the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 25 Feb 2025
Constitution of a multicentennial multirisk database in a mountainous environment from composite sources: the example of the Vallouise-Pelvoux municipality (Ecrins, France)
Abstract. To develop efficient mountain risk management strategies, an obvious, yet tremendously difficult prerequisite is the constitution of comprehensive databases of past events and their impacts over long-time frames. However, existing records are often too short and siloed between different data providers and/or as function of hazards. To fill this gap, a methodology based on the combination of scattered pre-existing records with further archival research is proposed and used to populate a well-structured multirisk database covering the period 1600–2020 AD in a municipality of the French Alps – Vallouise-Pelvoux. Results include 2131 events related to rockfall, landslides, snow avalanches, hydrological and glacial hazards, with documentation of possible interactions between hazards, their characteristics and detailed impacts. The combined use of different sources – and in particular archival searches – and their cross-referencing therefore provides a detailed record of past events that goes far beyond any inventory existing at the local scale. The analysis suggests that the distribution of events results from the combined effect of hazards, sources and human activities putting assets at risk, with a primary effect of sources. The methodology opens perspective for multirisk assessment in mountain territories and can be usefully transferred to other case studies.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(3036 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(3036 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-761', Joel Gill, 28 Mar 2025
This is a very interesting manuscript, with a clear aim and methodology. The latter is well executed, with a comprehensive set of results and evidenced discussion. The authors make very good use of existing literature to support most of their writing. Overall, the manuscript offers an interesting and useful addition to the literature. It demonstrates well the potential of blending multiple evidence sources to develop richer understanding of hazard events. Attached I include some specific and technical comments that I believe would strengthen this manuscript. The specific comments focus on the multirisk framing, information about the cascading multi-hazards, and how the concept of 'vulnerability' relates to the database.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Louise Dallons, 08 Jul 2025
We deeply thank Joel Gill for his encouragements and meaningful suggestions that will greatly help us to improve the paper. In the attached document, we provide a point-by-point answer to his comments, questions and suggestions.
Louise Dallons Thanneur on belief of the authors
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Louise Dallons, 08 Jul 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-761', Anonymous Referee #2, 17 Apr 2025
I would like to thank the authors for a highly interesting and original manuscript. I very much enjoyed reading it.
Comments:
- Page 2: “A specific concern is related to complex and/or cascading hazards that can have far-reaching and multiple consequences downstream” -> I think it would be good to provide a very clear definition of multi, consecutive, cascading, etc risk. Similarly, a couple of sentences down (risks related to natural hazards are broadly defined here as the results of interactions between natural and societal components), I wonder if it would be good to explicitly define is as exposure and vulnerability (and risk) very clearly? And eg in L. 329 you talk about “cascading multi-hazards”.
- The authors speak of a multirisk database that covers centuries, but it covers hazards and impact, right? It would be good to clarify this; I also found section 3.4.1 a bit unclear.
- Out of curiosity: have definitions of individual hazard types changed over time (eg land movement or rockfall)?
- 4.2: by event, do you mean disaster? (so when a hazard interacts with exposure and vulnerability of that exposure)? In the next section you talk about impacted assets, but does this mean that you exclude vulnerability?
- Looking at the analysis in section 4.5, I wondered why we see such a peak in number of disasters around 1950-1970?
- I would be curious to read a bit more of an in depth/critical reflection on and discussion of the notion of single vs (cascading?) multi-risk and the recording (and hence perception) thereof.
Minor comments:
- 7 L. 190: studied period -> should be study period
- 275: “mobilized sources” -> do you mean used sources?
- 293: “torrents” -> do the authors mean torrential rainfall?
- You write multirisk and multi-hazard, I would hyphenate both.
- 636: I am not sure I would call the frequency figures a statistical analysis.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-761-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Louise Dallons, 08 Jul 2025
We deeply thank the referee for his/her encouragements and meaningful suggestions that will greatly help us to improve the paper. In the attached document, we provide a point-by-point answer to his/her comments, questions and suggestions.
Louise Dallons Thanneur on belief of the authors
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-761', Joel Gill, 28 Mar 2025
This is a very interesting manuscript, with a clear aim and methodology. The latter is well executed, with a comprehensive set of results and evidenced discussion. The authors make very good use of existing literature to support most of their writing. Overall, the manuscript offers an interesting and useful addition to the literature. It demonstrates well the potential of blending multiple evidence sources to develop richer understanding of hazard events. Attached I include some specific and technical comments that I believe would strengthen this manuscript. The specific comments focus on the multirisk framing, information about the cascading multi-hazards, and how the concept of 'vulnerability' relates to the database.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Louise Dallons, 08 Jul 2025
We deeply thank Joel Gill for his encouragements and meaningful suggestions that will greatly help us to improve the paper. In the attached document, we provide a point-by-point answer to his comments, questions and suggestions.
Louise Dallons Thanneur on belief of the authors
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Louise Dallons, 08 Jul 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-761', Anonymous Referee #2, 17 Apr 2025
I would like to thank the authors for a highly interesting and original manuscript. I very much enjoyed reading it.
Comments:
- Page 2: “A specific concern is related to complex and/or cascading hazards that can have far-reaching and multiple consequences downstream” -> I think it would be good to provide a very clear definition of multi, consecutive, cascading, etc risk. Similarly, a couple of sentences down (risks related to natural hazards are broadly defined here as the results of interactions between natural and societal components), I wonder if it would be good to explicitly define is as exposure and vulnerability (and risk) very clearly? And eg in L. 329 you talk about “cascading multi-hazards”.
- The authors speak of a multirisk database that covers centuries, but it covers hazards and impact, right? It would be good to clarify this; I also found section 3.4.1 a bit unclear.
- Out of curiosity: have definitions of individual hazard types changed over time (eg land movement or rockfall)?
- 4.2: by event, do you mean disaster? (so when a hazard interacts with exposure and vulnerability of that exposure)? In the next section you talk about impacted assets, but does this mean that you exclude vulnerability?
- Looking at the analysis in section 4.5, I wondered why we see such a peak in number of disasters around 1950-1970?
- I would be curious to read a bit more of an in depth/critical reflection on and discussion of the notion of single vs (cascading?) multi-risk and the recording (and hence perception) thereof.
Minor comments:
- 7 L. 190: studied period -> should be study period
- 275: “mobilized sources” -> do you mean used sources?
- 293: “torrents” -> do the authors mean torrential rainfall?
- You write multirisk and multi-hazard, I would hyphenate both.
- 636: I am not sure I would call the frequency figures a statistical analysis.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-761-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Louise Dallons, 08 Jul 2025
We deeply thank the referee for his/her encouragements and meaningful suggestions that will greatly help us to improve the paper. In the attached document, we provide a point-by-point answer to his/her comments, questions and suggestions.
Louise Dallons Thanneur on belief of the authors
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 815 | 140 | 26 | 981 | 24 | 41 |
- HTML: 815
- PDF: 140
- XML: 26
- Total: 981
- BibTeX: 24
- EndNote: 41
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Louise Dallons Thanneur
Florie Giacona
Nicolas Eckert
Philippe Frey
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(3036 KB) - Metadata XML