Next Article in Journal
Kinetics of White Soft Minerals (WSMs) Decomposition under Conditions of Interest for Astrobiology: A Theoretical and Experimental Study
Next Article in Special Issue
Application of a Real-Time Tsunami Forecast System to the Disaster Response of Local Governments during a Major Tsunami Disaster
Previous Article in Journal
The Use of Gigapixel Photogrammetry for the Understanding of Landslide Processes in Alpine Terrain
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Marine Geohazards: A Bibliometric-Based Review

by
João M. R. Camargo
*,
Marcos V. B. Silva
,
Antônio V. Ferreira Júnior
and
Tereza C. M. Araújo
Department of Oceanography, Federal University of Pernambuco, Recife 50740-550, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Geosciences 2019, 9(2), 100; https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences9020100
Submission received: 1 January 2019 / Revised: 31 January 2019 / Accepted: 11 February 2019 / Published: 21 February 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Marine Geohazards: New Insights and Perspectives)

Abstract

:
Marine geohazard research has developed during recent decades, as human activities intensified towards deeper waters. Some recent disastrous events (e.g., the 2004 Indian Ocean and 2011 Japan tsunamis) highlighted geohazards socioeconomic impacts. Marine geohazards encompass an extensive list of features, processes, and events related to Marine Geology. In the scientific literature there are few systematic reviews concerning all of them. Using the search string ‘geohazard*’, this bibliometric-based review explored the scientific databases Web of Science and Scopus to analyze the evolution of peer-reviewed scientific publications and discuss trends and future challenges. The results revealed qualitative and quantitative aspects of 183 publications and indicated 12 categories of hazards, the categories more studied and the scientific advances. Interdisciplinary surveys focusing on the mapping and dating of past events, and the determination of triggers, frequencies, and current perspectives of occurrence (risk) are still scarce. Throughout the upcoming decade, the expansion and improvement of seafloor observatories’ networks, early warning systems, and mitigation plans are the main challenges. Hazardous marine geological events may occur at any time and the scientific community, marine industry, and governmental agencies must cooperate to better understand and monitor the processes involved in order to mitigate the resulting unpredictable damages.

1. Introduction

Geohazards are disasters induced by natural processes or human activity [1]. According to [2], marine geohazards include any feature or process that could harm, endanger, or affect seafloor facilities, risers, anchors, etc. Additionally, the facilities can be designed to avoid or withstand some geohazards. Marine geohazards can also be a local and/or regional site and soil conditions having a potential to develop into seafloor failure events, which cause losses of life or damage to health, environment, or field installations [3]. In this review, we will consider as a marine geohazard any and all features, processes, or geological events that affect the marine environment and are capable of damaging submerged and coastal infrastructures, causing the loss of human lives, including natural obstacles avoided during the planning phase of submarine pipeline and communication cable routes. Therefore, hurricanes, tropical storms, snowstorms, forest fires, typhoons, and floods represent natural disasters that do not fit into the concept of a geohazard used here.
Various geological processes and features can inflict hazards [4]. Some of them are well known due to their great destructive power. These include earthquakes, volcanoes, landslides, and associated tsunamis [5]. Others generally do not cause direct damage to societies but can affect engineered structures. These include pockmarks, mud volcanoes, and mobile bedforms [6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13]. Some manifest themselves on the surface of the seafloor, while others are concerned with processes that occur in the subsurface. This range of possibilities makes it uncommon for a single scientific peer-reviewed publication to investigate all categories of marine geohazards, except for a few conceptual or review articles [11,14,15].
Marine geohazard surveys have become increasingly relevant as exploration activities expand into deeper waters [4,16]. Some geohazards can generate damages to engineering structures, whose remediation is quite difficult, especially in very deep waters. Such difficulty justifies all efforts directed to geophysical surveys [17]. Generally, geohazard assessments are multi-disciplinary surveys, which involve expertise in geology, geophysics, sedimentology, geotechnics, fluid dynamics, and structural mechanics modeling [17,18]. To identify marine geohazards and the constraints on seabed infrastructure, the seafloor surface and subsurface data (bathymetry, seabed morphology, geology, geotechnical, and environmental assessments) must be combined [19,20].
In particular, for the marine industry, the geohazard surveys are essential for engineering the design, planning, and installation of infrastructures. Offshore drilling operations, especially those in deep water, are characteristically complex, expensive, and exhibit potentially challenging conditions [21]. At the beginning of the century, it was estimated that oil and gas companies spent around $20 billion annually on drilling and that nearly 15% of this amount was attributed to losses of material and days of work at sea [22]. Therefore, it is vital that drilling hazard preliminary assessments be performed with technical rigor, in the sense of identifying potential areas of shallow gas and any other geological limitations to drilling. Consequences of geohazards for drilling operations include loss of the rig from blowouts or punch-through, foundation scour, and shallow water flow.
The advancement of deep-water exploration activities, the uncertainties surrounding the consequences of climate change, the latest catastrophic events (e.g., the 2004 India Ocean and 2011 Japan tsunamis), and the human population densities in the world’s coastal regions were responsible for the increased importance and awareness related to marine geohazard research. This context of the growing importance of marine geohazard surveys encouraged the use of bibliometric methods in order to register and analyze the evolution of peer-reviewed published scientific data related to this topic. These methods have been used to determine patterns of knowledge diffusion and scientific advances, based on the premise that scientific publications are the essential result of such activity [23]. In this way, the aims of this paper are to develop a bibliometric overview of this subject, discuss quantitative and qualitative aspects of peer-reviewed scientific publications related to marine geohazards and identify trends and future challenges. The purpose of this review is also to gather general information and important references concerning the diversity of marine geohazards in a single scientific publication.

2. Materials and Methods

Bibliometrics is the quantitative study of either physical published units, bibliographic units, or surrogates [24]. Therefore, bibliometric methods are used for providing quantitative analysis for written publications [25]. Currently, it is common to use scientific databases that allow searches across large collections of scientific publications in order to access these publications and to obtain further information about them [23,26,27,28]. These databases (for scientific articles) also offer the ability to download sets of articles that include information that is suitable for bibliometric analysis, such as references, the organizations the authors belong to, etc. Furthermore, bibliometric methods can be used to define trends within many areas and over extended periods of time [25,26].
A systematic review of peer-reviewed literature was undertaken to develop an overview of marine geohazards research based on scientific articles published in the Web of Science and Scopus. These databases are recognized for gathering a large collection of scientific publications and are, therefore, commonly explored in bibliometric analyses [29,30,31,32]. A systematic protocol was applied and allowed to answer the following questions: What was studied? By whom? Where? When? How? It is noteworthy that this review has a generalist character, i.e., is based on the search string ‘geohazard*’ to the detriment of all related features, processes, and events individually, e.g., ‘Tsunami*’, ‘Submarine landslide*’, etc.
The searches were performed on 05/26/2017 with the search string ‘geohazard*’ (title, keywords, abstract) and resulted in 570 and 816 results for the Web of Science and Scopus, respectively. The exclusion criteria were applied to papers related to terrestrial environments, articles that were not peer-reviewed (considered therefore as gray literature) and the duplicity (i.e., articles that appeared in the Web of Science and Scopus results simultaneously). Articles that could not be accessed were also eliminated from this analysis.
After the application of exclusion criteria, 183 peer-reviewed publications remained. This small number of publications allowed a detailed reading of each one, in order to extract the following data:
-
Title of the Article;
-
Year of Publication;
-
Ocean;
-
Geographic Scale;
-
Depth Range;
-
Type of Continental Margin;
-
Number of Authors;
-
Nationality of the First Author;
-
Number of Institutions;
-
Type of Institution of the First Author;
-
Partnerships between Government, Academia, and Marine Industry;
-
Perspective;
-
Approach;
-
Analysis, Instruments, and Techniques;
-
Type of Marine Geohazard.
We do not present a complete overview of all case studies, but all of them were read by at least two co-authors and the collected data were grouped as Time and Space, Institutional Arrangement, Research Characteristics, and Geohazards, see Figure 1.
The data tabulated by pairs were crossed in order to check some disagreement between the co-authors and to guarantee a better quality of the obtained results. After this validation, the data were plotted and analyzed to identify trends and future challenges. Finally, it is worth mentioning that research on the evolution of marine geohazard was not restricted to the 183 articles rescued by the search protocol described here. This was because the concept of ‘marine geohazard’ is later than the first studies of events like submarine landslides, earthquakes, and tsunamis. Therefore, one limitation of this review was a partial inclusion of articles concerning marine geohazards. The definitions and protocols applied to each group of extracted data are described below.

2.1. Time and Space

The spatiotemporal distribution of the reviewed articles was investigated with regard to the number of publications per year, the country of the first author, the ocean studied, the type of continental margin analyzed, the geographical scale of the research, as well as the depth range involved. In order to determine the studied ocean, the 102 marine regions delimited by [33] and the Caspian Sea were grouped in 10 regions, see Figure 2.
Additionally, regarding the spatial distribution of the marine geohazards studies, when possible, the information regarding the continental margin type (active, passive, or both) was registered. In the geographical scale, areas greater than 100 km2 were considered a regional scale and smaller areas as a local scale. Regarding the depth range, depths up to 100 m were defined as shallow water, depths between 100 and 2500 m as intermediate waters, and depths greater than 2500 m as deep waters.

2.2. Institutional Arrangement

The analysis of institutional arrangements involved the determination of the number of authors and institutions involved in each article, as well as their nature (industry, government, or academia) and the occurrence of partnerships between these sectors. Co-authorship or any other type of support, such as specific software licenses, data collection, and analysis were characterized as a partnership.

2.3. Research Characterization

This characterization involved defining the research perspective as: Technical, Social, Economic, Environmental, or a combination of these. The protocol applied to do this included a standard, so articles that were related to tsunamis and earthquakes were compulsorily characterized as a Social perspective. Economic and Environmental perspectives were associated to peer-reviewed publications that mentioned any type of exploitation of energy or mineral resource, as well as if the article mentioned the conservation or protection of environmental resources or specific ecosystems, respectively.
Moreover, the publications were classified according to their approach as, conceptual, modeling, review, mapping, laboratory, geotechnical, geological dating, or a combination of these. According to the instruments and techniques involved, the classes were; i. Surface with acoustic methods (single and multibeam bathymetry, side scan sonar), ii. Subsurface with acoustic and other geophysical methods (2D and 3D seismic profiling, gravimetry, magnetometry, paleomagnetism, borehole), iii. Geological sampling (sediments, cores, wells, laboratory analysis, stratigraphy, dating), iv. Geotechnical: direct measurements (cone penetration tests), v. Reviews (concepts), or a combination of these.

2.4. Geohazards

The geohazards investigated in each peer-reviewed publication were registered and tabulated in order to evaluate their occurrence over the period in question. The frequency with which some marine geohazards were recorded in the articles analyzed was considered an indicator of the scientific effort focused to investigate a particular geological feature, process, or event. After registering them all, the geohazards cited in each article were grouped into distinct groups or categories according to their similarity. For example, outcrops, mounds, ridges, seamounts, and volcanic highs were classified as positive reliefs, in contrast, canyons, steep slope, channels, gullies, escarpments, and iceberg plow marks were defined as negative reliefs.

3. Results

3.1. Time and Space

The 183 peer-reviewed publications included in this analysis were published between 1982 and 2016, distributed irregularly with some discontinuities near the end of the 20th century. In each year, the minimum and maximum number of publications were 1 and 25, respectively. Viewing the publications frequency graph over the years, the occurrence of three distinct periods is evident, in which the trend in the volume of papers is shown to be increasing, see Figure 3.
The country of the first author, contained in the address informed by the same, was attended by 24 different nationalities, among which the USA, UK, Norway, Italy, Germany, Canada, France, and Spain were the most productive, see Figure 4.
The research was distributed across all 10 delimited regions and there was an emphasis on the number of surveys conducted in the Mediterranean (37), North Atlantic (31), Artic (22), North Pacific (21), and the Gulf of Mexico (17). Fewer scientific studies were found around Antarctica (1), the South Atlantic (4), and the Caribbean Sea (4), see Figure 5.
Regarding the types of continental margins, there was no predominance of either type, see Figure 6A. Surveys of marine geohazards were conducted in both active and passive margins. In an active continental margin, the hazards studied were usually related to earthquakes, subsidence, and tsunamis, events associated with converging plates. However, passive margins showed an occurrence of other groups of geohazards that include landslides, pockmarks, and gas hydrates.
In only 40% of the articles, it was possible to extract information regarding the geographical scale of the research, 32% were classified as a regional scale (with survey areas greater than 100 km2), and only 8% of the articles covered areas that were smaller than 100 km2 (local scale), see Figure 6B. In relation to the depth range, this information was obtained directly from only 40.27% of the 183 articles analyzed here. However, the articles that involved surveys between 100 and 2500 m (intermediate waters) stood out with 31.22%. Meanwhile, shallow water surveys (0 to 100 m) and deep waters (>2500 m) corresponded to 16.74% and 11.76%, respectively, as shown in Figure 6C. Peer-reviewed publications with marine geohazard surveys at depths beyond 3000 m are scarce, probably due to the costs and technical complexities involved in operations of geophysical and geotechnical surveys, see Figure 6D.
The data indicated without doubt the growth, evolution, and territorial expansion related to the research on marine geohazards. The USA is the most productive country over the total period however there is an increase in the contributions of others countries, especially in recent decades. The increase in the participation of European countries is also remarkable. Marine geohazard surveys in the Mediterranean Sea were more frequent and this sea was the most studied, see Figure 5 and Figure 7. For example, the publications by Italian authors revealed the impact of scientific efforts to recognize the geohazards along the Italian continental margin [34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41], one of the most seismically active regions in the central Mediterranean and the longest record of historical earthquakes in the world [41].

3.2. Institutional Arrangement

Regarding the composition of author’s institutions, was assumed that the number and type of institutions in each publication was an indicative of efforts in a cooperation mode between industry, academia and government. The marine industry best practices require an imperative arrangement of interdisciplinary teams. Articles involving one, two, or three institutions were more common, 49.1%, 24.04%, and 10.38%, respectively, and articles with more institutions were scarce, see Figure 8A. Over the interval, the cooperation between institutions has become common, probably due the demand of integrated approach, common for marine geohazards surveys (Figure 8B). However, in relation to the number of authors, almost 50% of the publications had more than three authors, mainly in recent years (Figure 9). Regarding the type of institution associated with the first author, there was a predominance of academia (46.99%), followed by governmental institutions (33.33%), and to a lesser extent, by the industrial sector (16.97%) (Figure 10).
Finally, 44.8% of the articles did not involve a partnership between these sectors, while the partnership between two and three sectors was found in 43.16% and 12.02% of the articles, respectively, see Figure 11A. During the period analyzed, cooperation between academia, industry, and government became more common, see Figure 11B, probably as a way to overcome the difficulties imposed by the high operational costs inherent to these surveys. Since the 1990s, partnerships are consider fundamental in the development and progress of this area of research [3].

3.3. Research Characterization

In the analyzed articles, the technical and economic perspectives were highlighted to the detriment of the social and environmental perspectives, see Figure 12A. In relation to this approach, most articles that involved mapping, modeling, and review were registered; however, articles that utilized geotechnical measurements, conceptual, laboratory, and geological dating were rarer, see Figure 12B. Finally, with respect to the instruments and techniques, articles that involved geophysical techniques for subsurface and surface mapping, and geological sampling were predominant. The number of publications related to reviews, concepts and geotechnical aspects was smaller (Figure 12C).
Regarding the perspectives, most of the analyzed publications presented technical and economic ones. In the first phase, many articles discussed the economical use of gas hydrates [42,43,44,45,46,47]. Only in the third phase did the number of articles concerning tsunamis, earthquakes, climate change, and marine conservation increased [48,49] (Figure 13). Marine geohazards have always existed; however, only with the advent of acoustic mapping systems they were recognized, systematically mapped, and studied. Therefore, over a long period, scientific papers presented approaches focused on mapping (Figure 14). Throughout the most recent decades, the number of articles concerning the development of mathematical models, geotechnical measurements, data collection in laboratories, and dating has become gradually more representative, which indicates the tendency for maturation of the discussions in this subject area. Throughout the 35-year period covered in this analysis, it is obvious that equipment and techniques have undergone improvement, and today it is possible to investigate marine geohazards with greater accuracy, precision, and resolution. However, during the 1990s, the number of articles that involved the seafloor surface and subsurface mapping were predominant, and there was ample use of acoustic methods for multi-beam bathymetry and high seismic resolution, see Figure 15. Geological sampling and geotechnical measurements were rare [46,47,50,51]. During the second and third phases, this scenario evolved in the sense that geological sampling, geotechnical measurements, and reviews became more common.

3.4. Geohazards

There were 676 records of marine geohazards cited on the 183 peer-reviewed publications retrieved, which were expressed in a wide variety of geological features, processes, and events. According to their nature and in a generic way, the identified geohazards were grouped into 12 categories, see Table 1 and Figure 16, Figure 17 and Figure 18.
The importance of the oil and gas industry in boosting scientific research that was related to marine geohazards is evident, primarily during the first phase, when most articles involved the study of fluids seepage, slope failure, faulting, and diapirs, as shown in Figure 16. To a lesser extent, these articles involved the investigation of bedforms, positive, and negative reliefs. The occurrence of studies on earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanism, and erosion was rare. By the second and third phases, diversification was the rule, with an emphasis on investigations on slope failure, fluid seepage, tsunami, faulting, negative reliefs, and earthquakes.
The categories are described below. Being in common, the interaction between more than one, that is, in some cases, a category described here is the trigger of another one, in a causal relation. Tsunamis, for example, can be generated by earthquakes, flank collapse of volcanic islands, as well as by slope failures. On the other hand, slope failures can occur due to earthquakes, volcanism, and fluids seepage. Earthquakes can trigger tsunamis and fluid seepage and tsunamis can lead to severe erosion in coastal areas.

3.4.1. Slope Failure

The original discovery of slope failures and turbidity currents in the deep ocean was made in the 1950s through an analysis of the breaks in transoceanic communications cables [52]. This geohazard was the most studied among the peer-reviewed publications and was cited in 22.23% of them, which is indicative of its widespread occurrence along continental margins and its socioeconomic impacts. For example, at present, a global fiber-optic cable network transmits more than 95% of communications and is subject to severe damage due to the occurrence of submarine landslides [52]. According to [52], the main factors that contribute to the initiation of submarine landslides are i. Rapid sedimentation rates, ii. Gas and gas hydrates, iii. Erosion, iv. Groundwater seepage, v. Tectonic activity, vi. Earthquakes, vii. Storm-waves, viii. Volcanic activity and ix. Human activity.
Since the early 1980s, national and international projects were related to the study of slope failures [53,54,55]. Due to their easy identification, their wide occurrence along the continental margins is increasingly evident [54]. Slope failures represent a major threat, not only to the marine industry but also to the marine environment and coastal facilities [1]. They can lead to substrata instability and produce catastrophic losses in deep-water drilling and deep-sea cable and pipeline construction [4,17,56,57,58,59]. Moreover, submarine landslides can generate devastating tsunamis [60,61,62,63,64].
Compared to subaerial landslides, the submarine failures generally occur with higher velocities, greater volume, and longer run-out distances [15,64,65]. These events play an important role in the evolution of continental margins as they represent an efficient mechanism of sediment transport from coastal to deep-sea [53,66]. The great scale of some continental slope landslides may be due to the long and continuous slopes found on these margins and due to extensive weak horizons in the layer-cake stratigraphy [64]. However, submarine landslides are not restricted to areas of steep slopes and may occur on surfaces with a slope of less than 2° [67,68,69].

3.4.2. Fluids Seepage

Seabed fluid flow is the second most investigated category of geohazard in the analyzed publications (20.25%) and is known by humans for centuries [70]. Generally, such processes include the leakage of water, light hydrocarbons (in particular methane), and/or sediments. The use of acoustic techniques to detect gas emissions escaping through the seabed into the water column has dramatically increased in recent decades [71], and several pieces of seismo-morphological evidence are recognized to support fluid flow [72]. Evidence of this marine geohazard includes surface features, such as pockmarks, carbonate mounds, and mud volcanoes, and also subsurface features, such as gas chimney, gassy sediments and gas hydrate, and even by acoustic ‘plumes’, ‘flames’, and ‘clouds’ in the water column [70,71,73].
Pockmarks are depressions on the seabed with underlying fluid conduits such as gas chimneys and faults [74]. King et al. [75] used the first acoustic mapping system and published the first scientific paper related to pockmarks. Pockmark dimensions range from a few meters to 300 m or more in diameter and from 1 m to 80 m in depth [76]. Pockmarks are common, both in shallow and deep water, in deltas, estuaries, and even in some lakes [77]. The occurrence of pockmarks is an indication of shallow fluid flow activity, which constitutes a potential geohazard to hydrocarbon exploration and production activities [7,9,12]. According to [13], the presence of pockmarks should be taken into consideration when installing the anchors of drilling vessels and offshore platforms because pockmarks may indicate the presence of gas and may contain hard carbonate skins.
Another feature related to fluid seepage is mud volcanoes, which are geological structures formed due to the emission of argillaceous material on the Earth’s surface or the seafloor [78,79]. Submarine mud volcanoes occur in both active and passive margins [6,8,10] and are related to the upward migration of over-pressured fluids, which cause liquefaction of mud-rich units, and episodic extrusions of solids, liquids, and gases [80,81]. There are large variations in the size and geometries, as well as the sources, of fluids and sediments expelled by mud volcanoes [78,82]. Mud volcanoes can have discrete eruptive events or periods of eruption that expel massive amounts of fine-grained sediments in periods that last for hours or centuries [79]. These events are potential geohazards for deep-marine infrastructures [10], as they may affect drilling operations, ring installations, and pipeline routings [4,8].
Pockmarks and mud volcanoes are the superficial expression of seabed fluid flow and are related to chimneys and geological faults [83]. However, there are situations in which the gas contained in the subsurface does not find trajectories for escape, which sets a dangerous scenario, especially for drilling operations. Usually, shallow gas is a term used to characterize the gas buried in shallow sediments [84,85]. Shallow water flow is a term used by the offshore oil and gas industry to define the flow of sand and water mixtures into wells and blowouts of water that is driven by high pressure after drilling hits over-pressured sand layers. According to [86], shallow gas identification and assessment is one of the most important tasks in a geohazard evaluation. Gas in the shallow subsurface can undermine an offshore structure, or cause a gas blowout that can result in property and investment losses and loss of life.
Another important feature that is related to fluid seepage is gas hydrates, which are an ice-like crystalline compound that is formed by gas and water molecules under low temperatures and high pressure [87]. Based in scientific ocean drilling, research on coring and downhole logging operations, carried out by the Deep Sea Drilling Project (DSDP), Ocean Drilling Project (ODP), International Ocean Drilling Project (IODP), government agencies, and several consortia, has significantly improved our understanding of how methane hydrates occur in nature [88].
Gas hydrates are considered a potential energy source and a source of methane, a greenhouse gas that affects climate changes and marine geohazards [51,89,90]. The risk posed by gas hydrates is related to their dissociation (“melting”). Theoretical and laboratory evidence suggests that dissociation of gas hydrates will result in increased fluid pressure, dilation of the sediments, and the development of gas bubbles, all of which will substantially weaken the sediments and could be responsible for the triggering of submarine slopes failure [89]. However, more work is needed to create a better understanding of the impact of hydrates on safety and seafloor stability, as well as to provide data that can be used by scientists to study climate change, geohazards, and to assess the feasibility of methane hydrates as a potential future energy resource [88]. In deep-water oil and gas exploration and development, gas hydrates are an important risk to drilling wells and platform stability. Gas hydrates in shallow sediments can trap fluids and destabilize slopes, posing a potential risk to industrial well drilling operations and installations [74,91].

3.4.3. Earthquake

An earthquake is a sudden movement of the Earth crust, caused by an abrupt release of strain that has accumulated over a long period. This marine geohazard was investigated in 9.2% of the analyzed dataset. Earthquakes are geological events that were recognized even in ancient times, in all cultures. According to [92], the earliest register of an earthquake was in the 23rd century B.C. in China. The hazard from earthquakes is primarily due to large (typically a magnitude of 6.5 or greater) earthquakes [93]. Earthquakes are among the most damaging events caused by the Earth and pose a serious threat to lives and property for urban areas near major active faults on land, or subduction zones offshore [94].
Earthquakes and their related hazards are predicted to have claimed >2.5 million lives during the 21st century [95], and their predictions represent a scientific problem worldwide [96]. This marine geohazard deserves its prominence because, depending on the magnitude and depth of an earthquake, it can trigger slope failures [97], tsunamis [98], and gas seepage [7,99].
The Sumatra-Andaman earthquake on 26 December 2004 occurred at a depth of 30 km and lasted for about 10 min, which generated one of the most devastating tsunamis in recorded history. More than 283,000 people have been killed in the coastal regions of 13 Indian Ocean countries [100].
The 2011 earthquake, off the Pacific Coast of Tohoku (2011 Tohoku-oki), was also one of the largest earthquakes in recorded history and had a moment magnitude (Mw) greater than 9 [101]. The earthquake generated a large and destructive tsunami that hit the Pacific coast of NE Japan and caused extensive damage. In addition, earthquakes can generate local damage such as cable breaks [97,102] and, in the case of tsunamis, impact distant regions on another margin of an ocean basin.

3.4.4. Tsunami

This marine geohazard was investigated in 10% of the articles reviewed and mainly in those published after 2010. Tsunamis occur infrequently compared to many other natural hazards [98]. The converging margins around the world are major areas that generate the most devastating earthquakes and tsunamis [103]. Earthquakes [100,101] caused the most destructive tsunamis in recent history, however, in some parts of the globe the major causes of catastrophic tsunamis were non-seismic and included landslides, volcanic activity, atmospheric disturbances, and meteorite impacts [98].
Massive submarine landslides register on active and passive continental margins, and tsunamis that occurred without an earthquake event stimulated investigations concerning slope failures as a potential contributor to tsunami generation [63,104,105,106,107,108,109]. However, there is still much controversy regarding the tsunamis triggers, as earthquakes and fault ruptures that are not very intense can generate submarine landslides that can generate tsunamis [98,110,111,112,113,114].

3.4.5. Volcanism

Discussed in 2.5% of the dataset analyzed, this category of marine geohazard is related to submarine eruptions and volcanic island flank collapse. Shallow seamounts and volcanic islands may eventually be subject to underwater eruptions as the volcanic edifice evolves [115,116,117]. Explosive activity at seamounts may begin at abyssal depths, but it is most pronounced at eruption depths that are shallower than 700 m [115]. During this process of growth, destructive periods also occur, which are related to the eventual collapse of the flanks in the volcanic edifice [118]. The cause of these collapses is due to the continuous accumulation of volcanic material that at some point renders the slope unstable [119,120].
This dynamic is responsible for the common occurrence of features that are related to landslides along volcanic islands, such as Hawaii [121,122,123], Réunion Island [124], Canary Islands [125], and Cape Verde Islands [126,127]. According to [115], collapse features are most prominent in the largest seamounts and islands with well-established and long-lived magmatic plumbing systems. Such events result in catastrophic tsunamis that may have run-ups that reach inland to localities up to 400 m above sea level, which constitutes a major ocean-basin-wide natural hazard [120,128].
A key question regarding tsunami generation is whether volcanic island landslides occur in a single stage or multiple stages [118]. If gaps in time of even a few minutes separate discrete stages of failure, then the tsunami magnitude is reduced greatly [124]. Models simulate the resulting tsunami generation and propagation [129,130,131,132,133,134].

3.4.6. Subsidence

This category of marine geohazard was mentioned in only 4.3% of the analyzed articles and was related to two different geological processes. One of them is the characteristic subsidence of converging continental margins that is responsible for the long-range phenomenon known as vanished islands, which is common in the Pacific Ocean [135,136]. Another process is the subsidence of coastal areas (such as the deltas) exposed to a high sedimentation rate [137]. The impact of this geohazard is slow and gradual, generally with a reduced potential for material damage and loss of life.

3.4.7. Bedforms

Discussed in 3.3% of the analyzed articles, this category of marine geohazard is related to environments exposed to hydrodynamic forcing (wind-driven, tidal, and thermohaline currents), capable of generating mobile bedforms [138,139]. Mobile bedforms are of critical engineering importance in the placement of submarine pipelines and cables [140]. According to [141], the presence of mobile bedforms implies specific challenges because the stability of a marine pipeline, which is exposed to lateral currents, is one of the major concerns of the pipeline engineer. These challenges also include the potential exposure, or undermining, of buried foundations, the development of free-spans beneath pipelines, and excessive burial of thermally sensitive power cables [142,143,144].

3.4.8. Positive Reliefs

This category of geohazard was quoted in 10.9% of the scientific articles and is represented by positive topographic features such as reefs, outcrops, beachrocks, mounds, and ridges. These features represent natural obstacles that should be avoided in engineering projects that involve the definition of pipelines routes, telecommunications cables, or any other infrastructure to be installed next to the seafloor [141,145].

3.4.9. Negative Reliefs

This group of marine geohazard is related to channels, canyons, gullies, and steep slopes, and was discussed in 9.8% of the articles reviewed. Some topographic features pose risks to pipelines and submarine cables and the cable route should, as much as possible, avoid them [146]. Negative reliefs, especially on the continental slope, are considered conduits for sediment transport, and evolve through geological time, channelizing sediment gravity flows that are derived primarily from the canyon head or canyon flanks failures [147]. Therefore, submarine canyons and channels are commonly associated with slope failures [148,149,150], sediment gravity flows [151,152], and mobile bedforms [153].

3.4.10. Diapirs

Mentioned in 10.3% of the articles analyzed, salt and mud diapirs are intrusions of sedimentary rocks into the overlying sedimentary sequence that usually imply deformations in the seafloor [154]. Several salt provinces are located on passive continental margins (e.g., the Gulf of Mexico, numerous West African margins, the margin offshore Brazil, and the margin offshore Nova Scotia) [155].
The loading of the overlying sediment is responsible for the deformation of the salt flow and its direction toward the surface (through the sedimentary layers) as fingers of salt (diapirs). Salt diapirs may generate outcrops (salt domes) on the surface of the seafloor, which, in turn, may interfere with the stability of engineering structures. However, in addition to these positive reliefs, salt tectonics are also responsible for the formation of structural lows, which is caused by salt or shale evacuation: mini-basins [156]. The relief that is related to salt diapirism processes is, therefore, irregular and prone to deformations, which imposes challenges to the installation of engineering structures.
Another risk associated with salt diapirs is associated with drilling operations, since evaporitic rocks present great mobility when submitted to large deviatoric tensions and elevated temperatures, which can lead to (during the drilling phase) well closing, drill column entrapment, and the creation of mechanical stops, and caves by salt dissolution by drilling fluid [157].
Mud diapirs/volcanos are also related to this group and are commonly produced by the release of high-pressure fluids [11], which can seriously reduce sediment shear strength and cause shallow sediment deformations that affect seabed installations and trigger submarine slope failure [74].

3.4.11. Faulting

Discussed in 11.5% of the analyzed articles, this group of marine geohazard is related to tectonic events, which can trigger earthquakes and tsunamis [158]. Active faults are susceptible to ground surface ruptures that can compromise pipelines and submarine cables [159,160]. Seabed forms that indicate pre-existing seabed instability, surface displacements, or fluid escapes are conditions that pose a significant risk to oil and gas exploration and development can result in construction and operational problems if not properly investigated, assessed, and mitigated [161]. Therefore, active failures have been mapped and investigated to determine the level of their activity (recurrence times, displacements, slip rates) in the context of seismic hazard assessments [114,162,163,164,165,166,167,168].
Some ground surface ruptures may be due to halokinesis, which are called salt-influenced faults [169,170,171]. According to [172], these faults, in the context of the oil and gas industry, (1) pose significant difficulties during borehole drilling, (2) increase local risks in terms of local slope stability, and (3) may generate fluid-migration paths that potentially contribute to the escape of hydrocarbons in evolving reservoir units to growing diapirs. Under these circumstances, it is also common that failures are associated with fluid seepage [83,86,99,173,174,175]. Sub-surface fault zones may provide preferential conduits for gas migration, or may be hydraulically active during (or shortly after) earthquakes [99].

3.4.12. Erosion

Discussed in only 1.5% of the analyzed articles, this group of marine geohazard was related to: (1) coastal cliff and sandy shore erosion and retreat [15,176,177,178,179,180], (2) the processes of evolving canyons, slumps, and submarine landslides [13,181,182], and (3) coastal areas subject to possible tsunamis [183,184,185]. Tsunamis, beyond their obvious role in the tsunami hazard, can cause significant changes in the coastal morphology and/or the coastline and, therefore, have implications in the processes of erosion, transportation, and coastal sedimentation, which leads to modifications in the erosion hazard and morphology of the coastal zone [184].

4. Discussion

In the period between 1982 and 2016, the main trend in marine geohazard research was the gradual increase in the number of articles that resulted from cooperation between authors and institutions, and a partnership between industry, academia, and government agencies. The few peer-reviewed articles during the period prior to the 1990s are probably related to the reduced number of institutions and researchers interested in publishing and/or reviewing scientific papers concerning the topic. A marine geohazard is a relatively recent term which emerged as an initiative to bring together several features, processes, and events in a single concept, although earthquakes, tsunamis, and submarine landslides have been the subject of studies prior to its popularization.
This systematic review evidenced a territorial expansion, evolution, and improvement of the techniques and equipment related to research on marine geohazards. The state-of-art consolidation also included the awareness of the scientific community, industry, and decision makers concerning the importance of this topic. In this scenario, national and international initiatives have emerged in arrangements based on the cooperation to study and monitoring of marine geohazards [15,186]. No doubt, this strategy fostered the sharing of knowledge and made it possible to investigate geohazards in different geological settings [1]. Another aspect of the evolution of research on marine geohazards was the diversification of approaches, instruments, techniques, and analysis that occurred over the decades.
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) was of great importance to leverage the development of research on marine geohazards. After its rectification, deep, towed sonar systems and multi-beam echosounders were used for the successful mapping of topographic features that were never before mapped [187,188]. In 1969, the GLORIA (Geological Long-Range Inclined Asdic) system was developed by the British Institute of Oceanographic Sciences (IOS) and was, at that time, the only available mapping system applied to seafloor characterization. It was responsible for mapping some regions of the USA continental margin. This effort produced maps with a scale of 1: 500,000 and revealed the occurrence of, i. Submarine fans and their distributary channel system, ii. Large bedforms fields, iii. Submarine volcanoes, iv. Fracture zones, v. Salt diapirs, vi. Submarine landslides, vii. Submarine canyons, viii. The Puerto Rico Trench, ix. Fluid lava flows, and x. Volcanoes flank collapse.
Advances and improvements in data acquisition, recording, and replay system, which included simple image-processing techniques, were fundamental to guarantee the detection of objects or patterns in a digital image for either visual interpretation or digital classification [188,189,190]. The development of the Towed Ocean Bottom Instrument (TOBI) was another advance in terms of resolution of the acoustic images, which was used to map geohazards [191,192,193,194].
The development and enhancement of multi-beam echosounders were responsible for registers of new morphological and textural seabed attributes that led to the discovery of new geological features and processes [195]. In May of 1977, the first non-military version of a multi-beam, wide swath, deep ocean, and bathymetric sonar was put in service and some years later a shallow water version was offered to the market [187]. This technology replaced the mono-beam echo sounders and allowed seafloor mapping with resolution, spatial coverage, and unprecedented precision, which consolidated the multi-beam as one of the main geophysical tools to investigate the seafloor morphology [196,197].
Side scan sonar systems and echosounders are, therefore, widely used hydroacoustic tools for surface characterization. However, this data should be complemented with subsurface data in order to identify marine geohazards that include faults, gas chimney, salt diapirs, shallow gas, and gas hydrates. In this sense, in the last three decades, there has been an evolution of seismic equipment, processing, and interpretation tools. According to [86], these geophysical tools evolved as the needs of the industry evolved. The development of swept frequency (chirp) sub-bottom profiling systems, 3D seismic, and high-resolution 2D and 3D seismic systems was responsible for an increase in the number of the tools available to analyze the seabed and subsurface.
3D seismic acquisition systems have a good resolution, which turned them into a tool for regional reconnaissance as well as a tool for field development during the 1990s. This has resulted in nearly complete coverage for areas under active exploration [198]. The 3D seismic data processing has since evolved to facilitate the detection of the presence of gas in the subsurface [86,199,200,201]. Chimney detection indicates the location of the origin of hydrocarbons, how they migrated into a prospect, and how they spilled or leaked from this prospect and created shallow gas pockets, mud volcanoes, and pockmarks near and on the seabed [202,203]. Studies [204,205] present the advantages and disadvantages of using 2D and 3D seismic systems in conventional and high-resolution (HRS) modes. It is evident that the investment in development and the improvement of these technologies is justified by the damages caused by accidents and the loss of wells that were caused by blowouts and shallow water flows.
Still, in relation to the hydroacoustic tools, a relatively recent trend is the development of Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUVs) for geophysical surveys [206,207]. Currently, AUV surveys are the most efficient way to map the details of seabed conditions in deep water [208]. AUVs are multi-sensor instruments which can include multi-beam echosounder, side-scan sonar, and subbottom profiler systems, however, still cameras, lidar scanners, magnetometers, and geochemical (CO2, CH4, PAH, and dissolved oxygen), temperature, and salinity sensors could still be added. More recently, several 4D AUV surveys have been carried out [208,209,210], which allows the analysis for the evolution of geohazards over short periods (years).
The hydroacoustic tools discussed here are examples of indirect sampling methods. However, it is necessary to point out that direct sampling amplifies the scientific questions that can be answered because they allow the determination of geologic structures and biostratigraphy, measure physical properties, and up to date past events, like submarine slides and tsunamis [19,211]. In this context, the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP) has contributed greatly through the provision of dedicated vessels for scientific ocean drilling and collecting core data around the world [212,213,214,215].
Another important set of equipment and techniques used by the marine industry are the geotechnical investigations carried out on the surface of the sea floor and through drilling operations [20]. Samples and geotechnical data provide the ground-truth and essential parameters for hydro-mechanical modeling and engineering applications. Geotechnical investigations that combine laboratory and in situ tests allow for a reliable and comprehensive analysis of sediment strength, deformation, and flow properties as well as a pore pressure regime [11,216]. The characterization of soil conditions (type, layering, undrained shear strength in clayey soils, and relative density and internal friction angle of sandy layers) is essential for the design of offshore structure foundations [20].
It is evident that studies involving a hydroacoustic surface and subsurface mapping, coring, dating, and geotechnical measurements have a greater potential in answering a larger number of scientific questions. This reinforces the importance and strategical aspect of interdisciplinary approaches in marine surveys, since the understanding that some geological processes may create hazardous conditions, the geomechanical explanation for observed instabilities, the dating of these events, and the evaluation of present and near future conditions are key elements in geohazard investigations [3]. However, the scientific literature still illustrates a fragmented picture, probably due to the operational costs involved. In the industrial context, integrated surveys are already recognized as a standard; however, such results are generally not submitted for peer-reviewed scientific publication.
The marine industry was largely responsible for technical advances and science propagation, which justifies the significant number of articles that have a technical and economic perspective. More recently, there is a trend towards studies with social perspectives and networks of seafloor observatories for continuous geohazards monitoring [35,54,217,218,219]. Therefore, direct monitoring represents a complementary manner, alongside conventional techniques in which environmental conditions call for deployment and provide enhanced confidence regarding geohazard assessments [139]. The technology involved in seafloor observatories is developing and should generate continuous data that will complement knowledge that concerns geohazards episodic events that are (in general) recorded in response to cable breaks [53,97,220,221].
The establishment of a global network of seafloor observatories will provide powerful means to understand the ocean and its complex physical, biological, chemical, and geological systems. In addition, these observatories will offer new opportunities to study multiple, interrelated scientific processes over time scales that range from seconds to decades, such as: (a) episodic processes; (b) processes with periods between months to several years; and (c) global and long-term processes [222]. Clearly distributed according to the potential for earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanic eruptions, scientific publications that concern seafloor observatories in the following regions were allocated to the countries in Table 2.
Unlike the observatories in the terrestrial environment, the number of marine observatories is still small due to the specific technical challenges and high operational and logistical costs that require cooperative efforts and cost sharing to be overcome [217]. Despite this, according to [54], seafloor observatories will be fundamental in the near future to increase scientific knowledge regarding, i. Seismicity, ii. Gas hydrate stability, iii. Seabed fluid flow, iv. Submarine landslides and fluid flow along the seabed, and v. Geohazard early warning. It is worth mentioning that the IODP program greatly contributes to the installation and retrieval of borehole geophysical observatories, whose technology has played a vital role in the evolution of the seafloor observatory concept [234].
In general, one of the objectives of the seafloor observatory is real-time detection of seismic activity in the sense of feeding earthquake early warning (EEW) systems [94,231,235]. EEW is an area practical tool for mitigating earthquake hazards and are capable of estimating the occurrence time, location, and magnitude of an earthquake and of issuing warnings before strong ground-shaking begins in a specific location [96]. EEWs are also developed for the early prediction of tsunamis that are caused by earthquakes, including tsunamis caused by submarine landslides [225]. With timely information, people and manufacturing facilities are able to take the necessary precautions to reduce the seismic hazards caused by large earthquakes [96]. According to [94], even a few seconds of lead-time can be enough for pre-programmed emergency measures in critical infrastructures, facilities, or at a personal level.
It is noteworthy that after the catastrophic events in the Indian Ocean [100] and Japan [101,217], the impacts generated by marine geohazards were widely diffused by conveyed images in diverse media. According to [236], between 2000 and 2015, there was a tendency to increase the number of industrial accidents related to the occurrence of tsunamis. Before 2011 (when there was the nuclear accident in the Fukushima Daiichi plant) only a few articles mentioned tsunamis as the potential causes of industrial accidents. However, in just five years, 19 articles studied tsunamis as a cause of the occurrence of NATECH events, i.e., natural events that affect industrial plants and can cause leakage of hazardous substances causing severe technological accidents [236]. Some of these studies dealt with the occurrence of tsunamis in a more detailed way, such as those by [237,238,239,240,241].
The motivation for this systematic review arose because only a few publications with a broad approach describe all categories of marine geohazards, their concepts, generalities, and specificities. In this context, the efforts gathered here are intended to establish an alternative source of information directed to the general public in order to disseminate the term ‘marine geohazard’ as a concept related to a diversity of features, processes, and events. However, the paper is not without limitations, since it covers only a part of the research published on the topic, as it excludes other languages and other types of publications. Despite their methodological limitations, bibliometric studies are useful tools for assessing the social and scientific relevance of a given discipline or field.
Undoubtedly, the current reach of news, reports, and videos related to geological events such as tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, submarine landslides, and earthquakes reinforce the negative potential of marine geohazards. This has put this scientific topic in newspaper headlines around the world and has encouraged the creation of funds, programs, and international consortia focused on marine geohazards research. Therefore, this field of research is promising. However, this future should require joint multi-sectoral efforts for the definition of integrated and interdisciplinary survey protocols.

5. Conclusions

Research on marine geohazards encompasses diverse geological features, processes, and events. Some are recognized as being responsible for natural disasters with significant destructive power, while others have only been revealed in the last decades of the twentieth century due to initiatives in mapping the continental margins. The advent of surface and subsurface mapping technologies, and their popularization among the marine industry, government agencies and, more recently, academic institutions, have revealed a number of marine geohazards that were hitherto unknown to science.
The efforts employed here allowed the definition of 12 categories of marine geohazards which were studied in 183 articles that composed the set of scientific publications analyzed in this work. In general, such geohazards are widely distributed in the seas and oceans and some categories are clearly more studied than others. Over the last few decades, research has evolved toward spatial expansion, diversification of complementary methods and tools, and the establishment of partnerships between the industrial, governmental, and academic sectors.
The current state of research is in a stage of consolidation of the evidence of past events and geological processes that, if they occurred today, would present risks to infrastructures and to human life. However, the continuous monitoring of the seafloor conditions is considered the main challenge for the future. Efforts related to the implementation of a network of seafloor observatories will increase our understanding of the geological processes and the resulting instabilities, which, in turn, will permit an increasingly accurate assessment of the present and near-future seafloor conditions. There is no doubt that events that are considered marine geohazards will occur in the future, and this leaves the scientific community, industry, and governmental agencies with the arduous and exhausting mission of determining the natural processes involved and to develop methods to mitigate their unpredictable damages.

Funding

This research was funded by IODP/Capes-Brasil (Process 88887123925 / 2015-00).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Canals, M.; Lastras, G.; Urgeles, R.; Casamor, J.L.; Mienert, J.; Cattaneo, A.; De Batist, M.; Haflidason, H.; Imbo, Y.; Laberg, J.S.; et al. Slope failure dynamics and impacts from seafloor and shallow sub-seafloor geophysical data: Case studies from the COSTA project. Mar. Geol. 2004, 213, 9–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Orange, D.; Angell, M.; Pawlowski, B.; Meaux, D.; Gee, L.; Kleiner, A.; Anderson, B. Visualizing Seafloor, Seismic, Gravity and Magnetics Data in the Deepwater Gulf of Mexico Improves Understanding of Geohazards, Salt and Seeps. In Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, USA, 30 April–3 May 2001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Kvalstad, T.J. What is the Current "Best Practice" in Offshore Geohazard Investigations? A State-of-the-Art Review. In Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, USA, 30 April–3 May 2007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Wu, S.; Wang, D.; Völker, D. Deep-Sea Geohazards in the South China Sea. J. Ocean Univ. China 2018, 17, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ismail-Zadeh, A.T. Geohazard research, modeling, and assessment for disaster risk reduction. Russ. J. Earth Sci. 2016, 16, ES3002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Milkov, A.V. Worldwide distribution of submarine mud volcanoes and associated gas hydrates. Mar. Geol. 2000, 167, 29–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Hovland, M.; Gardner, J.V.; Judd, A.G. The significance of pockmarks to understanding fluid flow processes and geohazards. Geofluids 2002, 2, 127–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bastia, R.; Radhakrishna, M.; Nayak, S. Identification and characterization of marine geohazards in the deep water eastern offshore of India: Constraints from multibeam bathymetry, side scan sonar and 3D high-resolution seismic data. Nat. Hazards 2011, 57, 107–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ostanin, I.; Anka, Z.; Di Primio, R.; Bernal, A. Hydrocarbon leakage above the Snøhvit gas field, Hammerfest Basin SW Barents Sea. First Break 2012, 30, 55–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ceramicola, S.; Praeg, D.; Cova, A.; Accettella, D.; Zecchin, M. Seafloor distribution and last glacial to postglacial activity of mud volcanoes on the Calabrian accretionary prism, Ionian Sea. Geo-Mar. Lett. 2014, 34, 111–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Vanneste, M.; Sultan, N.; Garziglia, S.; Forsberg, C.F.; L’Heureux, J.-S. Seafloor instabilities and sediment deformation processes: The need for integrated, multi-disciplinary investigations. Mar. Geol. 2014, 352, 183–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Benjamin, U.; Huuse, M.; Hodgetts, D. Canyon-confined pockmarks on the western Niger Delta slope. J. Afr. Earth Sci. 2015, 107, 15–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Shmatkova, A.A.; Shmatkov, A.A.; Gainanov, V.G.; Buenz, S. Identification of Geohazards Based on the Data of Marine High-Resolution 3D Seismic Observations in the Norwegian Sea. Moscow Univer. Geol. Bull. 2015, 70, 53–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Chiocci, F.L.; Cattaneo, A.; Urgeles, R. Seafloor mapping for geohazard assessment: state of the art. Mar. Geophys. Res. 2011, 32, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Jia, Y.; Zhu, C.; Liu, L.; Wang, D. Marine Geohazards: Review and Future Perspective. Acta Geol. Sin. 2016, 90, 1455–1470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Nadim, F.; Kvalstad, T.J. Risk assessment and management for offshore geohazards. In Proceedings of the ISGSR 2007, First International Symposium on Geotechnical Safety & Risk, Shanghai, China, 18–19 October 2007. [Google Scholar]
  17. Bruschi, R.; Bughi, S.; Spinazzè, M.; Torselletti, E.; Vitali, E. Impact of debris flows and turbidity currents on seafloor structures. Norw. J. Geol. 2006, 86, 317–337. [Google Scholar]
  18. Marsset, B.; Thomas, Y.; Sultan, N.; Gaillot, A.; Stephan, Y. A multi-disciplinary approach to marine shallow geohazard assessment. Near Surf. Geophys. 2012, 10, 279–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. L’Heureux, J.S.; Hansen, L.; Longva, O.; Emdal, A.; Grande, L.O. A multidisciplinary study of submarine landslides at the Nidelva fjord delta, Central Norway—Implications for the assessment of geohazards. Norw. J. Geol. 2010, 90, 1–20. [Google Scholar]
  20. Sheshpari, M.; Khalilzad, S. New Frontiers in the Offshore Geotechnics and Foundation Design. EJGE 2016, 21, 1–59. [Google Scholar]
  21. Wegner, S.A.; Campbell, K.J. Drilling hazard assessment for hydrate bearing sediments including drilling through the bottom-simulating reflectors. Mar. Pet. Geol. 2014, 58, 382–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Aldred, W.; Plumb, D.; Bradford, I.; Cook, J.; Gholkar, V.; Cousins, L.; Minton, R.; Fuller, J.; Goraya, S.; Tucker, D. Managing drilling risk. Oilfield Rev. 1999, 11, 2–19. [Google Scholar]
  23. Merigó, J.M.; Blanco-Mesa, F.; Gil-Lafuente, A.M.; Yager, R.R. Thirty years of the International Journal of Intelligent Systems: A bibliometric review. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 2016, 32, 1–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Broadus, R.N. Toward a definition of ‘bibliometrics’. Scientometrics 1987, 12, 373–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ellegaard, O.; Wallin, J.A. The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact? Scientometrics 2015, 105, 1809–1831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. López-Muñoz, F.; Sanz-Fuentenebro, J.; Rubio, G.; García-García, P.; Álamo, C. Quo Vadis Clozapine? A bibliometric study of 45 years of research in international context. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2015, 16, 23012–23034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Koo, M. A bibliometric analysis of two decades of aromatherapy research. BMC Res. Notes 2017, 10, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Mascarenhas, C.; Ferreira, J.J.; Marques, C. University-industry cooperation: A systematic literature review and research agenda. Sci. Public Policy 2018, 45, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Belter, C.W.; Seidel, D.J. A bibliometric analysis of climate engineering research. WIREs Clim. Chang. 2013, 4, 417–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Liquete, C.; Piroddi, C.; Drakou, E.G.; Gurney, L.; Katsanevakis, S.; Charef, A.; Egoh, B. Current Status and Future Prospects for the Assessment of Marine and Coastal Ecosystem Services: A Systematic Review. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e67737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Wu, S.; Chen, X.; Zhan, F.B.; Hong, S. Global research trends in landslides during 1991-2014: A bibliometric analysis. Landslides 2015, 12, 1215–1226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Zhuang, Y.; Du, C.; Zhang, L.; Du, Y.; Li, S. Research trends and hotspots in soil erosion from 1932 to 2013: A literature review. Scientometrics 2015, 105, 743–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. IHO. Limits of Oceans and Seas (Special Publication Nº 23), 3rd ed.; Imp. Monégasque: Monte Carlo, Monaco, 1953. [Google Scholar]
  34. Chiocci, F.L.; Ridente, D. Regional-scale seafloor mapping and geohazard assessment. The experience from the Italian project MaGIC (Marine Geohazards along the Italian Coasts). Mar. Geophys. Res. 2011, 32, 13–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Favali, P.; Chierici, F.; Marinaro, G.; Giovanetti, G.; Azzarone, A.; Beranzoli, L.; De Santis, A.; Embriaco, D.; Monna, S.; Bue, N.L.; et al. NEMO-SN1 Abyssal Cabled Observatory in the Western Ionian Sea. IEEE J. Ocean. Eng. 2013, 38, 358–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Loreto, M.F.; Pagnoni, G.; Pettenati, F.; Armigliato, A.; Tinti, S.; Sandron, D.; Brutto, F.; Muto, F.; Facchin, L.; Zgur, F. Reconstructed seismic and tsunami scenarios of the 1905 Calabria earthquake (SE Tyrrhenian sea) as a tool for geohazard assessment. Eng. Geol. 2017, 224, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Casalbore, D.; Chiocci, F.L.; Scarascia Mugnozza, G.; Tommasi, P.; Sposato, A. Flash-flood hyperpycnal flows generating shallow-water landslides at Fiumara mouths in Western Messina Strait (Italy). Mar. Geophys. Res. 2011, 32, 257–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ceramicola, S.; Senatore, M.R.; Coste, M.; Meo, A.; Boscaino, M.; Cova, A. Seabed mapping for geohazard in the Gulf of Taranto, Ionian Sea (Southern Italy). Rend. Online Soc. Geol. Ital. 2012, 21, 951–952. [Google Scholar]
  39. Ceramicola, S.; Praeg, D.; Coste, M.; Forlin, E.; Cova, A.; Colizza, E.; Critelli, S. Submarine Mass-Movements Along the Slopes of the Active Ionian Continental Margins and Their Consequences for Marine Geohazards (Mediterranean Sea). In Submarine Mass Movements and Their Consequences, Advances in Natural and Technological Hazards Research; Krastel, S., Behrmann, J., Völker, D., Stipp, M., Berndt, C., Urgeles, R., Chaytor, J., Huhn, K., Strasser, M., Harbitz, C.B., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2014; pp. 295–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Iorio, M.; Angelino, A.; Budillon, F.; Insinga, D.; Meo, A.; Senatore, M.R. Reliable High Resolution Physical Properties Correlation in sediments as a Powerful Tool for Geological Exploitation and Natural Hazard Issues. In Proceedings of the IMEKO TC19 International Conference on Metrology for the Sea, Naples, Italy, 11–13 October 2017; pp. 167–172. [Google Scholar]
  41. Meo, A.; Falco, M.; Chiocci, F.L.; Senatore, M.R. Kinematics and the tsunamigenic potential of Taranto Landslide (northeastern Ionian Sea): Morphological analysis and modelling. In Landslides and Engineered Slopes. Experience, Theory and Practice; Balkema Press: Rotterdam, Holland, 2016; pp. 1409–1416. [Google Scholar]
  42. Hill, G.W.; McGregor, B.A. Small-scale mapping of the exclusive economic zone using wide-swath side-scan sonar. Mar. Geod. 1988, 12, 41–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Kvenvolden, K.A. Gas hydrates—Geological perspective and global change. Rev. Geophys. 1993, 31, 173–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Campbell, K.J. Deepwater geohazards: How significant are they? Lead. Edge 1999, 18, 514–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Kvenvolden, K.A. Gas Hydrate and Humans. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2000, 912, 17–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Milkov, A.V.; Sassen, R. Thickness of the gas hydrate stability zone, Gulf of Mexico continental slope. Mar. Pet. Geol. 2000, 17, 981–991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Long, D. The Western Frontiers Association—Evaluating seabed conditions west of the UK. Cont. Shelf Res. 2001, 21, 811–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Katsanevakis, S.; Stelzenmüller, V.; South, A.; Sørensen, T.K.; Jones, P.J.S.; Kerr, S.; Badalamenti, F.; Anagnostou, C.; Breen, P.; Chust, G.; et al. Ecosystem-based marine spatial management: Review of concepts, policies, tools, and critical issues. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2011, 54, 807–820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Ruhl, H.A.; André, M.; Beranzoli, L.; Çagatay, M.N.; Colaço, A.; Cannat, M.; Dañobeitia, J.J.; Favali, P.; Géli, L.; Gillooly, M.; et al. Societal need for improved understanding of climate change, anthropogenic impacts, and geo-hazard warning drive development of ocean observatories in European Seas. Prog. Oceanogr. 2011, 91, 1–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Clark, S.H., Jr.; Field, M.E.; Hirozawa, C.A. Reconnaissance Geology and Geologic Hazards of the Offshore Coos Bay Basin, Oregon. U.S. Geol. Surv. Bull. 1985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Tinghuan, L.; Bo, J. Seismic fades analysis of the seafloor instabilities in the Pearl River mouth region. Mar. Geotech. 1989, 8, 19–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Carter, L.; Gavey, L.; Talling, P.J.; Liu, J.Y. Insights into submarine geohazards from breaks in subsea telecommunication cables. Oceanography 2014, 27, 58–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Casas, D.; Casalbore, D.; Yenes, M.; Urgeles, R. Submarine mass movements around the Iberian Peninsula. The building of continental margins through hazardous processes. Bol. Geol. Min. 2015, 126, 257–278. [Google Scholar]
  54. Locat, J.; Lee, H.J. Submarine landslides: Advances and challenges. Can. Geotech. J. 2002, 39, 193–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Micallef, A.; Berndt, C.; Masson, D.G.; Stow, D.A.V. Scale invariant characteristics of the Storegga Slide and implications for large-scale submarine mass movements. Mar. Geol. 2008, 247, 46–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Zakeri, A. Review of State-Of-The-Art: Drag Forces on Submarine Pipelines and Piles Caused by Landslide or Debris Flow Impact. J. Offshore Mech. Arctic Eng. 2009, 131, 014001-1–014001-8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Zhu, H.; Randolph, M.F. Large Deformation Finite-Element Analysis of Submarine Landslide Interaction with Embedded Pipelines. Int. J. Geomech. 2010, 10, 145–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Yuan, F.; Wang, L.; Guo, Z.; Shi, R. A refined analytical model for landslide or debris flow impact on pipelines. Part I: Surface pipelines. Appl. Ocean Res. 2012, 35, 95–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Randolph, M.F.; White, D.J. Interaction forces between pipelines and submarine slides—A geotechnical viewpoint. Ocean Eng. 2012, 48, 32–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Solheim, A.; Bhasin, R.; De Blasio, F.V.; Blikra, L.H.; Boyle, S.; Braathen, A.; Dehls, J.; Elverhøi, A.; Etzelmüller, B.; Glimsdal, S.; et al. International Centre for Geohazards (ICG): Assessment, prevention and mitigation of geohazards. Norw. J. Geol. 2005, 85, 45–62. [Google Scholar]
  61. Tappin, D.R.; Watts, P.; Grilli, S.T. The Papua New Guinea tsunami of 17 July 1998: anatomy of a catastrophic event. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2008, 8, 243–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Urlaub, M.; Talling, P.J.; Masson, D. Timing and frequency of large submarine landslides: Implications for understanding triggers and future geohazard. Quat. Sci. Rev. 2013, 72, 63–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Kawamura, K.; Laberg, J.S.; Kanamatsu, T. Potential tsunamigenic submarine landslides in active margins. Mar. Geol. 2014, 356, 44–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Talling, P.J.; Clare, M.; Urlaub, M.; Pope, E.; Hunt, E.; Watt, S.F.L. Large submarine landslides on continental slopes: Geohazards, methane release, and climate change. Oceanography 2014, 27, 32–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Hampton, M.A.; Lee, H.J.; Locat, J. Submarine landslides. Rev. Geophys. 1996, 34, 33–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Krastel, S.; Wefer, G.; Hanebuth, T.J.J.; Antobreh, A.A.; Freudenthal, T.; Preu, B.; Schwenk, T.; Strasser, M.; Violante, R.; Winkelmann, D. M78/3 shipboard scientific party. Sediment dynamics and geohazards off Uruguay and the la Plata River Region (northern Argentina and Uruguay). Geo-Mar. Lett. 2011, 31, 271–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Handley, L.R. Mississippi River delta mudslides: techniques allow for continued development with reduced risk. Geo-Mar. Lett. 1982, 2, 179–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Huhnerbach, V.; Masson, D.G.; COSTA Project Partners. Landslides in the north Atlantic and its adjacent seas: An analysis of their morphology, setting and behaviour. Mar. Geol. 2004, 213, 343–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Urlaub, M.; Talling, P.J.; Zervos, A.; Masson, D. What causes large submarine landslides on low gradient (<2°) continental slopes with slow (~ 0.15 m/kyr) sediment accumulation? J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 2015, 120, 6722–6739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Hovland, M. Geomorphological, geophysical, and geochemical evidence of fluid flow through the seabed. J. Geochem. Explor. 2003, 78, 287–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Dupré, S.; Scalabrin, C.; Grall, C.; Augustin, J.-M.; Henry, P.; Şengör, A.M.C.; Görür, N.; Çağatay, M.N.; Géli, L. Tectonic and sedimentary controls on widespread gas emissions in the Sea of Marmara: Results from systematic, shipborne multibeam echo sounder water column imaging. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 2015, 120, 2891–2912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Eruteya, O.E.; Waldmann, N.; Schalev, D.; Makovsky, Y.; Ben-Avraham, Z. Intra- to post-Messinian deep-water gas piping in the Levant Basin, SE Mediterranean. Mar. Pet. Geol. 2015, 66, 246–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Rajan, A.; Mienert, J.; Bünz, S. Acoustic evidence for a gas migration and release system in Arctic glaciated continental margins offshore NW-Svalbard. Mar. Pet. Geol. 2012, 32, 36–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Chen, D.; Wang, X.; Völker, D.; Wu, S.; Wang, L.; Li, W.; Li, Q.; Zhu, Z.; Li, C.; Qin, Z.; et al. Three dimensional seismic studies of deep-water hazard-related features on the northern slope of South China Sea. Mar. Pet. Geol. 2016, 77, 1125–1139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. King, L.H.; MacLean, B. Pockmarks of the Scotian Shelf. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 1970, 81, 3141–3148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Gay, A.; Lopez, M.; Cochonat, P.; Sérrane, M.; Levaché, D.; Sermondadaz, G. Isolated seafloor pockmarks linked to BSRs, fluid chimneys, polygonal faults and stacked Oligocene-Miocene turbiditic palaeochannels in the Lower Congo Basin. Mar. Geol. 2006, 226, 25–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Hovland, M.; Judd, A.G. Seabed Pockmarks and Seepages, Impact on Geology, Biology and the Marine Environment; Graham and Trotman: London, UK, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  78. Dimitrov, L.I. Mud volcanoes—The most important pathway for degassing deeply buried sediments. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2002, 59, 49–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Zoporowski, A.; Miller, S.A. Modeling eruption cycles and decay of mud volcanoes. Mar. Pet. Geol. 2009, 26, 1879–1887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Planke, S.; Svensen, H.; Hovland, M.; Banks, D.A.; Jamtveit, B. Mud and fluid migration in active mud volcanoes in Azerbaijan. Geo-Mar. Lett. 2003, 23, 258–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. León, R.; Somoza, L.; Medialdea, T.; González, F.J.; Díaz-del-Río, V.; Fernández-Puga, M.C.; Maestro, A.; Mata, M.P. Sea-floor features related to hydrocarbon seeps in deepwater carbonate-mud mounds of the Gulf of Cádiz: from mud flows to carbonate precipitates. Geo-Mar. Lett. 2007, 27, 237–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Paull, C.K.; Dallimore, S.R.; Caress, D.W.; Gwiazda, R.; Melling, H.; Riedel, M.; Jin, Y.K.; Hong, J.K.; Kim, Y.G.; Graves, D.; et al. Active mud volcanoes on the continental slope of the Canadian Beaufort Sea. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 2015, 16, 3160–3181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. Ebrahimi, P.; Razavi, S.M.; Ismaeili, S.; Azarpour, M. Gas-Chimney Detection in 3D Seismic by Neural Network. Pet. Sci. Tech. 2013, 31, 1188–1195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Best, A.I.; Tuffin, M.D.J.; Dix, J.K.; Bull, J.M. Tidal height and frequency dependence of acoustic velocity and attenuation in shallow gassy marine sediments. J. Geophys. Res. 2004, 109, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Sun, Q.; Wu, S.; Cartwright, J.; Dong, D. Shallow gas and focused fluid flow systems in the Pearl River Mouth Basin, northern South China Sea. Mar. Geol. 2012, 315, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Orange, D.L.; García-García, A.; McConnell, D.; Lorenson, T.; Fortier, G.; Trincardi, F.; Can, E. High-resolution surveys for geohazards and shallow gas: NW Adriatic (Italy) and Iskenderun Bay (Turkey). Mar. Geophys. Res. 2005, 26, 247–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Sloan, E.D. Clathrate Hydrates of Natural Gases, 2nd ed.; Marcel Dekker: New York, NY, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  88. Collet, T.; Bahk, J.-J.; Baker, R.; Boswell, R.; Divins, D.; Frye, M.; Goldberg, D.; Husebø, J.; Koh, C.; Malone, M.; et al. Methane hydrates in nature—Current knowledge and challenges. J. Chem. Eng. Data 2015, 60, 319–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Nixon, M.F.; Grozic, J.L.H. Submarine slope failure due to gas hydrate dissociation: A preliminary quantification. Can. Geotech. J. 2007, 44, 314–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Li, X.; He, S. Progress in stability analysis of submarine slopes considering dissociation of gas hydrates. Environ. Earth Sci. 2012, 66, 741–747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. McConnell, D.R.; Zhang, Z.; Boswell, R. Review of progress in evaluating gas hydrate drilling hazards. J. Mar. Pet. Geol. 2012, 34, 209–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Wang, J. Historical earthquake investigation and research in China. Ann. Geophys. 2004, 47, 831–838. [Google Scholar]
  93. Stein, S.; Wysession, M. An Introduction to Seismology, Earthquakes, and Earth Structure; Blackwell Publishing Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  94. Satriano, C.; Wu, Y.-M.; Zollo, A.; Kanamori, H. Earthquake early warning: Concepts, methods and physical grounds. Soil. Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2011, 31, 106–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Holzer, T.L.; Savage, J.C. Global earthquake fatalities and population. Earthq. Spectra 2013, 29, 155–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Chen, L.J.; Chen, X.F.; Shao, L. Method Research of Earthquake Prediction and Volcano Prediction in Italy. Int. J. Geosci. 2015, 6, 963–971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Pope, E.L.; Talling, P.J.; Carter, L. Which earthquakes trigger damaging submarine mass movements: Insights from a global record of submarine cable breaks? Mar. Geol. 2017, 384, 131–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Grezio, A.; Babeyko, A.; Baptista, M.A.; Behrens, J.; Costa, A.; Davies, G.; Geist, E.; Glimsdal, S.; González, F.I.; Griffin, J.; et al. Probabilistic Tsunami Hazard Analysis: Multiple Sources and Global Applications. Rev. Geophys. 2017, 55, 1158–1198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. García-García, A.; Orange, D.L.; Maher, N.M.; Heffernan, A.S.; Fortier, G.S.; Malone, A. Geophysical evidence for gas geohazards off Iskenderun Bay, SE Turkey. Mar. Pet. Geol. 2004, 21, 1255–1264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Levi, J.K.; Gopalakrishnan, C. Promoting Disaster-resilient Communities: The Great Sumatra–Andaman Earthquake of 26 December 2004 and the Resulting Indian Ocean Tsunami. Int. J. Water Resour. D 2005, 21, 543–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Suzuki, W.; Aoi, S.; Sekiguchi, H.; Kunugi, T. Rupture process of the 2011 Tohoku-Oki mega-thrust earthquake (M9.0) inverted from strong-motion data. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2011, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  102. Gavey, R.; Carte, L.; Liu, J.T.; Talling, P.J.; Hsu, R.; Pope, E.; Evans, G. Frequent sediment density flows during 2006 to 2015, triggered by competing seismic and weather events: Observations from subsea cable breaks off southern Taiwan. Mar. Geol. 2017, 384, 147–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Shulgin, A.; Kopp, H.; Mueller, C.; Planert, L.; Lueschen, E.; Flueh, E.R.; Djajadhardja, Y. Structural architecture of oceanic plateau subduction offshore Eastern Java and the potential implications for geohazards. Geophys. J. Int. 2011, 184, 12–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. ten Brink, U.S.; Lee, H.J.; Geist, E.L.; Twichell, D. Assessment of tsunami hazard to the U.S. East Coast using relationships between submarine landslides and earthquakes. Mar. Geol. 2009, 264, 65–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Tappin, D.R. Submarine mass failures as tsunami sources: their climate control. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 2010, 368, 2417–2434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  106. Rodriguez, M.; Chamot-Rooke, N.; Hébert, H.; Fournier, M.; Huchon, P. Owen Ridge deep-water submarine landslides: Implications for tsunami hazard along the Oman coast. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2013, 13, 417–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Harbitz, C.B.; Løvholt, F.; Bungum, H. Submarine landslide tsunamis: how extreme and how likely? Nat. Hazards 2014, 72, 1341–1374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Løvholt, F.; Bondevik, S.; Laberg, J.S.; Kim, J.; Boylan, N. Some giant submarine landslides do not produce large tsunamis. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2017, 44, 8463–8472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  109. Tappin, D.R. Tsunamis from submarine landslides. Geol. Today 2017, 33, 190–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Billi, A.; Funiciello, R.; Minelli, L.; Faccenna, C.; Neri, G.; Orecchio, B.; Presti, D. On the cause of the 1908 Messina tsunami, southern Italy. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2008, 35, L06301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Mazzanti, P.; Bozzano, F. Revisiting the February 6th 1783 Scilla (Calabria, Italy) landslide and tsunami by numerical simulation. Mar. Geophys. Res. 2011, 32, 273–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Geist, E.L.; Lynett, P.J. Source processes for the probabilistic assessment of tsunami hazards. Oceanography 2014, 27, 86–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Tappin, D.R.; Grilli, S.T.; Harris, J.C.; Geller, R.J.; Masterlark, T.; Kirby, J.T.; Shi, F.; Ma, G.; Thingbaijam, K.K.S.; Mai, P.M. Did a submarine landslide contribute to the 2011 Tohoku tsunami? Mar. Geol. 2014, 357, 344–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  114. Fu, L.; Heidarzadeh, M.; Cukur, D.; Chiocci, F.L.; Ridente, D.; Gross, F.; Bialas, J.; Krastel, S. Tsunamigenic potential of a newly discovered active fault zone in the outer Messina Strait, Southern Italy. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2017, 44, 2427–2435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Staudigel, H.; Clague, D.A. The geological history of deep-sea volcanoes - Biosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere interactions. Oceanography 2010, 23, 58–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Rivera, J.; Lastras, G.; Canals, M.; Acosta, J.; Arrese, B.; Hermida, N.; Micallef, A.; Tello, O.; Amblas, D. Construction of an oceanic island: Insights from the El Hierro (Canary Islands) 2011-2012 submarine volcanic eruption. Geology 2013, 41, 355–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Embley, R.W.; Tamura, Y.; Merle, S.G.; Sato, T.; Ishizuka, O.; Chadwick, W.W., Jr.; Wiens, D.A.; Shore, P.; Stern, R.J. Eruption of South Sarigan Seamount, Northern Mariana Islands: Insights into hazards from submarine volcanic eruptions. Oceanography 2014, 27, 24–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Watt, S.F.L.; Talling, P.J.; Hunt, J.E. New insights into the emplacement dynamics of volcanic island landslides. Oceanography 2014, 27, 46–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Holcomb, R.T.; Searle, R.C. Large landslides from oceanic volcanoes. Mar. Geotechnol. 1991, 10, 19–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Whelan, F.; Kelletat, D. Submarine slides on volcanic islands—A source for mega-tsunamis in the Quaternary. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 2003, 27, 198–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Moore, J.G.; Clague, D.A.; Holcomb, R.T.; Lipman, P.W.; Normark, W.R.; Torresan, M.E. Prodigious submarine landslides on the Hawaiian Ridge. J. Geophys. Res. 1989, 94, 17465–17484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Moore, J.G.; Normark, W.R.; Holcomb, R.T. Giant Hawaiian underwater landslides. Science 1994, 264, 46–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. Tappin, D.R. Digital elevation models in the marine domain: Investigating the offshore tsunami hazard from submarine landslides. In Elevation Models for Geoscience; Fleming, C., Marsh, S.H., Giles, J.R.A., Eds.; Geological Society: London, UK, 2005; Special Publications 345; pp. 81–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Oehler, J.F.; Labazuy, P.; Lénat, J.F. Recurrence of major flank landslides during the last 2Ma history of Réunion Island. Bull. Volcanol. 2004, 66, 585–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Masson, D.G.; Watts, A.B.; Gee, M.J.R.; Urgeles, R.; Mitchell, N.C.; Le Bas, T.P.; Canals, M. Slope failures in the flanks of the western Canary Islands. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2002, 57, 1–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Day, S.J.; Carracedo, J.C.; Guillou, H.; Gravestock, P. Recent structural evolution of the Cumbre Vieja volcano, La Palma, Canary Islands: Volcanic rift zone reconfiguration as a precursor to volcano flank instability. J. Volcanol. Geotherm. Res. 1999, 94, 135–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Masson, D.G.; Le Bas, T.P.; Grevemeyer, I.; Weinrebe, W. Flank collapse and large-scale landsliding in the Cape Verde Islands, off West Africa. Geochem. Geophys. Geosys. 2008, 9, Q07015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. McMurtry, G.M.; Fryer, G.J.; Tappin, D.R.; Wilkinson, I.P.; Williams, M.; Fietzke, J.; Garbe-Schoenberg, D.; Watts, P. Megatsunami deposits on Kohala Volcano, Hawaii, from flank collapse of Mauna Loa. Geology 2004, 32, 741–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Løvholt, F.; Pedersen, G.; Gisler, G. Oceanic propagation of a potential tsunami from the La Palma Island. J. Geophys. Res. 2008, 113, C09026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Barkan, R.; ten Brick, U.S.; Lin, J. Far field tsunami simulations of the 1755 Lisbon earthquake: Implication for tsunami hazard to the U.S. East Coast and the Caribbean. Mar. Geol. 2009, 264, 109–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Abadie, S.; Harris, J.C.; Grilli, S.T.; Fabre, R. Numerical modeling of tsunami waves generated by the flank collapse of the Cumbre Vieja Volcano (La Palma, Canary Islands): Tsunami source and near field effects. J. Geophys. Res. 2012, 117, C05030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Grilli, S.T.; O’Reilly, C.; Zhou, H.; Moore, C.W.; Wei, Y.; Titov, V.V. A nested-grid Boussinesq type approach to modelling dispersive propagation and run-up of landslide generated tsunamis. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2011, 11, 2677–2697. [Google Scholar]
  133. Grilli, S.T.; Harris, J.C.; Tajali-Bakhsh, T.; Masterlark, T.L.; Kyriakopoulos, C.; Kirby, J.T.; Shi, F. Numerical simulation of the 2011 Tohoku tsunami based on a new transient FEM co-seismic source: Comparison to far- and near-field observations. Pure Appl. Geophys. 2013, 170, 1333–1359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Tehranirad, B.; Harris, J.C.; Grilli, A.R.; Grilli, S.T.; Abadie, S.; Kirby, J.T.; Shi, F. Far-field tsunami hazard in the north Atlantic basin from large scale flank collapses of the Cumbre Vieja volcano, La Palma. Pure Appl. Geophys. 2015, 172, 3589–3616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Nunn, P.D.; Baniala, M.; Harrison, M.; Geraghty, P. Vanished Islands in Vanuatu: New research and a preliminary geohazard assessment. J. R. Soc. N. Z. 2006, 36, 37–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  136. Nunn, P.D.; Pastorizo, M.A.R. Geological histories and geohazard potential of Pacific Islands illuminated by myths. In Myth and Geology; Piccardi, L., Masse, W.B., Eds.; Geological Society: London, UK, 2007; Special Publications 273; pp. 143–163. [Google Scholar]
  137. Stanley, J.-D.; Goddio, F.; Jorstad, T.F.; Schnepp, G. Submergence of ancient greek cities off Egypt’s Nile Delta—A cautionary tale. GSA Today 2004, 14, 4–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Iacono, C.L.; Guillén, J.; Puig, P.; Ribó, M.; Ballesteros, M.; Palanques, A.; Farrán, M.I.; Acosta, J. Large-scale bedforms along a tideless outer shelf setting in the western Mediterranean. Cont. Shelf Res. 2010, 30, 1802–1813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Clare, M.A.; Vardy, M.E.; Cartigny, J.B.; Talling, P.J.; Himsworth, M.D.; Dix, J.K.; Harris, J.M.; Whitehouse, R.J.S.; Belal, M. Direct monitoring of active geohazards: Emerging geophysical tools for deep-water assessments. Near Surf. Geophys. 2017, 15, 427–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Barrie, J.V.; Hill, P.R.; Conway, K.W.; Iwanowska, K.; Picard, K. Environmental Marine Geoscience 4: Georgia Basin: Seabed Features and Marine Geohazards. Geosci. Can. 2005, 32, 145–156. [Google Scholar]
  141. Cecchini, S.; Taliana, D.; Giacomini, L.; Herisson, C.; Bonnemaire, B. Submarine geo-hazards on the eastern Sardinia-Corsica continental margin based on preliminary pipeline route investigation. Mar. Geophys. Res. 2011, 32, 71–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Besio, G.; Blondeaux, P.; Brocchini, M.; Vittori, G. Migrating sand waves. Ocean Dyn. 2003, 53, 232–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Besio, G.; Blondeaux, P.; Brocchini, M.; Hulscher, S.J.M.H.; Idier, D.; Knaapen, M.A.F.; Németh, A.A.; Roós, P.C.; Vittori, G. The morphodynamics of tidal sand waves: a model overview. Coast. Eng. 2008, 55, 657–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Emeana, C.J.; Hughes, T.J.; Dix, J.K.; Gernon, T.M.; Henstock, T.J.; Thompson, C.E.L.; Pilgrim, J.A. The thermal regime around buried submarine high-voltage cables. Geophys. J. Int. 2016, 206, 1051–1064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  145. Tiffany, J.M.; Devine, C.A. Effects of data resolution on early-stage pipeline route selection. In Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, USA, 1–4 May 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Nonnis, O.; Maggi, C.; Lanera, P.; Proietti, R.; Izzi, A.; Antonelli, P.; Gabellini, M. The Management of Information to Identify the Submarine Cable Route: the Case Study of Campania islands. J. Coast. Res. 2016, 75, 1002–1006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Puig, P.; Durán, R.; Muñoz, A.; Elvira, E.; Guillén, J. Submarine canyon-head morphologies and inferred sediment transport processes in the Alías-Almanzora canyon system (SW Mediterranean): On the role of the sediment supply. Mar. Geol. 2017, 393, 21–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. He, Y.; Zhong, G.; Wang, L.; Kuang, Z. Characteristics and occurrence of submarine canyon-associated landslides in the middle of the northern continental slope, South China Sea. Mar. Pet. Geol. 2014, 57, 546–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Micallef, A.; Ribó, M.; Canals, M.; Puig, P.; Lastras, G.; Tubau, X. Space-for-time substitution and the evolution of a submarine canyon–channel system in a passive progradational margin. Geomorphology 2014, 221, 34–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  150. Normandeau, A.; Lajeunesse, P.; St-Onge, G.; Bourgault, D.; Drouin, S.S.-O.; Senneville, S.; Bélanger, S. Morphodynamics in sediment-starved inner-shelf submarine canyons (Lower St. Lawrence Estuary, Eastern Canada). Mar. Geol. 2014, 357, 243–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Vangriesheim, A.; Khripounoff, A.; Crassous, P. Turbidity events observed in situ along the Congo submarine channel. Deep-Sea Res. II 2009, 56, 2208–2222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Khripounoff, A.; Crassous, P.; Lo Bue, N.; Dennielou, B.; Jacinto, R.S. Different types of sediment gravity flows detected in the Var submarine canyon (northwestern Mediterranean Sea). Prog. Oceanogr. 2012, 106, 138–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Lastras, G.; Acosta, J.; Muñoz, A.; Canals, M. Submarine canyon formation and evolution in the Argentine Continental Margin between 44°30’S and 48°S. Geomorphology 2011, 128, 116–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Alsop, G.I.; Weinberger, R.; Levi, T.; Marco, S. Cycles of passive versus active diapirism recorded along an exposed salt wall. J. Struct. Geol. 2016, 84, 47–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  155. Gemmer, L.; Ings, S.J.; Medvedev, S.; Beaumont, C. Salt tectonics driven by differential sediment loading: stability analysis and finite-element experiments. Basin Res. 2004, 16, 199–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Salazar, J.A.; Knapp, J.H.; Knapp, C.C.; Pyles, D.R. Salt tectonics and Pliocene stratigraphic framework at MC-118, Gulf of Mexico: An integrated approach with application to deep-water confined structures in salt basins. Mar. Pet. Geol. 2014, 50, 51–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Salmazo, E.; Mendes, J.R.P.; Miura, K. The influence of salt domes in drilling well activities. Braz. J. Pet. Gas 2013, 7, 43–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Matsumoto, T.; Shinjo, R.; Nakamura, M.; Kimura, M.; Ono, T. Submarine active normal faults completely crossing the southwest Ryukyu Arc. Tectonophysics 2009, 466, 289–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Hengesh, J.V.; Angell, M.; Lettis, W.R.; Bachhuber, J.L. A systematic approach for mitigating geohazards in pipeline design and construction. In Proceedings of the IPC2004 International Pipeline Conference, Calgary, AB, Canada, January 2004; pp. 2567–2576. [Google Scholar]
  160. Trimintziou, M.S.; Sakellariou, M.G.; Psarropoulos, P.N. Designing Offshore Pipelines Facing the Geohazard of Active Seismic Faults. World Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol. Int. J. Civ. Environ. Struct. Constr. Archit. Eng. 2015, 9, 775–784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Hough, G.; Green, J.; Fish, P.; Mills, A.; Moore, R. A geomorphological mapping approach for the assessment of seabed geohazards and risk. Mar. Geophys. Res. 2011, 32, 151–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Armijo, R.; Pondard, N.; Meyer, B.; Uçarkus, G.; de Lépinay, B.M.; Malavieille, J.; Dominguez, S.; Gustcher, M.-A.; Schmidt, S.; Beck, C.; et al. Submarine fault scarps in the Sea of Marmara pull-apart (North Anatolian Fault): Implications for seismic hazard in Istanbul. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 2005, 6, Q06009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Hébert, H.; Schindelé, F.; Altinok, Y.; Alpar, B.; Gazioglu, C. Tsunami hazard in the Marmara Sea (Turkey): A numerical approach to discuss active faulting and impact on the Istanbul coastal areas. Mar. Geol. 2005, 215, 23–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Gràcia, E.; Pallàs, R.; Soto, J.I.; Comas, M.; Moreno, X.; Masana, E.; Santanach, P.; Diez, S.; García, M.; Dañobeitia, J. Active faulting offshore SE Spain (Alboran Sea): Implications for earthquake hazard assessment in the Southern Iberian Margin. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2006, 241, 734–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Mouslopoulou, V.; Walsh, J.J.; Nicol, A. Fault displacement rates on a range of timescales. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2009, 278, 186–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  166. Barnes, P.M.; Pondard, N. Derivation of direct on-fault submarine paleoearthquake records from high-resolution seismic reflection profiles: Wairau Fault, New Zealand. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 2010, 11, Q11013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. DuRoss, C.B.; Personius, S.F.; Crone, A.J.; Olig, S.S.; Hylland, M.D.; Lund, W.R.; Schwartz, D.P. Fault segmentation: New concepts from the Wasatch Fault Zone, Utah, USA. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 2016, 121, 1131–1157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Maier, K.L.; Paull, C.K.; Brothers, D.S.; Caress, D.W.; McGann, M.; Lundsten, E.M.; Anderson, K.; Gwiazda, R. Investigation of Late Pleistocene and Holocene activity in the San Gregorio Fault Zone on the continental slope north of Monterey Canyon, offshore Central California. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 2017, 107, 1094–1106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Angell, M.M.; Hanson, K.; Swan, F.H.; Youngs, R.; Abramson, H. Probabilistic Fault Displacement Hazard Assessment For Flowlines and Export Pipelines, Mad Dog and Atlantis Field Developments, Deepwater Gulf of Mexico. In Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, USA, 5–8 May 2003. OTC 15402. [Google Scholar]
  170. Alves, T.M.; Cartwright, J.; Davies, R.J. Faulting of salt-withdrawal basins during early halokinesis: Effects on the Paleogene Rio Doce Canyon system (Espírito Santo Basin, Brazil). AAPG Bull. 2009, 93, 617–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Omosanya, K.O.; Johansen, S.E.; Harishidayat, D. Evolution and character of supra-salt faults in the Easternmost Hammerfest Basin, SW Barents Sea. Mar. Pet. Geol. 2015, 66, 1013–1028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Weissenburger, K.S.; Borbas, T. Fluid -properties, phase and compartmentalization: Magnolia field case study, deepwater Gulf of Mexico, U.S.A. In Understanding Petroleum Reservoirs: Toward an Integrated Reservoir Engineering and Geochemical Approach; Cubitt, J.M., England, W.A., Larter, S.R., Eds.; Geological Society: London, UK, 2004; Special Publication 237; pp. 231–255. [Google Scholar]
  173. Barrie, J.V.; Hill, P.R. Holocene faulting on a tectonic margin: Georgia Basin, British Columbia, Canada. Geo-Mar. Lett. 2004, 24, 86–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Mohammedyasin, S.M.; Lippard, S.J.; Omosanya, K.O.; Johansen, S.E.; Harishidayat, D. Deep-seated faults and hydrocarbon leakage in the Snøhvit Gas Field, Hammerfest Basin, Southwestern Barents Sea. Mar. Pet. Geol. 2016, 77, 160–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  175. Isiaka, A.I.; Durrheim, R.J.; Manzi, M.S.D.; Andreoli, M.A.G. 3D seismic analysis of the AK Fault, Orange Basin, South Africa: Implications for hydrocarbon leakage and offshore neotectonics. Tectonophys 2017, 721, 477–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Moore, J.L.; Griggs, G.B. Long-term cliff retreat and erosion hotspots along the central shores of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. Mar. Geol. 2002, 181, 265–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Mortimore, R.N.; Lawrence, J.; Pope, D.; Duperret, A.; Genter, A. Coastal cliff geohazards in weak rock: The UK Chalk cliffs of Sussex. In Coastal Chalk Cliff Instability; Mortimore, R.N., Duperret, A., Eds.; Geological Society: London, UK, 2004; pp. 3–31. [Google Scholar]
  178. Ferreira, Ó.; Garcia, T.; Matias, A.; Taborda, R.; Dias, J.A. An integrated method for the determination of set-back lines for coastal erosion hazards on sandy shores. Cont. Shelf Res. 2006, 26, 1030–1044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Nunes, M.; Ferreira, Ó.; Schaefer, M.; Clifton, J.; Baily, B.; Moura, D.; Loureiro, C. Hazard assessment in rock cliffs at Central Algarve (Portugal): A tool for coastal management. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2009, 52, 506–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Radosavljevic, B.; Lantuit, H.; Pollard, W.; Overduin, P.; Couture, N.; Sachs, T.; Helm, V.; Fritz, M. Erosion and Flooding—Threats to Coastal Infrastructure in the Arctic: A Case Study from Herschel Island, Yukon Territory, Canada. Estuar. Coast. 2016, 39, 900–915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Orange, D.L.; Angell, M.M.; Brand, J.R.; Thomson, J.; Buddin, T.; Williams, M.; Hart, W.; Berger, W.J., III. Geologic and shallow salt tectonic setting of the Mad Dog and Atlantis fields: Relationship between salt, faults, and seafloor geomorphology. Lead. Edge 2004, 23, 354–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Meleddu, A.; Deiana, G.; Paliaga, E.M.; Todde, S.; Orrù, P.E. Continental shelf and slope geomorphology: Marine slumping and hyperpycnal flows (Sardinian Southern Continental Margin, Italy). Geomorphol. Soc. 2016, 39, 183–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Gillie, R.D. Causes of coastal erosion in Pacific Island Nations. J. Coast. Res. 1997, 24, 173–204. [Google Scholar]
  184. Garcin, M.; Desprats, J.F.; Fontaine, M.; Pedreros, R.; Attanayake, N.; Fernando, S.; Siriwardana, C.H.E.R.; de Silva, U.; Poisson, B. Integrated approach for coastal hazards and risks in Sri Lanka. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2008, 8, 577–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  185. Finkl, C.W.; Pelinovsky, E.; Cathcart, R.B. A review of potential tsunami impacts to the Suez Canal. J. Coast. Res. 2012, 28, 745–759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Casagli, N.; Falorni, G.; Tofani, V. Projects of International Programme on Landslides. In Landslides—Disaster Risk Reduction; Sassa, K., Canuti, P., Eds.; Springer-Verlag: Berlin, Germany, 2007; pp. 15–28. [Google Scholar]
  187. Farr, H.K. Multibeam bathymetric sonar: Sea beam and hydro chart. Mar. Geod. 1980, 4, 77–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Chavez, P.S., Jr. Processing Techniques for Digital Sonar Images from GLORIA. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 1986, 52, 1133–1145. [Google Scholar]
  189. Searle, R.C.; Le Bas, T.P.; Mitchell, N.C.; Somers, M.L.; Parson, L.M.; Patriat, P.H. GLORIA Image Processing: The State of the Art. Mar. Geophys. Res. 1990, 12, 21–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Le Bas, T.P.; Mason, D.C. Suppression of multiple reflections in GLORIA sidescan sonar imagery. Geophys. Res. Lett. 1994, 21, 549–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Wynn, R.B.; Masson, D.G.; Stow, D.A.V.; Weaver, P.P.E. The Northwest African slope apron: A modern analogue for deep-water systems with complex seafloor topography. Mar. Pet. Geol. 2000, 17, 253–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. Wynn, R.B.; Huvenne, V.A.I.; Le Bas, T.P.; Murton, B.J.; Connelly, D.P.; Bett, B.J.; Ruhl, H.A.; Morris, K.J.; Peakall, J.; Parsons, D.R.; et al. Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUVs): Their past, present and future contributions to the advancement of marine geoscience. Mar. Geol. 2014, 352, 451–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  193. Huvenne, V.; Rooij, D.V.; Wheeler, A.; de Haas, H.; Henriet, J.P. TOBI sidescan sonar mapping of carbonate mound provinces and channel heads in the Porcupine Seabight, W of Ireland. Geophys. Res. Abst. 2003, 5, 08519. [Google Scholar]
  194. Habgood, E.L.; Kenyon, N.H.; Masson, D.G.; Akhmetzhanov, A.; Weaver, P.P.E.; Gardner, J.; Mulder, T. Deep-water sediment wave fields, bottom current sand channels and gravity flow channel-lobe systems: Gulf of Cadiz, NE Atlantic. Sedimentology 2003, 50, 483–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Dorschel, B.; Wheeler, A.J.; Huvenne, V.A.I.; de Haas, H. Cold-water coral mounds in an erosive environmental setting: TOBI side-scan sonar data and ROV video footage from the northwest Porcupine Bank, NE Atlantic. Mar. Geol. 2009, 264, 218–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  196. Todd, B.J.; Fader, G.B.J.; Courtney, R.C.; Pickrill, R.A. Quaternary geology and surficial sediment processes, Browns Bank, Scotian Shelf, based on multibeam bathymetry. Mar. Geol. 1999, 162, 165–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  197. Hughes Clarke, J.E.; Mayer, L.A.; Wells, D.E. Shallow-water imaging multibeam sonars: A new tool for investigating seafloor processes in the coastal zone and on the continental shelf. Mar. Geophys. Res. 1996, 18, 607–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  198. Hughes Clarke, J.E. Acoustic Seabed Surveying - Meeting the new demands for Accuracy, Coverage, and Spatial Resolution. Geomatica 2000, 54, 473–513. [Google Scholar]
  199. Long, D.; Bulat, J.; Stoker, M.S. Sea bed morphology of the Faroe-Shetland Channel derived from 3D seismic datasets. In 3D Seismic Technology: Application to the Exploration of Sedimentary Basins; Davies, R.J., Cartwright, J.A., Stewart, S.A., Lappin, M., Underhill, J.R., Eds.; Geological Society: London, UK, 2007; pp. 53–61. [Google Scholar]
  200. Haskell, N.; Nissen, S.; Hughes, M.; Grindhaug, J.; Dhanani, S.; Heath, R.; Kantorowicz, J.; Antrim, L.; Cubanski, M.; Nataraj, R.; et al. Delineation of geologic drilling hazards using 3-D seismic attributes. Lead. Edge 1999, 18, 373–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. Heggland, R.; Meldahl, P.; Groot, P.; Aminzadeh, F. Chimneys in the Gulf of Mexico. Am. Oil Gas Rep. 2000, 43, 78–83. [Google Scholar]
  202. Meldahl, P.; Heggland, R.; Bril, B.; de Groot, P. Identifying faults and gas chimneys using multi attributes and neural networks. Lead. Edge 2001, 20, 474–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  203. Aminzadeh, F.; Connolly, D.; Heggland, R.; Meldahl, P.; de Groot, P. Geohazard detection and other applications of chimney cubes. Lead. Edge 2002, 21, 681–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  204. Ligtenberg, H.; Connolly, D. Chimney detection and interpretation, revealing sealing quality of faults, geohazards, charge of and leakage from reservoirs. J. Geochem. Explor. 2003, 78, 385–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  205. Games, K.P. Shallow gas detection—Why HRS, why 3D, why not HRS 3D? First Break 2012, 30, 25–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  206. Sack, P.; Haugland, T.; Stock, G. A New System for Three-Dimensional High-Resolution Geophysical Surveys. Mar. Tech. Soc. J. 2012, 46, 33–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  207. Tang, M.; Zhang, Z.; Xing, Y. Analysis of New Developments and Key Technologies of Autonomous Underwater Vehicle in Marine Survey. Procedia Environ. Sci. 2011, 10, 1992–1997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  208. Gafurov, S.A.; Klochkov, E.V. Autonomous unmanned underwater vehicles development tendencies. Procedia Eng. 2015, 106, 141–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  209. Campbell, K.J.; Kinnear, S.; Thame, A. AUV technology for seabed characterization and geohazards assessment. Lead. Edge 2015, 34, 170–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  210. Unterseh, S.; Letaief, W. Time-lapse attempt using AUV survey data in geohazards prone area, results and lessons learned. In Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, USA, 30 April–3 May 2007. OTC-27546-MS. [Google Scholar]
  211. Geldof, J.-B.; Naankeu-Wati, G.; Labaune, C. Time lapse 4D assessment of shallow water seabed with repeated multi-beam hydrographic surveys. In Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, USA, 1–4 May 2017. OTC-27669-MS. [Google Scholar]
  212. Talling, P.J.; Wynn, R.B.; Masson, D.G.; Frenz, M.; Cronin, B.T.; Schiebel, R.; Akhmetzhanov, A.M.; Dallmeier-Tiessen, S.; Benetti, S.; Weaver, P.P.E.; et al. Onset of submarine debris flow deposition far from original giant landslide. Nature 2007, 450, 541–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  213. Flemings, P.B.; Long, H.; Dugan, B.; Germaine, J.; John, C.M.; Behrmann, J.H.; Sawyer, D.; IODP Expedition 308 Scientists. Pore pressure penetrometers document high overpressure near the seafloor where multiple submarine landslides have occurred on the continental slope, offshore Louisiana, Gulf of Mexico. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2008, 269, 309–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  214. Morgan, J.K.; Silver, E.; Camerlenghi, A.; Dugan, B.; Kirby, S.; Shipp, C.; Suyehiro, K. Addressing Geohazards Through Ocean Drilling. Sci. Drill. 2009, 7, 15–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  215. Mori, J.; Chester, F.; Brodsky, E.E.; Kodaira, S. Investigation of the huge tsunami from the 2011 Tōhoku-Oki, Japan, earthquake using ocean floor boreholes to the fault zone. Oceanography 2014, 27, 132–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  216. Hernández-Molina, F.J.; Sierro, F.J.; Llave, E.; Roque, C.; Stow, D.A.V.; Williams, T.; Lofi, J.; Van der Schee, M.; Arnaíz, A.; Ledesma, S.; et al. Evolution of the Gulf of Cadiz Margin and southwest Portugal contourite depositional system: tectonic, sedimentary and paleoceanographic implications from IODP Expedition 339. Mar. Geol. 2015, 377, 7–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  217. Strout, J.M.; Tjelta, T.I. In situ pore pressures: What is their significance and how can they be reliably measured? Mar. Pet. Geol. 2005, 22, 275–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  218. Iannaccone, G.; Guardato, S.; Vassallo, M.; Elia, L.; Beranzoli, L. A new multidisciplinary marine monitoring system for the surveillance of volcanic and seismic areas. Seismol. Res. Lett. 2009, 80, 203–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  219. Monna, S.; Falcone, G.; Beranzoli, L.; Chierici, F.; Cianchini, G.; De Caro, M.; De Santis, A.; Embriaco, D.; Frugoni, F.; Marinaro, G.; et al. Underwater geophysical monitoring for European Multidisciplinary Seafloor and water column Observatories. J. Mar. Syst. 2014, 130, 12–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  220. Kelley, D.S.; Delaney, J.R.; Juniper, S.K. Establishing a new era of submarine volcanic observatories: Cabling Axial Seamount and the Endeavour Segment of the Juan de Fuca Ridge. Mar. Geol. 2014, 343, 426–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  221. Talling, P.J.; Paull, C.K.; Piper, D.J.W. How are subaqueous sediment density flows triggered, what is their internal structure and how does it evolve? Direct observations from monitoring of active flows. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2013, 125, 244–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  222. Favali, P.; Beranzoli, L. EMSO: European multidisciplinary seafloor observatory. Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. A 2009, 602, 21–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  223. Baba, T.; Takahashi, N.; Kaneda, Y. Near-field tsunami amplification factors in the Kii Peninsula, Japan for Dense Oceanfloor Network for Earthquakes and Tsunamis (DONET). Mar. Geophys. Res. 2013, 35, 319–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  224. Nakano, M.; Nakamura, T.; Kamiya, S.; Ohori, M.; Kaneda, Y. Intensive seismic activity around the Nankai trough revealed by DONET ocean-floor seismic observations. Earth Planet. Space 2013, 65, 5–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  225. Ariyoshi, K.; Nakata, R.; Matsuzawa, T.; Hino, R.; Hori, T.; Hasegawa, A.; Kaneda, Y. The detectability of shallow slow earthquakes by the Dense Oceanfloor Network system for Earthquakes and Tsunamis (DONET) in Tonankai district, Japan. Mar. Geophys. Res. 2014, 35, 295–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  226. Kaneda, Y. DONET: A real-time monitoring system for megathrust earthquakes and tsunamis around southwestern Japan. Oceanography 2014, 27, 103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  227. Suzuki, K.; Nakano, M.; Takahashi, N.; Hori, T.; Kamiya, S.; Araki, E.; Nakata, R.; Kaneda, Y. Synchronous changes in the seismicity rate and ocean-bottom hydrostatic pressures along the Nankai trough: A possible slow slip event detected by the Dense Oceanfloor Network system for Earthquakes and Tsunamis (DONET). Tectonophys 2016, 680, 90–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  228. Caplan-Auerbach, J.; Duennebier, F. Seismic and acoustic signals detected at Lo’ihi Seamount by the Hawai’i Undersea Geo-Observatory. Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst. 2001, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  229. Delaney, J.R.; Heath, G.R.; Howe, B.; Chave, A.D.; Kirkham, H. NEPTUNE: Real-time ocean and earth sciences at the scale of a tectonic plate. Oceanography 2000, 13, 71–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  230. Thomson, R.; Fine, I.; Rabinovich, A.; Mihaly, S.; Davis, E.; Heesemann, M.; Krassovski, M. Observation of the 2009 Samoa tsunami by the NEPTUNE - Canada cabled observatory: Test data for an operational regional tsunami forecast model. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2011, 38, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  231. Sgroi, T.; Monna, S.; Embriaco, D.; Giovanetti, G.; Marinaro, G.; Favali, P. Geohazards in the Western Ionian Sea: Insights from non-earthquake signals recorded by the NEMO-SN seafloor observatory. Oceanography 2014, 27, 154–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  232. Oaie, G.; Seghedi, A.; Radulescu, V. Natural marine hazards in the Black Sea and the system of their monitoring and real-time warning. Geo-Eco-Marina 2016, 22, 5–28. [Google Scholar]
  233. Hsiao, N.-C.; Lin, T.-W.; Hsu, S.-K.; Kuo, K.-W.; Shin, T.-C.; Leu, P.-L. Improvement of earthquake locations with the Marine Cable Hosted Observatory (MACHO) offshore NE Taiwan. Mar. Geophys. Res. 2013, 35, 327–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  234. Favali, P.; Beranzoli, L. Seafloor Observatory Science: A review. Ann. Geophys. 2006, 49, 515–567. [Google Scholar]
  235. Fujinawa, Y.; Noda, Y. Japan’s Earthquake Early Warning System on 11 March 2011: Performance, Shortcomings, and Changes. Earthq. Spectra 2013, 29, S341–S368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  236. Nascimento, K.R.D.S.; Alencar, M.H. Management of risks in natural disasters: A systematic review of the literature on NATECH events. J. Loss Process Ind. 2016, 44, 347–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  237. Cozzani, V.; Spadoni, G.; Antonioni, G.; Landucci, G.; Tugnoli, A.; Bonvicini, S. Quantitative assessment of domino and NaTech scenarios in complex industrial areas. J. Loss Process Ind. 2014, 28, 10–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  238. Meng, Y.; Lu, C.; Yan, Y.; Shi, L.; Liu, J. Method to analyze the regional life loss risk by airborne chemicals released after devastating earthquakes: A simulation approach. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2015, 94, 366–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  239. Kadri, F.; Birregah, B.; Châtelet, E. The impact of natural disasters on critical infrastructures: A domino effect-based study. J. Homel. Secur. Emerg. Manag. 2014, 11, 217–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  240. Krausmann, E.; Cruz, A.M. Impact of the 11 march 2011, great east Japan earthquake and tsunami on the chemical industry. Nat. Hazards 2013, 67, 811–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  241. Maes, M.A.; Dann, M.R. Assessing global change when data are sparse. Int. J. Risk Assess. Manag. 2011, 15, 349–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Methodological flowchart applied to the definition of the data set, extraction, and analysis of the information.
Figure 1. Methodological flowchart applied to the definition of the data set, extraction, and analysis of the information.
Geosciences 09 00100 g001
Figure 2. Ten marine regions delimited for analysis of the spatial distribution of marine geohazard surveys.
Figure 2. Ten marine regions delimited for analysis of the spatial distribution of marine geohazard surveys.
Geosciences 09 00100 g002
Figure 3. Number of peer-reviewed publications per year, between 1982 and 2016, indicating three distinct phases of scientific publications.
Figure 3. Number of peer-reviewed publications per year, between 1982 and 2016, indicating three distinct phases of scientific publications.
Geosciences 09 00100 g003
Figure 4. Number of peer-reviewed publications by country of the first author, between 1982 and 2016, indicating the predominance of USA, UK, Norway, Italy, Canada, Germany, France, and Spain.
Figure 4. Number of peer-reviewed publications by country of the first author, between 1982 and 2016, indicating the predominance of USA, UK, Norway, Italy, Canada, Germany, France, and Spain.
Geosciences 09 00100 g004
Figure 5. Number of peer-reviewed publications by oceans and seas between 1982 and 2016.
Figure 5. Number of peer-reviewed publications by oceans and seas between 1982 and 2016.
Geosciences 09 00100 g005
Figure 6. Qualitative and quantitative results of the spatio-temporal parameters. (A): Records of publications on different types of continental margins; (B): Records of publications on regional and local geographic scales; (C): Records of publications on shallow, intermediate, and deep waters; (D): Number of articles per depth range during three phases over the 35-year period analyzed.
Figure 6. Qualitative and quantitative results of the spatio-temporal parameters. (A): Records of publications on different types of continental margins; (B): Records of publications on regional and local geographic scales; (C): Records of publications on shallow, intermediate, and deep waters; (D): Number of articles per depth range during three phases over the 35-year period analyzed.
Geosciences 09 00100 g006
Figure 7. Number of articles per country of the first author during three phases over the 35-year period analyzed.
Figure 7. Number of articles per country of the first author during three phases over the 35-year period analyzed.
Geosciences 09 00100 g007
Figure 8. Qualitative and quantitative results of the institutional arrangements parameters. (A). Number of institutions in each peer-reviewed publications between 1982 and 2016. (B). Number of institutions in each phase over the 35-year period analyzed.
Figure 8. Qualitative and quantitative results of the institutional arrangements parameters. (A). Number of institutions in each peer-reviewed publications between 1982 and 2016. (B). Number of institutions in each phase over the 35-year period analyzed.
Geosciences 09 00100 g008
Figure 9. Qualitative and quantitative results of the institutional arrangements parameters. (A). Number of authors in each peer-reviewed publications between 1982 and 2016. (B). Number of authors in each phase over the 35-year period analyzed.
Figure 9. Qualitative and quantitative results of the institutional arrangements parameters. (A). Number of authors in each peer-reviewed publications between 1982 and 2016. (B). Number of authors in each phase over the 35-year period analyzed.
Geosciences 09 00100 g009
Figure 10. Qualitative and quantitative results of the institutional arrangements parameters. (A). Type of institution of the first author in each peer-reviewed publications between 1982 and 2016. (B). Number of each type of institution over the 35-year period analyzed.
Figure 10. Qualitative and quantitative results of the institutional arrangements parameters. (A). Type of institution of the first author in each peer-reviewed publications between 1982 and 2016. (B). Number of each type of institution over the 35-year period analyzed.
Geosciences 09 00100 g010
Figure 11. Qualitative and quantitative results of the institutional arrangements parameters. (A). Number of partnerships in each peer-reviewed publications between 1982 and 2016. (B). Number of partnerships over the 35-year period analyzed.
Figure 11. Qualitative and quantitative results of the institutional arrangements parameters. (A). Number of partnerships in each peer-reviewed publications between 1982 and 2016. (B). Number of partnerships over the 35-year period analyzed.
Geosciences 09 00100 g011
Figure 12. Qualitative and quantitative results of the research characterizations parameters. (A): Number of each perspective in peer-reviewed publications between 1982 and 2016. (B): Number of each approach in peer-reviewed publication between 1982 and 2016. (C): Number of each of the instruments and techniques in peer-reviewed publication between 1982 and 2016.
Figure 12. Qualitative and quantitative results of the research characterizations parameters. (A): Number of each perspective in peer-reviewed publications between 1982 and 2016. (B): Number of each approach in peer-reviewed publication between 1982 and 2016. (C): Number of each of the instruments and techniques in peer-reviewed publication between 1982 and 2016.
Geosciences 09 00100 g012
Figure 13. The number of each perspective in peer-reviewed publications between 1982 and 2016.
Figure 13. The number of each perspective in peer-reviewed publications between 1982 and 2016.
Geosciences 09 00100 g013
Figure 14. The number of each approach in peer-reviewed publications between 1982 and 2016.
Figure 14. The number of each approach in peer-reviewed publications between 1982 and 2016.
Geosciences 09 00100 g014
Figure 15. The number of each instrument and technique in peer-reviewed publications between 1982 and 2016.
Figure 15. The number of each instrument and technique in peer-reviewed publications between 1982 and 2016.
Geosciences 09 00100 g015
Figure 16. Categories of marine geohazards defined after the grouping of features, process, and related events with similar nature.
Figure 16. Categories of marine geohazards defined after the grouping of features, process, and related events with similar nature.
Geosciences 09 00100 g016
Figure 17. Number of publications between 1982 and 2016 for each category of marine geohazard.
Figure 17. Number of publications between 1982 and 2016 for each category of marine geohazard.
Geosciences 09 00100 g017
Figure 18. Number of publications per marine geohazard category during the distinct phases over the 35-year period analyzed.
Figure 18. Number of publications per marine geohazard category during the distinct phases over the 35-year period analyzed.
Geosciences 09 00100 g018
Table 1. Categories of geohazards defined after the grouping of features, process, and related events with a similar nature.
Table 1. Categories of geohazards defined after the grouping of features, process, and related events with a similar nature.
Marine Geohazard CategoriesGeological Feature, Process or Event
Slope failureCreep, slumps, debris flow, mud flows, turbidity currents, landslides, slope failure, scars, scarps, slide blocks, slope instability
Fluids seepagePockmarks, gas chimney, mud volcanoes, shallow gas, charged sediments, gas hydrate, overpressured sands, shallow-water flows, seeps, free gas accumulations, fluid flow
EarthquakeEarthquakes
TsunamiTsunamis
VolcanismSubmarine eruptions, submarine volcanoes, flank collapse, volcanic tremor
SubsidenceVanished islands, subsidence
BedformsSediment waves, mudwaves, sandwaves, boulder fields, mobile sediments
Positive reliefsOutcrops, mounds, ridges, seamounts, volcanic highs
Negative reliefsCanyons, steep slope, channels, gullies, escarpments, iceberg plough marks
DiapirsSalt bodies, diapirs, mud diapirism
FaultingFaults
ErosionCliff erosion, beach erosion, submarine erosion
Table 2. Main seafloor observatories initiatives registered in scientific publications.
Table 2. Main seafloor observatories initiatives registered in scientific publications.
Country/RegionProjectReferences
JapanDense Ocean floor Network system for Earthquakes and Tsunamis, DONET[223,224,225,226,227]
USAMonterey Accelerated Research System, MARS and Ocean Observatories Initiative, OOI[220,228]
CanadaNorth-East Pacific Time-Series Undersea Networked Experiments, NEPTUNE and Victoria Experimental Network Under the Sea, VENUS[229,230]
European UnionEuropean Multidisciplinary Seafloor and water-column Observatory, EMSO[35,217,231,232]
TaiwanMarine Cable Hosted Observatory, MACHO[233]

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Camargo, J.M.R.; Silva, M.V.B.; Ferreira Júnior, A.V.; Araújo, T.C.M. Marine Geohazards: A Bibliometric-Based Review. Geosciences 2019, 9, 100. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences9020100

AMA Style

Camargo JMR, Silva MVB, Ferreira Júnior AV, Araújo TCM. Marine Geohazards: A Bibliometric-Based Review. Geosciences. 2019; 9(2):100. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences9020100

Chicago/Turabian Style

Camargo, João M. R., Marcos V. B. Silva, Antônio V. Ferreira Júnior, and Tereza C. M. Araújo. 2019. "Marine Geohazards: A Bibliometric-Based Review" Geosciences 9, no. 2: 100. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences9020100

APA Style

Camargo, J. M. R., Silva, M. V. B., Ferreira Júnior, A. V., & Araújo, T. C. M. (2019). Marine Geohazards: A Bibliometric-Based Review. Geosciences, 9(2), 100. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences9020100

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop