Why in the News
A study published on 28 October 2026 in the international journal Landslides (Springer) has presented a scenario-based assessment of potential ice-avalanche scenarios and downstream exposure from three hanging glaciers around the town of Badrinath (Chamoli, Uttarakhand). After the 2013 Kedarnath disaster, the question of identifying the future risk of Himalayan towns is important in both the exam and policy.
Key Facts (From the Journal's Abstract)
- The study: "Vulnerability assessment of hanging-glacier avalanches in Badrinath Township, Central Himalayas, India" - Landslides, 28 October 2026; DOI 10.1007/s10346-026-02868-w. Authors: Abhilash Gogineni, Anil V. Kulkarni, H. S. Negi, Anurag Sharma, Nandu Krishnan, Rais Ahmad and others. Note: the journal abstract does not make institutional affiliation clear; media reports link the study to DRDO, but this is not in the original abstract, so this article does not make that claim.
- Method: remote-sensing and model-based release-area/volume assessment; the RAMMS (Rapid Mass Movement Simulation) model; low, medium and high-mobility (Coulomb mu, turbulent xi) conditions.
- Site 2 the most dangerous of the three sites: potential release volume 5.89×10⁶ cubic metres; surface slope 34.57°, bed slope 30.64° - the most downstream exposure.
- Exposure in the high-mobility scenario: about 398 buildings (the journal's figure; a newspaper report's "400 buildings" is a rounding of the same), 2.66 km of transport infrastructure, 3.87 hectares of agricultural land and 15.57 hectares of forest - including a helipad and parking.
- Limited difference across mobility levels: differences of 2.3-6.7% in maximum height, 2.9-3.8% in pressure, 0.9-7.4% in deposition and 1.3-1.8% in velocity. That is, the runout is determined not by volume alone - channel geometry and the character of the terrain also control it.
- Recommendations: site-specific risk assessment, early-warning systems, land-use planning and community awareness.
Examination Perspective
GS-III (Environment/Disaster Management): Himalayan disaster risk, hanging glaciers and ice avalanches, modelling such as RAMMS, the context of Badrinath (Chamoli, Alaknanda valley). Mains angle: the role and limitations of scenario-based modelling in disaster-risk reduction; land-use planning. Prelims points: about 398 buildings, the most dangerous Site 2, the journal Landslides, the date 28 October 2026.
Limitation: this article is based on the journal's published abstract; the full paper was not read. Institutional affiliation is incomplete in the abstract - media reports link the study to DRDO, but this is not clear in the original abstract, so this claim is not made here. One newspaper report wrote "400 buildings", which is a rounding of the journal's 398 - the journal's figure is given here.
Mains Practice Question
"How can scenario-based ice-avalanche risk modelling change the disaster preparedness of Himalayan towns? Evaluate the role of land-use planning and early-warning systems with reference to the Badrinath study." (250 words, 15 marks)
Answer Outline
Introduction: Introduce the Badrinath study (Landslides, 28 October 2026) and the three hanging glaciers.
Main Body: (1) Assessment of release volume/runout/exposure through RAMMS modelling - 5.89×10⁶ cubic metres at Site 2, ~398 buildings; (2) the runout is controlled not by volume alone but also by channel geometry - so site-specific assessment is necessary; (3) land-use planning, early warning, community awareness; (4) limitations - model assumptions, data unavailability.
Conclusion: Emphasise the need to connect technical assessment to planning decisions.
Prelims Practice Questions
Question 1. Consider the following statements with reference to scenario-based assessment of ice-avalanche risk:
Statement 1: Release volume, runout and downstream exposure are assessed under low, medium and high-mobility conditions.
Statement 2: The runout of an ice avalanche is determined only by its release volume.
Which of the above statements are correct?
(a) Both Statement 1 and Statement 2 are correct
(b) Statement 1 is correct, but Statement 2 is not correct
(c) Statement 1 is not correct, but Statement 2 is correct
(d) Both Statement 1 and Statement 2 are not correct
Answer and Explanation
Answer: (b) Statement 1 is correct, but Statement 2 is not correct. In the study, release area/volume, runout and downstream exposure were assessed with the RAMMS (Rapid Mass Movement Simulation) model in low, medium and high-mobility conditions (Coulomb mu, turbulent xi) - Statement 1 is correct. The differences between mobility levels in maximum height, pressure, deposition and velocity remained limited (2.3-6.7%, 2.9-3.8%, 0.9-7.4%, 1.3-1.8% respectively), that is, the runout is controlled not by volume alone but also by channel geometry and the character of the terrain - Statement 2 is not correct.
Question 2. Consider the following statements with reference to ice-avalanche risk reduction in Himalayan towns:
Statement 1: The runout of an ice avalanche is controlled not only by release volume but also by channel geometry and the character of the terrain, so site-specific risk assessment is necessary.
Statement 2: Early-warning systems, land-use planning and community awareness are components of risk reduction.
Which of the above statements is/are correct?
(a) Only 1
(b) Only 2
(c) Both 1 and 2
(d) Neither 1 nor 2
Answer and Explanation
Answer: (c) Both 1 and 2. In the study, the differences across mobility levels were found limited and the control of channel geometry and the character of the terrain on runout was shown - from this comes the recommendation of site-specific risk assessment (Statement 1 is correct). The recommendations include early-warning systems, land-use planning and community awareness (Statement 2 is correct).
Question 3. Of the three hanging-glacier sites, which is described as the most dangerous, and why?
(a) Site 1 - the greatest ice thickness
(b) Site 2 - the greatest potential release volume and downstream exposure
(c) Site 3 - the lowest slope
(d) All three carry equal risk
Answer and Explanation
Answer: (b) Site 2 - the greatest potential release volume and downstream exposure. Site 2's potential release volume is 5.89×10⁶ cubic metres, surface slope 34.57° and bed slope 30.64°, and the downstream exposure is the greatest. The study also shows that the runout is controlled not by volume alone but also by channel geometry and terrain.
Sources
Download This Article: PDF