5 remote sensing images and digital elevation models are introduced to
determine the characteristics of debris-flow catchments. The information is acquired through
comprehensive manual investigation and satellite image interpretation. Ten factors that
influence debris flow are extracted for the hazard assessment. The weight of these factors is
determined using the analytic hierarchy process method. As a multi-criterion decision
analysis method, fuzzy synthetic evaluation is applied for hazard assessment.

Keywords: debris flow; SPOT5; digital elevation model; analytic hierarchy process; fuzzy
synthetic evaluation; hazard assessment
Sustainability 2015, 7 15100

1. Introduction

Debris flows are important geomorphic agents in mountainous terrains [1,2]. Large volumes of solid
materials in catchments could be transported and deposited on urbanized fans because of large rainfall
amounts in short time intervals, thereby endangering people and structures [3,4]. Based on
comprehensive examinations of daily rainfall data in debris flow occurrence areas in China, a small
limiting value of daily rainfall (=60 mm) was proposed for Sichuan, Yunnan, and Guizhou Provinces in
Southwest China [5]. In geomorphology, approximately 66.7% of the area of China is occupied by
mountains. Therefore, China is one of the countries that are the most seriously affected by debris flows.
Annual estimates of losses caused by debris flows reach 2 billion RMB and 300 to 600 deaths [6].
In particular, debris flow is a common hazard in Southwest China.
Debris flows occur when masses of poorly-sorted sediment, agitated and saturated with water, surge
down slopes [711]. Solid and fluid forces influence the motion of debris flows, which distinguishes
debris flows from phenomena, such as rock avalanches and water floods. Thus, the solid and fluid
forces must act in concert to produce a debris flow [7]. Like water floods, debris flows are fluid
enough to travel long distances in channels and to inundate vast areas. All debris flows involve
gravity-driven motion of a finite but possibly-changing mass of poorly-sorted, water-saturated
sediment that deforms irreversibly. Total sediment concentrations slightly differ from those of static,
unconsolidated sediment masses.
The outbreak of a large-scale debris flow in a reservoir region severely affects the construction and
stability of a hydropower station. According to Liu [12], a large-scale debris flow indicates that the
debris-flow catchment, main channel length, and maximum elevation differences are large. Furthermore
a large-scale debris flow catchment may contain massive volume of loose material. The discharge from
debris-flow catchments may affect rivers and therefore cause a huge mass of water to surge quickly,
thereby hindering the construction process of nearby hydropower stations and threatening the lives of
people living downstream hydropower stations [13]. Therefore, the assessment of debris flows in
reservoir regions is the most important task to ensure the success and safety of the construction process
of a hydropower-station.
When debris flow occurs, the rushing out of material considerably impacts hydropower stations.
A debris flow hazard can be defined as a combination of debris flow probability of occurrence and
magnitude. Considerable research was motivated by the potential for loss or damage by debris flows and
the need to assess and mitigate the hazard. The speed and volume of debris flows make them very
dangerous. Many people are killed annually by debris flows worldwide [14]. This hazard can be reduced
by identifying areas that can potentially produce debris flows, educating people who live in those areas
and govern them, limiting development in debris flow hazard areas, and developing a debris flow
mitigation plan [15,16]. The hazard assessment of debris flows interests toward debris-flow hazard
assessments grew over the last decade [1720]. Implementing prevention projects for debris flow
catchments with higher hazard as a priority is an effective way to mitigate economic loss and fatalities.
The process of the hazard assessment of debris flows consists of three steps. The first step is to acquire
information on debris flow catchments, which is the fundamental work in assessing the hazard degree of
debris flows. Debris flow catchments are characterized by a significant altimetric gradient and numerous
cliffs that are often extremely vast and rugged, rendering these areas inaccessible. These features pose a
Sustainability 2015, 7 15101

significant challenge to engineers and geologists in conducting manual investigations to gather

information on the characteristics of debris-flow catchments [21]. Therefore, geographic information
systems have been applied to hazard assessment in recent years as a useful tools for processing spatial
data and displaying results [17,22]. In this study, information on 239 debris flow catchments in the
reservoir region of the Wudongde Dam was acquired through manual investigation and satellite image
interpretation. We visited the sites of 26 debris flow catchments to obtain a better understanding of the
landscapes changes and associated consequences faced by local communities. The second step is to
select the influencing factors that are critical to debris flow hazard assessment. These factors include
topography, geology, hydrology, and meteorology. In this work, 10 factors were chosen to assess the
hazard degree of 239 debris flow catchments. The third step is to use an evaluation method to calculate
the hazard degree of debris flows. In the evaluation process, the weight of each influencing factor is
critical to the assessment result. Different weights directly influence the evaluation result. Consequently,
the validity of the weights must be ensured. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP), proposed by
Saaty [23,24], was applied in this study to determine the weight of each influencing factor.
Fuzzy synthetic evaluation (FSE) is a multi-criterion decision analysis method used in many different
fields [2528]. In this study, FSE was adopted for the calculation of the hazard degree of the 239 debris
flow catchments in the reservoir region of the Wudongde hydropower station.

2. Study Area

The study area covers both banks of the Jinsha River in the reservoir region of the Wudongde
hydropower station. The Wudongde Dam is a massive hydropower station to be constructed in the lower
reaches of the Jinsha River. The dam is located in Wudongde Village, Luquan County, Yunnan Province
(Figure 1). The water level of the Jinsha River is approximately 810 m at the dam site. The normal water
storage level is expected to reach 975 m after the construction of the dam. The upstream extremity of the
reservoir is covered by the Jinsha River in Panzhihua City. The reservoir is 209 km. The study area is
located in the central mountain and alpine region with 3600 m as the highest altitude. The topography
gradually increases from west to east of the study area (Figure 2).
The study area also covers the dry-hot valley of the Jinsha River and has a low-latitude plateau
subtropical monsoon climate. This climate is characterized by plentiful sunlight and large evaporation
capacity, with concentrated rainfall and discriminative succession of wet and dry seasons. According to
the local rainfall monitoring station the maximum daily rainfall of the study area ranges between
834 and 1309 mm. The heaviest rainfall occurs from May to October and peaks in July. The average
peak of 24 h rainfall is 110 mm. The annual average temperature of the study area is between 9 and
18 C. The vegetal cover is characterized by natural savanna and sparse broad-leaved woods.
The vegetation in the study area covers less than 30%.
A total of 239 debris-flow catchments can be found along the Jinsha River in the study area. Of the
239 debris-flow catchments, 135 are on the left bank of the river, and the remaining 104 debris-flow
catchments are on the right bank of the river.
Sustainability 2015, 7 15102

Figure 1. Study area.

Figure 2. The terrain of the study area.

3. Data Acquisition

Data acquisition of the debris flow catchments is the fundamental work of hazard assessment.
The factors that influence the occurrence of debris flows include topography, geology, hydrology,
Sustainability 2015, 7 15103

meteorology, vegetation, and human activity [29,30]. Table 1 shows the details of these influencing
factors. The traditional approach for the information acquisition of debris flow catchments is field
investigation. However, these investigations are generally time consuming. Moreover, some debris flow
catchments are inaccessible. With the development of remote sensing technology, satellite images, and
aerial photos have been widely used to determine and study engineering geological hazards [3135].
In this present study, information on debris flow catchments in the reservoir region under investigation
was acquired through satellite image interpretation.

Table 1. Influencing factors for debris-flow occurrences.

Category Influencing Factors
Basin area, main channel length, maximum elevation difference, average slope of material
Topography
source region, average gradient of the main channel, ravine density, main channel sinuosity
Geology Loose material volume, active main channel proportion
Hydrology Maximum daily rainfall, Average annual rainfall
Vegetation Vegetation coverage, the normalized difference vegetation index
Human activity Reclaim wasteland index, population density

4. Methodology

4.1. Interpretation of Satellite Images

4.1.1. SPOT5 Remote Sensing Images

SPOT5 was launched in May 2002 by France. SPOT5 remote sensing images have been widely used
to identify and assess geological hazards. The resolution of SPOT5 multispectral images is 10 m, and
that of panchromatic images is 2.5 m. The interpretation range of the satellite images in this
investigation is within 15 km on both banks of the Jinsha River in the reservoir region. The total area is
approximately 6000 km2 (Figure 1). A resolution of 2.5 m and the scale of 1:10,000 are employed.
The alluvial fans, watershed boundaries and ravine systems of the debris flow catchments are
identifiable from the SPOT5 images (Figure 3). Using the function of MapGIS software, several
characteristics of a debris flow catchment are acquired, such as the location, basin area, ravine density,
main channel length, main channel sinuosity, and area of the alluvial fan. The vegetation coverage and
population density can also be calculated from the SPOT5 images. The vegetation coverage is calculated
based on the normalized difference vegetation index, which can be easily extracted from the SPOT5
images [36,37]. The buildings are also easily identified in SPOT5 images (Figure 3). The population
density is estimated based on the number of buildings.
Sustainability 2015, 7 15104

Figure 3. SPOT5 image of a catchment.

4.1.2. Digital Elevation Model (DEM)

Several characteristics of debris-flow catchments can be obtained in the two-dimensional SPOT5

images. However, the characteristics related to height are unavailable. Therefore, we introduce DEM,
which is established based on topographic base maps with scales of 1:10,000. Figure 4 shows a slice of
DEM. By combining DEM and SPOT5 images, three-dimensional images of a catchment prone to debris
flow can be obtained (Figure 5). The watershed boundaries and ravine system are more well-defined in
the three-dimensional images than in the two-dimensional images. Three-dimensional information on
debris-flow catchments, such as maximum elevation difference, average gradient of the main channel
and average slope of the material source region, can be obtained from the three-dimensional images.
Sustainability 2015, 7 15105

Figure 4. A slice of DEM.

Figure 5. Three-dimensional image of a catchment prone to debris flow.

4.2. Influencing Factors

The hazard degree of debris flows is determined by their characteristics. Thus, the choice of influencing
factors is critical to the assessment results. Liu [12] conducted a questionnaire survey to determine the
primary influencing factors according to experts in the field of debris flow. After analyzing the survey
results using the grey relation analysis, he proposed that magnitude and frequency are the two primary
influencing factors. Liu then studied the relationship between the primary and secondary influencing
factors using the grey relation theory and determined eight secondary influencing factors. These secondary
influencing factors include the basin area, main channel length, maximum elevation difference, ravine
density, main channel sinuosity, active main channel proportion, maximum daily rainfall, and
population density. These ten factors are introduced in detail as follows:
Sustainability 2015, 7 15106

(1) Debris flow magnitude M

Debris flow magnitude refers to the maximum depositional volume of a debris flow. This parameter
can be represented by the maximum single debris flow deposits in the depositional area. Hungr et al. [38]
considered the discharge volume to be a comprehensive index that reflects the degree of hazard of
debris flows.
(2) Frequency F
Frequency is the number of debris flow occurrence in 100 years. The higher the debris flow
frequency, the higher the probability of debris flow hazards. Frequency is a direct indicator of debris
flow hazard and should also be considered as a primary influencing factor. The value is then scaled to the
occurrence times 100 years regardless of the time span. Frequency is obtained through a number of
related history records, literature review, and local geological data. Frequency can also be obtained
through interviews with local elders, considering landscape changes and associated consequences faced
by local communities. Thereby, we could obtain the outbreak of debris flow near the village.
(3) Basin area S1
Basin area reflects the volume of the loose material and collected water. The basin area is generally
directly proportional to the volume of the loose material and collected water [39].
(4) Main channel length S2
A greater main channel length results in greater flow length and influx of loose material along the
channel. Therefore, the main channel length is an influencing factor.
(5) Maximum elevation difference S3
Maximum elevation difference is the elevation difference between the highest and the lowest points
in a watershed. This value reflects the potential energy of a debris flow. A larger maximum elevation
difference generally results in a larger potential energy and greater destructive force of debris flow.
(6) Ravine density S4
Ravine density is the ratio of the total ravine length to the basin area. This value comprehensively
reflects the geological structure, lithology, and degree of rock weathering because ravines commonly
develop in weak areas. With an increase in ravine density, the volume of debris flow increases [19,20].
(7) Main channel sinuosity S5
Main channel sinuosity is the ratio of the actual length to the linear length of the main channel. This
value reflects the blockage of a debris flow gully. A larger value indicates that a channel is easier to
block. This value also indirectly reflects the flow volume.
(8) Active main channel proportion S6
The active main channel proportion is the ratio of the length of the portion of the channel containing
loose material to the total channel length. This value comprehensively reflects the supply range and
volume of loose material.
(9) Maximum daily rainfall S7
Water is an important component of debris flows, and rainfall triggers the occurrence of such
phenomena. The maximum daily rainfall reflects the potential kinetic energy of debris flows.
(10) Population density S8
Population density and occurrence of debris flows are closely related. Human activity, such as
deforestation and slope cutting, seriously accelerates the formation and development of debris flows.
Sustainability 2015, 7 15107

In this study, the above-mentioned ten influencing factors are chosen for the hazard assessment of
debris flows. Based on grey relation theory, Liu determined the order of importance of these ten factors
as follows: M = F > S1 > S4 > S2 > S3 > S6 > S7 > S8 > S5.

4.3. Analytic Hierarchy Process

In the evaluation process, the weight of each influencing factor is critical to the assessment result.
Hence, the validity of the weights must be ensured. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), as proposed
by Saaty [23,24], is an effective measure to determine the weight set. The process is as follows:
(1) Structure of the judgment matrix
The AHP method builds on pairwise comparison to determine the relative importance of one factor
over another. The matrix of pairwise comparisons for n factors can be written as:
C1 C1 C1 C2 C1 Cn
C C C C C2 Cn
[ ]
D = d ij = 2 1

2

Ci C j (1)

C
n 1C C n C2 Cn Cn

where Ci C j represents the comparison of factor Ci to factor C j , and d ij denotes the relative
importance of factor Ci with respect to factor C j .
A numerical scale is necessary to indicate the magnitude of the importance of one factor over another.
The classical 19 scale is applied in this work because of its advantages of good original order-keeping,
uniformity of scale and perceptibility [40]. The scale is shown in Table 2.

Table 2. The 19 pairwise comparison scale.

Intensity of Weight Definition Explanation
1 Equal importance Two factors contribute equally to objectives
Weak/moderate importance Experience and judgment slightly favored
3
of one over another one factor over another
Essential or strong Experience and judgment strongly
5
importance favor one factor over another
Very strong or One factor is favored very strongly over another;
7
demonstrated importance its dominance demonstrated in practice
Evidence favoring one factor over another is of
9 Absolute importance
the highest possible order of affirmation
Intermediate values between Used to represent compromise between the
2,4,6,8
the two adjacent scale values priorities listed above
If factor i has one of the above non-zero numbers assigned
Reciprocals of above
to it when compared to factor j, then factor j has the
non-zero numbers
reciprocal value when compared with factor i

(2) Calculation of the weight set

The weight of Ci is obtained using the row geometric mean method [41].
n
wi = n d
j =1
ij (2)
Sustainability 2015, 7 15108

The weight set W = (w1 , w2 ,, wi ,, wn ) is normalized according to the following:

w w w
W = 1 , 2 , , n
(3)
w w wi
i i

From this normalized set of weights, the priority or importance of the factors is obtained.
(3) Verification of consistency
To guarantee that the judgments are reasonable, consistency verification should be conducted.
The consistency index CI is given by:
max n
CI = (4)
n 1
where max is the largest eigenvalue of the judgment matrix and n is the order of the matrix.
The criterion of the consistency verification is given by:
CI
CR = < 0.1 (5)
RI

where RI can be obtained from the value table of the consistency index RI . The values of RI when
the order of the matrix is between 3 and 10 are listed in Table 3. When CR is less than 0.1, the judgment
matrix D can be considered completely consistent. If CR is larger, the matrix should be modified to
satisfy the consistency check.

Table 3. The values of consistency index RI.

Order 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
RI 0.58 0.90 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.49

4.4. Fuzzy Synthetic Evaluation

The following procedure describes the Fuzzy Synthetic Evaluation (FSE) method.
(1) Selection of factor set U: U = {ui}, i = 1, 2,, n.
where n is the number of selected evaluation factors. In this study, n is equal to 10 and the details of the
ten factors are given in Section 4.2.
(2) Construction of the evaluation criteria set V: V = {vj}, j = 1, 2,, m.
where m is number of evaluation criteria categories, and v j is the threshold of the jth criteria category.
The details of the threshold of each factor used in this study are given in Section 4.2. In this study, the
outputs of hazard assessment are classified into four levels: slight, moderate, severe and high. Therefore,
we choose V = {v1 , v2 , v3 , v4 } , and m = 4 .
(3) Establish membership functions
In fuzzy logic, the set A is defined in terms of its membership function by
A = { f A ( x), x X , f A ( x) [0,1]} .
where X is a domain, with a generic element of X denoted by x ; f A (x) is the membership
function of the set A , which maps the domain X onto the interval [0,1], and f A (x) represents the
degree that x belongs to set A . x is a full member of A when f A ( x) = 1 , is not member of A
when f A ( x) = 0 , and is a partial member of A when f A ( x) (0,1) [42].
Sustainability 2015, 7 15109

The membership functions of each assessment factor to the assessment criteria at each level can be
described quantitatively by a set of formulas. The factors directly proportional to the hazard degree are
called increasing factors. By contrast, the factors inversely proportional to the hazard degree are called
decreasing factors. The membership functions of increasing factors are different from those of
decreasing factors. All the factors chosen in this study are increasing factors. Therefore, the membership
functions of the increasing factors are given as follows:
0 xi > vi ( j +1)
v x

f ij ( xi ) = i ( j +1) i vij xi vi ( j +1) j = 1 (6)
vi ( j +1) vij
1 xi < vij

0 xi > vi ( j +1) , xi < vi ( j 1)
x v
f ij ( xi ) = i i ( j 1) vi ( j 1) xi vij j = 2,3 (7)
vij vi ( j 1)
vi ( j +1) xi
vij < xi vi ( j +1)
vi ( j +1) vij
0 xi < vi ( j 1)
x v

f ij ( xi ) = i i ( j 1) vij xi vi ( j +1) j = 4 (8)
vij vi ( j 1)
1 xi > vij

where i is the number of assessment factors (i = 1, 2,, 10); j is the number of assessment criteria
levels (j = 1, 2, 3, 4); xi is the actual value of assessment factor i ; vij , vi ( j 1) , and vi ( j +1) are the
assessment criteria threshold of the ith assessment factor at levels j , j 1 and j + 1 , respectively; and
f ij ( xi ) is the membership degree of assessment factor i at level j . The constructed membership
functions for the factors are shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6. Ten influencing factors membership functions.

Sustainability 2015, 7 15110

(4) Calculation of fuzzy relationship matrix R

Substituting the data of each assessment factor and the gradation criteria into the constructed
membership functions above, the fuzzy matrix R can be expressed as follows:
r11 r12 r1m
r r22 r2 m
R = 21 (9)
rij

rn1 rn 2 rnm

where rij = f ij ( xi ) is the membership degree of the ith assessment factor to the assessment criteria at jth
level. In this study, n = 10 ; m = 4 ; (i = 1, 2,, 10); and (j = 1, 2, 3, 4).
(5) Determination of the weight set W
The weight set W is obtained using the AHP method.
(6) Calculation of the relative importance set B
B = W * R = (b1 , b2 ,bm ) (10)
where W and R are the weight set and the fuzzy relationship matrix determined above, respectively;
* is a fuzzy composite operator; and B is a fuzzy set. The fuzzy composite operator is critical and affects
the final evaluation results. The weighted average fuzzy composite operator is used widely in a variety of
resource and environmental evaluation systems [43,44]. The weighted average fuzzy composite is
shown in the following equation:
n
bi = wi rij (11)
i =1

(7) Determination of the final evaluation result

The final evaluation result is determined by the following equation: Level = max{b1, b2, , bm}.
where the maximum value of bi determines the level of hazard degree.

5. Results

As mentioned in Section 4.2, the selected ten evaluation indicators include debris flow magnitude M,
frequency F, basin area S1, main channel length S2, maximum elevation difference S3, ravine density S4,
main channel sinuosity S5, active main channel proportion S6, maximum daily rainfall S7, and population
density S8. The weight set of the ten factors is calculated using the AHP method. The judgment matrix is
given as:
1 1 2 4 5 3 9 6 7 8
1 1 2 4 5 3 9 6 7 8

1 2 12 1 3 4 2 8 5 6 7

1 4 14 13 1 2 12 6 3 4 5
1 5 15 14 12 1 13 5 2 3 4
D=
1 3 13 12 2 3 1 7 4 5 6
1 9 19 18 16 15 17 1 1 4 1 3 1 2

1 6 16 15 13 12 14 4 1 2 3
1 7 17 16 14 13 15 3 12 1 2

1 8 18 17 15 14 16 2 1 3 1 2 1
Sustainability 2015, 7 15111

Consequently, the weight set of the influencing factors is established according to Equations (2)
and (3) as follows: W = (0.239, 0.239, 0.167, 0.081, 0.056, 0.116, 0.015, 0.039, 0.028, 0.020).
The value of the consistency index CR is 0.035, which is less than 0.1. The judgment matrix D meets
the consistency requirements.
All the indicator values of the 239 debris flow catchments cannot be listed in a table in this
paper given the limitations in space; Table 4 shows only the indicator values of the selected
26 debris flow catchments.

Table 4. The indicator values of the selected 26 debris-flow catchments.

F (Numbers/100 S1 S2 S3 S4 S7
Gully M (104 m3) S5 S6 S8 (Person/km2)
2 1
Years) (km ) (km) (km) (km ) (mm)
Xiabaitan 7.04 54 3.1 3.08 1.26 5.51 1.19 0.22 110 40
Shangbaitan 5.7 74 0.91 1.87 0.67 10.29 1.08 0.59 110 110
Zhugongdi 6.89 23 6.5 4.98 1.34 6.24 1.15 0.5 110 50
Yindi 23.6 35 60.5 20.17 2.25 5.08 1.23 0.24 110 20
Canyu 25.73 23 256 29.63 1.48 2.26 1.47 0.26 110 4
Xiushui 3.9 5 8.58 2.2 1.67 6.9 1.2 0.35 110 5
Menggu 31.4 102 37.1 10.52 1.74 6.73 1.13 0.46 110 10
Jiache 68.7 599 15.6 5.07 1.33 7.4 1.22 0.56 110 6
Fujia 12.9 66 8.62 5.16 1.53 6.34 1.26 0.44 110 10
Aiba 35.2 323 6.66 5.09 1.43 8.43 1.19 0.87 110 40
Zhuza 31.2 11 152.6 26.3 1.3 4.32 1.7 0.08 110 4
Heizhe 15.035 2 51.7 13.9 1.31 5.12 1.15 0.12 110 9
Yanshuijing 18.5 5 48.58 14.43 1.35 9.25 1.22 0.29 110 2
Nuozhacun 77.9 577 32.61 10.5 1.15 4.96 1.17 0.62 110 30
Lalakuang 22.97 120 17.88 7.14 1.41 5.52 1.08 0.72 110 5
Zhangmu 5.54 47 4.62 5.39 0.73 9.7 1.42 0.6 110 10
Hepiao 5.1 20 9.1 6.83 1.08 9.9 1.32 0.29 110 20
Hongmenchang 30.5 37 46.9 12.9 1.92 6.6 1.29 0.54 110 20
Tianfang 23 171 13.1 5.6 1.06 9.3 1.17 0.61 110 30
Zhili 46.5 19 120.6 15.8 1.61 6.3 1.28 0.45 110 12
Yajiede 6.86 6 22.3 9.3 1.61 4.7 1.31 0.18 110 11
Pingdicun 11.5 110 24.2 9.9 1.47 5.9 1.14 0.73 110 30
Fangshanguo 47.9 27 98 20.2 1.39 4.63 1.38 0.67 110 30
Daqian 13.5 74 18.9 5.1 0.59 10.95 1.11 0.744 110 15
Fapa 16.41 12 24.1 13.12 1.43 5.22 1.26 0.47 110 30
Daqing 7.22 6 31.8 7.32 0.64 6.02 1.1 0.49 110 10

The evaluation criteria set V = {v1 , v2 , v3 , v4 } is chosen to correspond to the four hazard degrees
as mentioned earlier. Based on previous studies [21,29,45,46], the threshold of each indicator at each
level is listed in Table 5.
Sustainability 2015, 7 15112

Table 5. Gradation criteria threshold for each evaluation factor on hazard assessment of
debris flows.
Factor Classification Level Threshold Factor Classification Level Threshold
Slight Moderate Severe High Slight Moderate Severe High
M (104 m3) 1 10 100 200 S4 (km1) 5 10 20 50
F (numbers/100 years) 10 50 100 200 S5 1.1 1.25 1.4 1.6
S1 (km2) 0.5 10 35 50 S6 0.1 0.3 0.6 1
S2 (km) 1 5 10 20 S7 (mm) 25 50 100 200
S3 (km) 0.2 0.5 1 2 S8 (person/km2) 50 150 250 350

All the evaluation indicators are increasing factors. The fuzzy matrix R of the debris-flow
catchments can be calculated using Equations (6)(8). The weight set W was obtained in Section 5. The
relative importance set B is computed using Equations (10) and (11). The final evaluation results of the
debris flows are determined by the relative importance set B . The final evaluation results and the
relative importance of the set of 26 debris flows are listed in Table 6. Figure 7 shows the hazard
assessment results of the 239 debris flow catchments in the reservoir region.

Table 6. The relative importance set and the final hazard assessment results.
Debris-Flow The Relative Importance Set Assessment Extension Grey
Catchment Slight Moderate Severe High Level Theory Relation
Xiabaitan 0.385 0.512 0.086 0.017 Moderate Moderate Moderate
Shangbaitan 0.360 0.437 0.200 0.003 Moderate Moderate Moderate
Zhugongdi 0.423 0.467 0.089 0.022 Moderate Moderate Moderate
Yindi 0.241 0.391 0.061 0.307 Moderate Moderate Moderate
Canyu 0.306 0.305 0.106 0.283 Slight Slight Slight
Xiushui 0.579 0.330 0.050 0.041 Slight Slight Slight
Menggu 0.108 0.244 0.572 0.077 Severe Severe Severe
Jiache 0.084 0.365 0.291 0.260 Moderate Moderate Moderate
Fujia 0.129 0.679 0.159 0.033 Moderate Moderate Moderate
Aiba 0.121 0.448 0.138 0.292 Moderate Moderate Moderate
Zhuza 0.412 0.185 0.121 0.282 Slight Moderate Slight
Heizhe 0.418 0.237 0.127 0.219 Slight Slight Slight
Yanshuijing 0.281 0.364 0.145 0.209 Moderate Moderate Moderate
Nuozhacun 0.144 0.081 0.518 0.256 Severe Severe Moderate
Lalakuang 0.139 0.377 0.400 0.084 Severe Severe Severe
Zhangmu 0.259 0.627 0.110 0.004 Moderate Moderate Moderate
Hepiao 0.349 0.530 0.114 0.007 Moderate Moderate Moderate
Hongmenchang 0.179 0.399 0.211 0.211 Moderate Moderate Moderate
Tianfang 0.044 0.529 0.251 0.177 Moderate Moderate Moderate
Zhili 0.290 0.259 0.201 0.251 Slight Slight Slight
Yajiede 0.482 0.276 0.205 0.037 Slight Slight Slight
Pingdicun 0.126 0.333 0.474 0.066 Severe Severe Severe
Fangshanguo 0.271 0.244 0.205 0.280 High High High
Daqian 0.034 0.692 0.257 0.017 Moderate Moderate Moderate
Fapa 0.359 0.341 0.247 0.052 Slight Severe Severe
Daqing 0.440 0.309 0.249 0.003 Slight Slight Slight
Sustainability 2015, 7 15113

6. Discussion

The fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method could transform qualitative to quantitative evaluation
based on the membership degree theory of fuzzy mathematics. This method has numerous advantages
including clear results and strong system characteristics. It can solve fuzzy and hard-to-quantify
problems and is also suitable for all types of problems. The hazard assessment of debris flows is a
complex problem. The hazards of debris flow are determined using many influencing factors, in which
fuzziness and uncertainty in the assessment process exist. The qualitative and quantitative indices are
difficult to transform, which makes the assessment inaccurate. Identifying the hazard degree of debris
flows with an ordinary method is difficult. However, this paper used the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation
method to evaluate the hazard degree of debris flow including many indices. The hazard degree is
divided into four classifications, namely, slight, moderate, severe, and high. The calculated results are
listed in Table 6. In the four hazard degrees, the value of the relative importance set corresponding
degree is the debris flow catchment assessment result. Taking the Xiabaitan debris flow catchment
for example, the four calculated hazard degree results were 0.385, 0.512, 0.086, and 0.017 respectively.
The moderate hazard degree value was 0.512, which is the largest among the four values. Thus, the
Xiabaitan debris flow catchment was assessed as moderate hazard. The other debris flow catchment
assessment results were determined using the above mentioned method.
According to the results of the hazard assessment, 20 of the debris flow catchments in the reservoir
region have a slight hazard degree accounting for 8.4%, 200 have a moderate hazard degree accounting
for 83.7%, 18 have a severe hazard degree accounting for 7.5%, and only one gully has a high hazard
degree. The magnitude and frequency of Jiache and Nuozhacun in the 26 gullies are both high, but the
two gullies are classified as moderate and severe. The weights of the two factors weights are similar
(0.239), and the weight of basin area is 0.167. The basin area also exhibits a great weight. Nuozhacun
is twice as large as Jiache, implying that Nuozhacun is more hazardous than Jiache. Nuozhacun is
severe hazardous, and Jiache is reasonably moderate hazardous. This study also compared the results
of the new method with two similar approaches: extension theory and the grey relation analysis.
The latter two methods have been widely used in debris flow hazard assessment [12,21,29], and in
many current engineering projects. However, these two methods exhibit their own limitations, such as
instances of inaccuracy of the approach evaluation results. The results from the assessment of 23 of
the debris flows using our new methods are comparable to those of the validation methods (Table 6).
The extension theory and grey correlation are widely used in many engineering applications. A method
that can accurately predict 100% in engineering is not available. However, many references
demonstrated that the two methods used for validation are appropriate [4749].
By contrast, the results for the three debris-flow catchments, Zhuza, Nuozhacun and Fapa, are
inconsistent. It could be verified by the original manual investigation and qualitative recognition. Floods,
rather than debris flows, easily occur in gully basin areas of more than 100 km2. The Zhuza catchment
covers 152.6 km2. Moreover, the slight hazard degree value is 0.412, which is much larger than those of
the other three hazard degree values. And the hazard degree of Zhuza is slight, better than moderate.
The values of the two most weighted variables of Nuozhacun, magnitude and frequency, are
considerably large. The frequency is particularly 577 times per 100 years, which is much more
frequent than other debris flow catchments. Thus, the Nuozhacun is severely hazardous. Similarly, the
Sustainability 2015, 7 15114

values of two most weighted variables of Nuozhacun are approximately the same. Amongst the 26
debris-flow catchments, the two values of Fapa are slightly smaller than those of Zhuza gully.
Accordingly, the Fapa catchment is assessed as slightly hazardous.
The number of catchments with each assessment level is also displayed graphically in Figure 8.
A large majority of debris flow catchments have slight and moderate hazard degrees, with only a few
catchments having severe and high hazard degrees. Amongst the catchments with severe hazard degree,
the nearest to the dam is 6 km away from the hydropower station. Only one debris flow catchment has a
high hazard degree. The distance between the catchment and the dam is 74 km.

Figure 7. Hazard degree of debris flows in the reservoir region.

Figure 8. Statistics of the hazard assessment results of debris flows.

Sustainability 2015, 7 15115

7. Conclusions

In case of the occurrence of a future debris flow event the discharge of a debris and water would
block the river, causing a huge mass of water to surge quickly, thereby hindering construction processes
in nearby hydropower stations and threatening the lives of people living downstream of these stations.
Therefore, the hazard assessment of debris flows in this area is of the utmost importance.
The traditional approach to acquire information on debris flow catchments is generally very costly
and time consuming. Moreover, debris flow catchments are widely distributed and consist of numerous
cliffs, thereby rendering these places inaccessible. In this study, SPOT5 images and DEM are introduced
to acquire information on debris flows, which is helpful in the effective evaluation of the hazard degree
of debris flows.
The choice of influencing factors is critical to the assessment results. In this study, the selected
influencing factors include debris flow magnitude, frequency, basin area, main channel length,
maximum elevation difference, ravine density, main channel sinuosity, active main channel proportion,
maximum daily rainfall, and population density. The AHP method is applied to determine the weight set
of the influencing factors. The weights of each factor are 0.239, 0.239, 0.167, 0.081, 0.056, 0.116, 0.015,
0.039, 0.028, and 0.02. FSE is adopted to calculate the hazard degrees of the 239 debris flow catchments
in the reservoir region of the Wudongde hydropower station. The hazard assessment results reveal that
20 debris flow catchments have a slight hazard degree, 200 have a moderate hazard degree, 18 have a
severe hazard degree, and only one has a high hazard degree. Overall, the hazard caused by debris flows
in the reservoir region is low, and the construction and stability of the hydropower station are not
significantly affected by the debris flows. The results of our new method are comparable with those of
extension and grey correlation theories, except for those in the Zhuza, Nuozhacun, and Fapa gullies.
After a detailed analysis of the original datasets, our method demonstrates its superiority and validity
for the hazard assessment of debris flows. To complement debris flow hazard assessment, we will
conduct further investigation that focuses on debris flow propagation, to be applied to the Jinsha river
and adjacent catchments.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by grants of the State Key Program of National Natural Science Foundation
of China (Grant number: 41330636), 2010 non-profit scientific special research funds of Ministry of
Water Resources (Grant number: 201001008), Natural Science Foundations of China (Grant numbers:
41402242, 41402243, 40872170 and 40902077) and Jilin Universitys 985 project (Grant number:
450070021107).

Author Contributions

Cencen Niu contributed to data analysis and manuscript writing. Qing Wang and Jianping Chen
proposed the main structure of this study. Wen Zhang provided useful advice and revised the
manuscript. Liming Xu and Ke Wang collected and processed the data. All authors read and approved
the final manuscript.
Sustainability 2015, 7 15116

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

1. Swanson, F.J.; Kratz, T.K.; Caine, N.; Woodmansee R.G. Landform effects on ecosystem patterns
and processes. BioScience 1988, 38, 9298.
2. Swanson, F.J.; Johnson, S.L.; Gregory, S.V.; Acker, S.A. Flood disturbance in a forested mountain
landscape. BioScience 1998, 48, 681689.
3. Hrlimann, M.; Copons, R.; Altimir, J. Detailed debris flow hazard assessment in Andorra,
A multidisciplinary approach. Geomorphology 2006, 78, 359372.
4. Tang, C.; Vanasch, T.W.J.; Chang, M.; Chen, G.Q.; Zhao, X.H.; Huang, X.C. Catastrophic debris
flows on 13 August 2010 in the Qingping area, southwestern China: The combined effects of a
strong earthquake and subsequent rainstorms. Geomorphology 2012, 139140, 559576.
5. Cheng, Z.L.; Zhu, P.Y.; Liu, L.J. Study on the relationship between the debris flow and the rainfall
factor. Nat. Hazards 1998, 7, 118120. (In Chinese)
6. Cui, P.; Liu, S.J.; Tan, W.P. Progress of debris flow forecast in China. J. Nat. Disasters 2000, 9,
1015.
7. Iverson, R.M. Physics of debris flows. Rev. Geophys. 1997, 35, 245296.
8. Chiou, I.J.; Chen, C.H.; Liu, W.L.; Huang, S.M.; Chang, Y.M. Methodology of disaster risk
assessment for debris flows in a river basin. Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 2015, 29, 775792.
9. Liang, W.J.; Zhuang, D.F.; Jiang, D.; Pan, J.J.; Ren, H.Y. Assessment of debris flow hazards using
a Bayesian Network. Geomorphology 2012, 171, 94100.
10. Liu, G.X.; Dai, E.F.; Ge, Q.S.; Wu, W.X.; Xu, X.C. A similarity-based quantitative model for
assessing regional debris-flow hazard. Nat. Hazards 2013, 69, 295310.
11. Eidsvig, U.M.K.; Papathoma-Khle, M.; Du, J.; Glade, T.; Vangelsten, B.V. Quantification of
uncertainty in debris flow vulnerability assessment. Eng. Geol. 2014, 181, 1526.
12. Liu, X.L.; Tang, C. Debris-Flow Risk Evaluation; Science Press: Beijing, China, 1995.
13. Waythomas, C.F. Formation and failure of volcanic debris dam in the Chakachatna River valley
associated with eruptions of the spur volcanic complex, Alaska. Geomorphology 2001, 39,
111129.
14. Petley, D. Global patterns of loss of life from landslides. Geology 2012, 40, 927930.
15. Liu, X.; Yue, Z.Q.; Tham, L.G.; Lee, C.F. Empirical assessment of debris flow risk on a regional
scale in Yunnan province, Southwestern China. Environ. Manag. 2002, 30, 249264.
16. Jordan, P.; Covert, S.A. Debris Flows and Floods Following the 2003 Wildfires in Southern
British Columbia. Eviron. Eng. Geosci. 2009, 15, 217234.
17. Lin, P.S.; Lin, J.Y.; Hung, J.C.; Yang, M.D. Assessing debris-flow hazard in a watershed in Taiwan.
Eng. Geol. 2002, 66, 295313.
18. Liu X.L.; Lei J.Z. A method for assessing regional debris flow risk: An application in Zhaotong of
Yunnan province (SW China). Geomorphology 2003, 52, 181191.
Sustainability 2015, 7 15117

19. Chang T.C.; Chao R.J. Application of back-propagation networks in debris flow prediction.
Eng. Geol. 2006, 85, 270280.
20. Chang, T.C. Risk degree of debris flow applying neural networks. Nat. Hazards 2007, 42,
209224.
21. Procter, J.N.; Cronin, S.J.; Zernack, A.V.; Lube, G.; Stewart, R.B.; Nemeth, K.; Keys, H. Debris
flow evolution and the activation of an explosive hydrothermal system; Te Maari, Tongariro,
New Zealand. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 2014, 286, 303316.
22. Di, B.F.; Chen, N.S.; Cui, P.; Li, Z.L.; He, Y.P.; Gao, Y.C. GIS-based risk analysis of debris flow:
An application in Sichuan, southwest China. Int. J. Sediment. Res. 2008, 23, 138148.
23. Saaty T.L. Modeling unstructured decision problems-the theory of analytical hierarchies.
Math. Comput. Simul. 1977, 20, 147158.
24. Saaty T.L. The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting Resource Allocation;
McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1980.
25. Mi, C.Q.; Zhang, X.D.; Li, S.M.; Yang, J.Y.; Zhu, D.H.; Yang, Y. Assessment of environment
lodging stress for maize using fuzzy synthetic evaluation. Math. Comput. Model. 2011, 54,
10531060.
26. Wang, J.H.; Lu, X.G.; Jiang, M. Fuzzy Synthetic Evaluation of Wetland Soil Quality Degradation:
A Case Study on the Sanjiang Plain Northeast China. Pedosphere 2009, 19, 756764.
27. Duan, Z.F.; Pang, Z.H.; Wang, X.Y. Sustainability evaluation of limestone geothermal reservoirs
with extended production histories in Beijing and Tianjin, China. Geothermics 2011, 40, 125135.
28. Lu, X.W.; Loretta, Y.L.; Lei, K.; Wang, L.J.; Zhai, Y.X.; Zhai, M. Water quality assessment of Wei
River, China using fuzzy synthetic evaluation. Environ. Earth Sci. 2010, 60, 16931699.
29. Kuang Y.H.; Xu L.R.; Liu B.C.; Yao, J.C. A new method for choosing zonation indicators of
mudflow danger degrees based on the rough set theory. J. Geomech. 2006, 12, 236241.
30. Liu, T.; Zhang, H.J.; Wu, J.D.; Hou, X.F.; Zheng, G.Q.; Ye, Z.H. Application of analytic hierarchy
process in debris flow risk degree assessmentA case study of Miyun County, Beijing City.
Bull. Soil Water Conserv. 2008, 28, 610.
31. Li, C.K.; Goldstein, R.M. Studies of multibaseline spaceborne interferometric synthetic aperture
radars. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. 1990, 28, 8897.
32. Antrop, M.; Eetvelde, V.V. Changing patterns in the urbanized countryside of Western Europe.
Landsc. Ecol. 2004, 15, 257270.
33. Thomlinsson, J.R.; Rivera, L.Y. Suburban growth in Luquillo, Puerto Rico: Some consequences of
development on natural and semi-natural systems. Landsc. Urban. Plan. 2006, 49, 1923.
34. Wan, S.; Lei, T.C.; Huang, P.C.; Chou T.Y. The knowledge rules of debris flow event: A case study
for investigation Chen Yu Lan River, Taiwan. Eng. Geol. 2008, 98, 102114.
35. Wan, S.; Lei, T.C. A knowledge-based decision support system to analyze the debris-flow
problems at Chen-Yu-Lan River, Taiwan. Knowl. Based Syst. 2009, 22, 580588.
36. Chen, J.; Chen, Y.H.; He, C.Y.; Shi, P.J. Sub-pixel model for vegetation fraction estimation based
on land cover classification. J. Remote Sens. 2001, 5, 416422.
37. Dan, S.M.; Xu, H.X.; Dan, B.; He, F.; Shi, C.C.; Ren, G.Y. Monitoring and evaluation of grassland
desertification in litang county using multi-temporal remote sensing images. In Proceedings of the
14th Youth Conference on Communication, Dalian, China, 2426 July 2009; pp. 209213.
Sustainability 2015, 7 15118

38. Hungr, O.; Morgan, G.C.; Kellerhals, R. Quantitative analysis of debris torrent hazards for design
of remedial measures. Canad. Geotech. J. 1984, 21, 663677.
39. Ning, N.; Shu, H.P.; Liu, D.F.; Ma, J.Z. Hazard assessment of debris flow based on the entropy
weight method and fuzzy evaluation method. J. Lanzhou Univ. Nat. Sci. 2014, 3, 369375.
40. Luo, Z.; Yang, S. Comparative study on several scales in AHP. Syst. Eng. Theor. Pract. 2004, 9,
5160.
41. Crawford, G.; Williams, C. A note on the analysis of subjective judgment matrices. J. Math. Psychol.
1985, 29, 387405.
42. Sudhir, D.; Bupinder, S.; Shalini, G. Analysis of groundwater quality using fuzzy synthetic
evaluation. J. Hazard. Mater. 2007, 147, 938946.
43. Guleda, O.E.; Ibrahim, D.; Halil, H. Assessment of urban air quality in Istanbul using fuzzy
synthetic evaluation. Atmos. Environ. 2004, 38, 38093815.
44. Chang, N.B.; Chen, H.W.; Ning, S.K. Identification of river water quality using the Fuzzy
synthetic evaluation approach. J. Environ. Manag. 2001, 63, 293305.
45. Zhang, W.; Chen, J.P.; Wang, Q. Susceptibility analysis of large-scale debris flows based on
combination weighting and extension methods. Nat. Hazards 2013, 66, 10731100.
46. Niu, C.C.; Wang, Q.; Chen, J.P.; Wang, K.; Zhang, W.; Zhou, F.J. Debris-flow hazard assessment
based on stepwise discriminant analysis and extension theory. Q. J. Eng. Geol. Hydrogeol. 2014, 47,
211222.
47. Zhang, W.; Li, H.Z.; Chen, J.P.; Zhang, C.; Xu, L.M.; Sang, W.F. Comprehensive hazard
assessment and protection of debris flows along Jinsha River close to the Wudongde dam site in
China. Nat. Hazards 2011, 58, 459477.
48. Zhao, B.; Xu, W.Y.; Liang, G.L.; Meng, Y.D. Stability evaluation model for high rock slope
based on element extension theory. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 2015, 74, 301314.
49. Kuang, H.B.; Kilgour, D.M.; Hipel, K.W. Grey-based PROMETHEE II with application to
evaluation of source water protection strategies. Inf. Sci. 2015, 294, 376389.

2015 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).