1. NATURAL HAZARDS AND RISKS
IN ŢARA HAŢEGULUI (ROMANIA)
Research coordinator
Prof. univ. dr. Virgil Surdeanu
PhD Candidate
Dana Goţiu
BABEŞ-BOLYAI UNIVERSITY CLUJ-NAPOCA

2. TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER ICHAPTER I
INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION
1.1. Introduction1.1. Introduction
1.2. General trends in hazard and risk research1.2. General trends in hazard and risk research
1.3. Previous research in the study area1.3. Previous research in the study area
1.4. Main goals of the research1.4. Main goals of the research
CHAPTER IICHAPTER II
METHODOLOGYMETHODOLOGY
2.1. Methods and techniques used in natural risk assessment2.1. Methods and techniques used in natural risk assessment
2.2. The methodology used in this study2.2. The methodology used in this study
CHAPTER IIICHAPTER III
NATURAL HAZARDS AND THEIR RELATED NOTIONS BETWEEN MYTH AND REALINATURAL HAZARDS AND THEIR RELATED NOTIONS BETWEEN MYTH AND REALITYTY
3.1. Introduction3.1. Introduction
3.2. Questions and perspectives in defining the terms used in ha3.2. Questions and perspectives in defining the terms used in hazard and risk assessmentzard and risk assessment
3.3. Natural and manmade hazards3.3. Natural and manmade hazards
3.4. Vulnerability3.4. Vulnerability –– the qualitative feature of the elements at riskthe qualitative feature of the elements at risk
CHAPTER IVCHAPTER IV
NATURAL HAZARD ASSESSMENT IN TARA HATEGULUINATURAL HAZARD ASSESSMENT IN TARA HATEGULUI
4.1. Identification and characterization of the natural hazards4.1. Identification and characterization of the natural hazards
4.2. Causality and interrelations between the natural hazards an4.2. Causality and interrelations between the natural hazards and their triggering factorsd their triggering factors
CHAPTER VCHAPTER V
TARA HATEGULUITARA HATEGULUI –– TO BE OR NOT TO BE VULNERABLE?TO BE OR NOT TO BE VULNERABLE?
5.1. Susceptibility assessment to natural hazards5.1. Susceptibility assessment to natural hazards
5.2. The vulnerability of the habitats in Tara Hategului5.2. The vulnerability of the habitats in Tara Hategului
CHAPTER VICHAPTER VI
NATURAL RISK EVALUATION AND MANAGEMENT IN TARA HATEGULUINATURAL RISK EVALUATION AND MANAGEMENT IN TARA HATEGULUI
6.1. Natural hazard and risk perception in Tara Hategului6.1. Natural hazard and risk perception in Tara Hategului
6.2. Qualitative risk assessment of the geomorphic hazards6.2. Qualitative risk assessment of the geomorphic hazards
6.3. Risk management6.3. Risk management
CONCLUSIONCONCLUSION
REFERENCESREFERENCES
APENDICESAPENDICES
•• Key words: hazard, risk, susceptibility, vulnerability, geomorphKey words: hazard, risk, susceptibility, vulnerability, geomorphic processes, elements at risk, hazard and risk perception,ic processes, elements at risk, hazard and risk perception,
factor analysis, hazard and risk managementfactor analysis, hazard and risk management

3. 1. to present the theoretical background as regarding natural hazards and risks
2. to establish a proper methodology that follows the actual trends in this field
3. to identify hazards and risks through analytical methods
4. to evaluate the susceptibility of the relief and the vulnerability of people to natural hazards
5. to define the degree perceived risk at the level of the communities
6. to integrate the analytical results into an integrative study of risks
7. to classify risks in relation to the territorial realities
8. to choose the right techniques for digital mapping
9. to quantify risk and make the thematic risk maps
Research questions

4. EData acquisition
Field work
Data processing
(interpretation and
analysis)
Susceptibility analysis
Landslide susceptibility
Erosion susceptibility
Flood susceptibility
Overall vulnerability
Overall
susceptibility
RISK
d
a
t
a
Vulnerability to floods
Vulnerability to bank erosion
Vulnerability to erosion
Vulnerability analysis
Vulnerability to landslides
Bank erosion susceptibility
Flow chart for the methodology used to risk assessment in Ţara Haţegului

5. ŢARA HAŢEGULUI - NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

6. NATURAL HAZARD IDENTIFICATION IN ŢARA HAŢEGULUI
A.A. SLOPE PROCESSESSLOPE PROCESSES
Livezi
Ciula Mare
Ciula Mică
Râu de Mori
Sâmpetru

7. BARU MARE HOT SPOT
1. Index: BM2005
2. Location: Blictaru Hill
3. Lithology: silty clay and sand
4. Sample characteristics:
a.date: 11.08.2005
b.humidity: 23.0%
c.main minerals: kaolinite (59%), quartz (29%)
d.secondary minerals: illite (4%), montmorillonite (4%), iron oxydes (traces)
5. Slope: convex, linear
6. Slope degree: 25-30°
7. Exposure: SV
8. Vegetation: grass
9. Geomorphic processes: linear erosion, superficial landslides
10.Sediment transport: on the slope
11.Distance to:
a.The closest house – 200 m
b.The closest river – 100 m
c.The closest road – not the case
12.Affected infrastructure: none

8. GENERAL BERTHELOT HOT SPOT
1.Index: GB2005
2.Location: Râpa lui Gîscă
3.Lithology: red clay
4.Sample characteristics:
a.date: 09.08.2005
b.humiditaty: 15.0%
c. main minerals: illit (58%), hydrated hydro-muscovite (39%)
d. secondary minerals: iron oxydes (3%)
5.Slope : linear, straight
6.Slope degree: 70°
7.Exposure : SE
8.Vegetation: grass cca. 10-15%, shrubs
9.Geomorphic processes: linear erosion, crumbling
10.Transport: to the foot of the slope
11.Distance to:
a.The closest house – 1 km
b.The closest river – not the case
c.The closest road – not the case
12.Affected infrastructure: none

9. LIVEZI HOT SPOT
1.Index: L2005
2.Location: Prislop Hill
3.Lithology: red clay
4.Sample characteristics:
a.date: 09.08.2005
b.humidity: 22.0 %
c.main minerals: quartz (48%), hydro-muscovite (22%),
chlorite (18%), montmorillonite (9%)
d.secondary minerals : iron hydro-oxydes (2%),
feldspate (traces)
5.Slope: concave
6.Slope degree: 25°
7.Exposure: SE
8.Vegetation: grass
9.Geomorphic processes: linear erosion, crumbling
10.Transport: to the bottom of the gully, then to the foot of the
slope
11.Distance to:
a.The closest house – 200 m
b.The closest river – 300 m
c.The closest road – not the case
12.Affected infrastructure: none

10. RĂCHITOVA HOT SPOT
1.Index: R2005
2.Location: Măgurei Hill
3.Lithology: compact silty clay
4.Sample characteristics:
a.date: 26.08.2005
b.humidity: 27.2%
c.main minerals: quartz (58%), montmorillonite (18%),
chlorite (11%)
d.secondary minerals: calcite (5%), feldspate (4%),
iron oxydes (4%)
5.Slope: concave, linear
6.Slope degree: 30°
7.Exposure: N
8.Vegetation: grass, fruit trees, shrubs
9.Geomorphic processes: crumbling, superficial landslides,
non-active guly erosion
10.Transport: to the foot of the slope, in the Rachitova River
11.Distance to:
a.The closest house – 300 m
b.The closest river – 0-100 m
c.The closest road – 20 m (unpaved road)
12.Affected infrastructure: none

11. RÂU DE MORI HOT SPOT
1.Index: RM 2005
2.Location: Glămeia Hill, Râu de Mori, abandoned clay quarry
3.Lithology: yellow clay
4.Sample characteristics:
a.date: 06.0 8.2002
b.humidity: 17.2%
c.main minerals: quartz (46%), sodic feldspar (39%),
chlorite (9%),
d.secondary minerals: illite (4%), iron oxydes (2%)
5.Slope: concave, left
6.Slope degree: 25°
7.Exposure: SE
8.Vegetation: cca. 40% grass
9.Geomorphic processes: erosion, suffosion,
crumbling, superficial landslides
1.Transport: to the foot of the slope
2.Distance to:
a.The closest house – 500 m
b.The closest river – 100 m
c.The closest road – 200 m
3.Affected infrastructure: none

12. SÂMPETRU HOT SPOT
1.Index: S2005
2.Locaion: Măgurile Hill (Sâmpetru)
3.Litologie: limestone silty clay argile siltice calcaroase
4.Sample characteristics:
a.date: 08.08.2005
b. humidity: 23.5%
a.main minerals: quartz (54%), hydromuscovite
(19%), chlorite (12%), montmorillonite (10%)
b.secondary minerals: feldspate (2%), iron
hydroxides (3%)
5.Slope: concave, right
6.Slope degree: 20°
7.Exposure: NV
8.Vegetation: grass, compact
9.Geomorphic processes: erosion, superficial
landslides, creep
10.Transportul: on the slope, seldom towards the foot of
the slope
11.Distance to:
a.The closest house – 500m
b.The closest river – 100-150 m
c.The closest road – not the case
12.Affected infrastructure: none

13. MĂLĂIESTI HOT SPOT
1. Index: M2005
2. Location: the right riverbank of the Sălaş River
3. Lithology: clay
4. Sample characteristics:
a.date: 11.08.2005
b.humidity: 15.1%
c.main minerals: hydromuscovite (41%), quartz (31%),
chlorite (20%),
d.secondary minerals: sodic feldspate (4%), iron
hydroxides (3%), dolomite/calcite (traces)
5. Slope: convex, right
6. Slope: 10°
7. Exposure: N
8. Vegetation: agricultural crops
9. Geomorphic processes: rill erosion
10.Transport: local, on the slope
11.Distance to:
a.The closest house – not the case
b.The closest river – 170 m
c.The closest road – 140 m
12.Affected infrastructure: none

14. NATURAL HAZARDS IN ŢARA HAŢEGULUI
B.B. RIVER BANK PROCESSESRIVER BANK PROCESSES
Sibişel River
Muncel River
Crivadia River
C.C. PROCESSES RELATED TO THEPROCESSES RELATED TO THE
RAU MARERAU MARE--RETEZAT HYDROENERGETICAL SYSTEMRETEZAT HYDROENERGETICAL SYSTEM
Păclişa Artificial Lake

15. Characteristics of lithology
Natural humidity Crystalline phasesCrystalline phases

16. Rock hardness
7%
6%
10%
22%
55%
Roci dure si foarte dure
Roci compacte
Roci consolidate
Roci slab consolidate
Roci neconsolidate

17. Landscape morphometry

18. Rainfall characteristics
0
50
100
150
200
250
I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII
cantitateadeprecipitatii(mm)
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999

19. The ANGOT Index
Number of consecutive rainy days
2%
55%
23%
12%
6%
0-1%
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Frecvenţa zilelor consecutive cu precipitaţii
(Păclişa, 1980-1999)
0 20 40 60 80
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Numarzileconsecutivecuploaie
Cantitatea de precipitatii (mm)
The relationship between consecutive rainy days and the rainfall amount (Păclişa, 1980-1999)

20. The influence of drainage upon the geomorphic processes
materials from the
slope
Rainfall erosion Sheet erosion Rainfall transport
capacity
Sheet erosion
transport capacity
Total amount of
eroded materials
Transport capacity
Materials on the foot
of the slope
E<T E>T
Erosion, transport and accumulation on a slope
Humidity index Sediment transport

21. Vegetation and its influence upon the geomorphic processes
rainfall
evaporation
accumulation
infiltration
soil humidity
underground
water
runoff
The water cycle on bare soil
(Greenway, 1987)
rainfall
leaves
stem
extraction
via the roots
roots
soil humidity
leakage via
de leaves
absorbtion and
accumulation
underground
water
absorbed water
evaporation
interception
infiltration
perspirationevaporation
runoff
The water cycle on soil with vegetation
(Greenway, 1987)
The hydric effects of vegetation on slope stability
(Greenway, 1987)
The mechanic effects of vegetation on slope stability
(Greenway, 1987)

22. Land use .....
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Baniţa
BaruMare
Densuş
GeneralBerthelot
Haţeg
Pui
Răchitova
RâudeMori
Sarmizegetusa
SălaşudeSus
SântămărieOrlea
Toteşti
Terenuriagricole
Păşuni
Fâneţe
Livezi
Land use Ţara Haţegului
Land use categories in Ţara Haţegului

23. ..... and its implications
Locality
Pasture
surface
(ha)
Total
biomass
Optimal
number of
cattle/bio
mass
Optimal
number of
cattle/month
Actual
cattle
amount
Optimal
number of
sheep/bio
mass
Optimal
number of
sheep/mounth
Actual
sheep
amount
Optimal
number
horses/bio
mass
Optimal
number of
horses/month
Actual
amount
horses*
Băniţa 2500 2500000 6944 1157 702 52083 8681 1950 4464 620 -
Baru Mare 2933 2933000 8147 1358 1099 61104 10184 1358 5238 727 -
Densuş 1700 1700000 4722 787 967 35417 5903 3397 3036 422 -
General
Berthelot
385 385000 1069 178 510 8021 1337 1200 688 95 -
Haţeg 908 908000 2522 420 913 18917 3153 990 1621 225 -
Pui 3789 3789000 10525 1754 2090 78938 13156 9400 6766 940 -
Răchitova 1038 1038000 2883 481 1070 21625 3604 1180 1854 257 -
Râu de Mori 402 402000 1117 186 1307 8375 1396 1976 718 100 -
Sarmizegetusa 1861 1861000 5169 862 550 38771 6462 1940 3323 462 -
Sălaşu de Sus 5911 5911000 16419 2737 1732 123146 20524 2461 10555 1466 -
Sântămărie
Orlea
1851 1851000 5142 857 1091 38563 6427 1188 3305 459 -
Toteşti 210 210000 583 97 536 4375 729 1098 375 52 -
* - not registred
Biomass capacity according to the animal distibution in Ţara Haţegului
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
Băniţa
Baru Mare
Densuş
General Berthelot
Haţeg
Pui
Răchitova
Râu de Mori
Sarmizegetusa
Sălaşu de Sus
Sântămărie Orlea
Toteşti
Animal pressure upon pastures in Ţara Haţegului (2003)

24. Landscape artificialization indices
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
BARU
GENERAL
BERTHELOT
DENSUS
PUI
RACHITOVA
RAUDEMORI
SARMIZEGETUSA
SALASUDESUS
SANTAMARIE
ORLEA
TOTESTI
Densitateapopulatiei(loc/Kmp)
1930
1956
1966
1977
1992
2003
Population density on administrative units in Ţara Haţegului
(1930-2003) (modified after Popa, 1999)
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
Băniţa
Baru Mare
Densuş
General Berthelot
Haţeg
Pui
Răchitova
Râu de Mori
Sarmizegetusa
Sălaşu de Sus
Sântămărie Orlea
Toteşti
pondere suprafaţă construită (%)
Build up areas (%) in Ţara Haţegului (2003)
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
BARU
DENSUS
GENERAL BERTHELOT
HATEG
PUI
RACHITOVA
RAU DE MORI
SARMIZEGETUSA
SALASU DE SUS
SANTAMARIE ORLEA
TOTESTI
Human pressure upon agricultural land (ha/loc.)
in Ţara Haţegului (2003)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
BARU
DENSUS
GENERAL BERTHELOT
HATEG
PUI
RACHITOVA
RAU DE MORI
SARMIZEGETUSA
SALASU DE SUS
SANTAMARIE ORLEA
TOTESTI
Human pressure upon pastures and meadows in Ţara Haţegului (2003)

25. ŢARA HAŢEGULUI – TO BE OR NOT TO BE VULNERABLE?
• SUSCEPTIBILITY
– The spatial component of hazards
– Implies uncertainty

26. Susceptibility to landslides
b
o
ni
ta
re
re
cl
a
sif
ic
ar
e
Lithology, land
use, soil
Morphometry
Landscape
artificialization
Field and lab data
Factor calculation
Land use,
lithology and
soil maps
Morphometric
maps
Slope susceptibility map
Integrated factor analysis
Overlapping
Geotechnical
analyses
Susceptibility analysis
Data
Methodology
Frequency ratio for landslides (example)

27. 0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
< 400 400-600 600-800 800-1100 1100-1500 >1500 (m)
ratadefrecventa
Elevation
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
0-2 2-6 6-17 17-32 >32 (º)
ratadefrecventa
Slope gradient
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
<0.5 0.5-1.0 1.0-1.5 1.5-2 >2 km/kmp
ratadefrecventa
Density depth
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
0-50 50-100 100-150 150-200 >200 (m)
ratadefrecventa
Fragmentation depth
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
plat N NE E SE S SV V NV
ratadefrecventa
Exposure
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
ratadefrecventa
Lithology
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
arealeartificializate
unitatiindustrialesi
comerciale
facilităţiagrement
terenuriarabile
vii
livezi
pasuni
terenuricultivatecomplexe
terenuriagricolecu
vegetatienaturala
padurifoioase
paduriconifere
padurimixte
pajistinaturale
mlastini
tufarisuri
terenurilipsitede
vegetatie
stancarii
terenurislabinierbate
terenuriinmlastinite
cursurideapa
lacuri
ratadefrecventa
Land use
Frequency analysis of the factors that influnce the processes

28. Susceptibility to landslides
• Very low susceptibility (0.14%)
• Low susceptibility (46.22%)
• Average susceptibility (28.61%)
• High susceptibility (17.10%)
• Very high susceptibility (7.93%)

29. Factors that influence the susceptibility to soil erosion
• Analytical Hierarchy Process

30. Susceptibility to soil erosion
• Very low susceptibility (18.40%)
• Low susceptibility (24.71%)
• Average susceptibility (23.49)
• High susceptibility (20%)
• Very high susceptibility (13.40%)

31. Susceptibility to the riverbank related processes
• Sinuosity index
0.90
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
Rachitova
Densus
Galbena
Pestenita
Zeicani-
RauMare
Nucsoara
Sibisel
Salas
Paros
RauAlb
ApaLazului
ParaulcelMare
RauBarbat
Barusorul
Muncel
ValeaRachita
Crivadia
Varatec
Banita
Strei
ApaRea
valoareIS
• River erosion:
QEM
60.0
58.1
01.0 ⋅=
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45
Râu Bărbat
Galbena
Râu Alb
Sibişel
Strei
Văratec
m/an
eroziune la
debit mediu
eroziune la
maluri pline
Comparative analysis at medium and bankfull discharge

32. Susceptibility to floods due to the RMR hydrological system

33. Elements at risk and their characteristics
• Attributes of the built environment
• Building characteristics
• Infrastructure
• Agricultural lands
• Animal breeding
• Non-structural elements (economy, culture and education, public services)
Vulnerability indices
- population (density, female density, percentage of children younger than 14)
- infrastructure and services (access to media, medical services, drinking water supplies)
46
48
50
52
54
Băniţa
Baru Mare
Densuş
Gral. Berthelot
Haţeg
Pui
Răchitova
Râu de Mori
Sarmizegetusa
Sălaşu de Sus
Sântămărie Orlea
Toteşti
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Băniţa
Baru Mare
Densuş
Gral. Berthelot
Haţeg
Pui
Răchitova
Râu de Mori
Sarmizegetusa
Sălaşu de Sus
Sântămărie Orlea
Toteşti
loc/kmp
0 4 8 12 16 20
Băniţa
Baru Mare
Densuş
Gral. Berthelot
Haţeg
Pui
Răchitova
Râu de Mori
Sarmizegetusa
Sălaşu de Sus
Sântămărie Orlea
Toteşti
(%)
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
Băniţa
Baru Mare
Densuş
Gral. Berthelot
Haţeg
Pui
Răchitova
Râu de Mori
Sarmizegetusa
Sălaşu de Sus
Sântămărie Orlea
Toteşti
număr locuinţe
abonamente
telefonie fixă
abonamente
radio
abonamente TV

34. Vulnerability to slope processes
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 200 400 600 800
(m)
valoareavulnerabilitatii
Vulnerability to landslides Vulnerability to erosion

35. Vulnerability to riverbank erosion
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 20 40 60 80 100 (m)
valoareavulnerabilitatii

36. Vulnerability to floods in the RMR hydrological system
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
conştientizarea hazardului
pregătire organizaţională
infrastructură şi facilităţi
rezilienţa
capital social
pregătire psihologică
pregătire la nivel familial
Preparadness in Ţara Haţegului
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 10 20 30 40 50 (km)
valoareavulnerabilitatii
Population vulnerability to floods
according to the their proximity to the source
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Băniţa
Baru Mare
Densuş
Gral.Berthelot
Haţeg
Pui
Răchitova
Râu de Mori
Sarmizegetusa
Sălaşu de Sus
Sântămărie Orlea
Toteşti
valoare (milioane lei)
Rezilience in Ţara Haţegului

37. Risk perception
hazard
F
I
L
T
E
R
population/
expert
evaluation
actions
taken
yes/no
R
E
Z
U
L
T
S
Personal characteristics
attitudes knowledge,
values,
beliefs
Mental model of risk perception (Surdeanu, Rus, Goţiu, 2007)
• Awareness
• Preparadness
• Way of action in case of disaster
• Inter-social relationships

38. Natural risk analysis: R = ∑ ∑⋅ VS
,

39. CONCLUSION
• such a study was extremely necessary because this area was very little studied, and
hazard assessments haven’t been done so far;
• the natural hazards that were taken into account were mainly geomorphic (related to slope processes
and river banks) and only additionally related to iminent floods in the Rau-Mare – Retezat
hydroenergetical system;
• the susceptibility can be classified in five categories (from very low to very high), but the magnitude of
the processes is not very large;
• population has a high and very high vulnerability because of the socio-economical conditions of this
rural area;
• the risk analysis was locality-orientated so that the decision makers can take it into consideration for
further management plans;
• although the magnitude of the processes is not very high, considering the calculated susceptibility,
there is extremely necessary to perform a permanent monitoring of the identified processes and for the
identification of new ones in order to make correct decisions;
• there is a huge need for a culture of risk by informing the population through various means about the
natural hazards that might affect their community and about the mitigation strategies that are
developed.

40. THANK YOU!