LANDSLIDE Current Availability and Methodology For Natural Risk Map Production ARMONIA PROJECT (Contract N° 511208) PDF

ARMONIA PROJECT (Contract n 511208) Deliverable 2.
1
B.III-1
B.III Landslides
Authors: Giuseppe Delmonaco, Daniele Spizzichino, T6
1 Definition of Landslide..................................................... 4
2 Landslides classification.................................................. 4
2.1 Material type ............................................................................5
2.2 Landslide activity ......................................................................6
2.2.1 State of activity.........................................................................6
2.2.2 Distribution of activity ................................................................8
2.2.3 Style of activity .........................................................................8
2.3 Landslide causes.......................................................................9
3 Intensity or Magnitude ( I ) ............................................. 10
3.1 Velocity.................................................................................. 10
3.2 Dimension.............................................................................. 12
3.3 Energy................................................................................... 13
3.4 Consequences......................................................................... 13
3.5 Hybrid ................................................................................... 14
4 Return period of landslides............................................ 15
4.1 Geomorphological criteria or qualitative analysis......................... 15
4.2 Analysis of temporal series related to effects.............................. 15
4.3 Analysis of temporal series related to causes ............................. 16
4.3.1 Precipitation............................................................................16
4.3.2 Earthquakes............................................................................17
4.4 Monitoring.............................................................................. 18
4.4.1 Mechanical approach................................................................18
4.4.2 Kinematics approach................................................................18
5 Hazard assessment (H) ................................................. 19
5.1 Basic concepts ........................................................................ 19
5.2 Prediction of landslide types ..................................................... 20
5.3 Prediction of landslide intensity................................................. 20
5.4 Prediction on landslide affected area ......................................... 21
5.4.1 Methods of relative hazard analysis ............................................21
5.4.1.1 Qualitative methodologies...................................................21
5.4.1.1.1 Field geomorphologic analysis .........................................21
5.4.1.1.2 Combination of index maps or heuristic approach...............22
5.4.1.2 Quantitative methodologies.................................................23
5.4.1.2.1 Statistical analysis .........................................................23
5.4.1.2.2 Geotechnical models ......................................................25
5.5 Temporal prediction ................................................................ 27
5.5.1 Analysis of return time .............................................................27
5.5.2 Analysis of intensity/magnitude .................................................29
5.6 Prediction of evolution ............................................................. 29
ARMONIA PROJECT (Contract n 511208) Deliverable 2.1
B.III-2
5.6.1 Prediction of run-out ................................................................30
5.6.2 Prediction of retrogression limits ................................................30
5.6.3 Prediction of lateral expansion...................................................30
6 Landslide hazard mapping............................................. 30
6.1 Introduction ........................................................................... 30
6.2 Susceptibility and hazard mapping............................................ 31
6.3 Hazard zoning scales ............................................................... 33
6.4 Landslide Hazard map types..................................................... 33
6.5 Approaches to landslide mapping.............................................. 34
6.5.1 The Inferential Approach...........................................................34
6.5.2 The Statistical Approach ...........................................................34
6.5.3 The Process-Based Approach.....................................................35
6.6 The mapping unit for GIS Technique ......................................... 35
7 Element at Risk ( E) or exposure.................................... 36
7.1 Definition ............................................................................... 36
7.2 Cartography related to the element at risk - Map of Exposure -.... 37
7.3 Economic value of element at risk............................................. 37
7.3.1 Human life Value .....................................................................38
7.3.2 Goods and activities value.........................................................38
7.3.3 Global Value ...........................................................................39
8 Vulnerability ( V) ............................................................ 39
8.1 Vulnerability: some web definitions........................................... 40
8.2 Conceptual approach: vulnerability assessment.......................... 40
8.2.1 Definition ...............................................................................40
8.2.2 Vulnerability components..........................................................41
8.3 Human life vulnerability ........................................................... 42
8.4 Vulnerability of good and activities............................................ 42
9 Analysis of Risk (R) ....................................................... 45
9.1 Definition ............................................................................... 45
9.2 Qualitative analysis ................................................................. 45
9.2.1 Damage propensity..................................................................45
9.3 Quantitative analysis ............................................................... 46
9.3.1 Total risk................................................................................46
9.3.2 Potential damage (W
L
)..............................................................47
9.3.2.1 Rigorous assessment .........................................................48
9.3.2.2 Simplified assessment. .......................................................49
9.3.3 Specific Risk (R
s
) .....................................................................50
9.4 Probability of acceptable rupture............................................... 50
10 Risk management.......................................................... 52
10.1 Introduction........................................................................... 52
10.2 Framework for landslide risk management ................................ 53
10.2.1 General framework ..................................................................53
10.2.2 Increasing of social acceptable threshold risk...............................54
B.III-3
10.3 Acceptable and tolerable risk from landsliding............................ 55
10.3.1 General issues.........................................................................55
10.4 Treatment.............................................................................. 57
10.4.1 Risk mitigation through structural action and measures.................58
10.4.2 Risk mitigation with non-structural action and measures ...............58
10.5 Public Awareness, Education and Capacity Building .................... 59
10.6 Emergency Preparedness Plan.................................................. 59
10.6.1 Before the Landslide ................................................................59
10.6.2 When it Rains..........................................................................60
10.6.3 Key Considerations ..................................................................61
10.6.4 What Can You Do If You Live Near Steep Hills..............................61
10.6.4.1 Prior to Intense Storms: .....................................................61
10.6.4.2 During Intense Storms:......................................................61
10.6.5 After the Disaster ....................................................................62
10.7 The Phases of emergency Plan (planning, response, recovery) .... 62
10.7.1 Emergency Phases...................................................................62
10.7.2 Planning Phase........................................................................62
10.7.3 Response Phase ......................................................................63
10.7.3.1 Initial Response.................................................................63
10.7.3.2 Extended Response............................................................64
10.8 Recovery Phase...................................................................... 64
11 Glossary of all keywords................................................ 64
12 Bibliography .................................................................. 70
13 Appendix: Operational Standards for Risk Assessment
aimed at Spatial Planning................................................... 92
13.1 Minimum standard (simplified model) for hazard mapping
aimed at a legal directive................................................................. 92
13.1.1 Various methodologies related to the 3 assumed scales of analysis
in the light of a potential harmonisation of hazard maps, based on a multi-
hazard perspective...............................................................................92
13.2 Minimum standard (simplified model) for risk mapping aimed at
spatial planning .............................................................................. 98
13.2.1 Multi-risk assessment perspective as element of the Strategic
Environmental Assessment....................................................................98
13.2.2 Methodologies, functions and outputs .........................................99
13.2.2.1 ........................................................................................ 101
13.3 Minimum Standard for Landslide Risk Maps ............................. 106
13.3.1 Local Scale mapping ( 1: 10.000) .......................................... 106
B.III-4
1 Definition of Landslide
The term "landslide" describes a wide variety of processes that result in the
downward and outward movement of slope-forming materials including
rock, soil, artificial fill, or a combination of these (UNESCO, 1984).
A landslide event is defined as "the movement of a mass of rock, debris or
earth down a slope" (Cruden 1991). The word 'landslide' also refers to the
geomorphic feature that results from the event. Other terms used to refer
to landslide events include 'mass movements', 'slope failures', 'slope
instability' and 'terrain instability'.
Limits and uncertainties
There is a conceptual confusion in the term landslide since it is referred
both to landslide deposit (displaced mass) and the movement of material
along a slope.
2 Landslides classification
In spite of the simple definition, landslide events are complex
geological/geomorphological processes and are therefore difficult to classify.
An adequate classification system should be based on parameters and/or
features that can be measured and observed in the field. At the same time,
a classification system should satisfy requisites of uniqueness, rationality,
homogeneity and readiness of application, though the detection of classes
mutually exclusive.
The classification system, most commonly used worldwide, and proposed
for this report, is modified from Varnes (1978). The classification is based
upon material type and type of movement, and is similar to the updated
classification of slope movements suggested by Cruden and Varnes(1996).
This is based on the movement, with a special attention to the spatial
distribution of displacements and their velocity as well as to the shape of
the failure and landslide body.
The Cruden & Varnes classification can be resumed in the following landslide
types:
1. Falls: take place rapidly by free-fall, bouncing, or rolling, and may
develop into either slides or flows.
2. Topples: consist of the rapid rotation of a unit of rock or soil about
some pivot point. Toppling may not lead to either falls, slides or flows.
3. Slides: involve the movement along one or more distinct surfaces.
Slides are subdivided into 'rotational slides' and 'translational slides',
depending upon the shape of the failure plane.
a. Rotational slides: also referred to as slumps, involve movement
along a curved failure plane. Often the failure plane did not exist
B.III-5
before movement occurred. Rotational slides usually involve relatively
few distinct rock or soil units.
b. Translational slides: involve the movement of many rock or soil
units along a plane. If few distinct units are involved, the movement
is referred to as a 'translational block slide'. Often the failure plane
existed before movement occurred.
4. Lateral spreads: are dominated by lateral extension of the ground,
accompanied by shear or tensile forces, and a general subsidence of the
ground surface. They generally occur relatively slowly.
5. Flows describe movement that resembles a viscous fluid. Some flows
occur slowly, others occur rapidly. Velocity within the flowing mass is
usually decreases with depth and laterally. In most cases, water is an
integral component. Creep is a type of flow that occurs very slowly.
6. Complex landslides involve the combination of two or more types of
movement. Commonly one type of movement starts the material
moving, such as a debris slide, and once underway the material takes on
the character of another type of movement, such as a debris flow. The
name of the complex movement is a combination of the types of
movement, in order of occurrence, such as a debris slide-debris flow.
The rate of movement depends on the types of movements and material
types involved.
According to WP/WPLI (1990-1994), complex landslides should be classified
following the types of movement involved related to the genetical and
temporal sequence of the single types that compose the phenomenon.
2.1 Material type
The material involved in a landslide should be classified according to its
state before the initiation of the movement or, if the movement changes in
the time, according to the state that characterizes the material before the
movement where such a change occurs
The material involved in a landslide is classified into two groups, 'bedrock'
and 'soil'. Soil, which is generally unconsolidated superficial material, is
further subdivided into 'debris' and 'earth' depending upon its texture.
Rock refers to earth materials that have lithified by some rock-forming
process. Its strength depends not only on the rock type but also on the
degree of weathering and the density and orientation of the discontinuities,
which are generally the planes of weakness in the rock mass.
Debris is composed of predominantly coarse grained soil, or as mentioned
above, can also include highly fractured bedrock. The strength of coarse
grained soil is generally derived from friction between the grains.
Earth refers to predominantly fine grained soil (primarily of silt and clay
sized materials). The strength of fine grained soil is generally derived from
cohesion, the chemical and electrical bonding between the small particles.
B.III-6
2.2 Landslide activity
The activity defines the temporal evolution of a landslide, through the
analysis of movement, displaced materials and areas involved. The activity
can be regrouped under three headings:
1. State of activity, that is related to the timing of a landslide
2. Distribution of activity, that describes the area where a landslide is
moving
3. Stile of activity, that indicates the contribution of single movements to
the landslide
2.2.1 State of activity
The state of activity is defined as follows Cruden & Varnes, 1996):
active: landslide currently moving;
suspended: landslide moved within the last annual cycle of seasons, but
not presently moving;
reactivated: landslide that is again active after being inactive;
inactive: landslide that moved more than one annual cycle of seasons
ago.
Inactive landslides can be subsequently divided in:
dormant: if the causes of movement remain apparent;
naturally stabilised: inactive landslide protected by its original causes
without human interventions;
artificially stabilised: inactive landslide protected by its original causes
with artificial remedial measures;
relict: inactive landslides developed under geomorphologic and climatic
setting, considerably different from present conditions.
The geomorphological information of the state of activity are generally
related to the type and state of preservation of some diagnostic elements,
as reported in Table 2.1.
Active Inactive
Scarps, terraces and crevasses with sharp borders
Scarps, terraces and crevasses with rounded
borders
Crevasses and depressions without secondary
filling
Crevasses and depressions with secondary filling
Secondary mass movements on scarps
Absence of secondary mass movements on
scarps
Fresh striae over the failure surface and marginal
shear planes
Absent or weathered striae over the failure
surface and marginal shear planes
Fresh crack surfaces on blocks Weathered crack surfaces on blocks
Irregular drainage system, diffuse ponding and
depressions with internal drainage
Well preserved drainage system
Pressure crests at the contact with sliding margins Abandoned marginal cracks and banks
Absence of soil on the exposed portion of the failure
surface
Growth of soil on the exposed portion of the
failure surface
Presence of rapid-growing vegetation Presence of slow-growing vegetation
Different vegetation between internal and external
landslide areas
No difference of vegetation between internal and
external landslide areas
Tilting trees without vertical growth
Tilting trees with vertical growth in the portions
succeeding the tilted part
Table 2.1. Geomorphic criteria for field survey of landslide state of
activity (Crozier, 1984, modified)
B.III-7
The state of activity of a landslide and its geomorphologic characteristics
are strictly depending on climate conditions, as reported in Figure 1.
Fig. 1. Block diagrams of morphologic changes with time of idealized
landslide (a) in humid climate: A, active or recently active (dormant
historic) landslide features are sharply defined and distinct; B,
dormant young landslide features remains clear but are not
sharply defined owing to slope wash and shallow mass movements
on steep scarps; C, dormant mature landslide feature are
modified by surface drainage, internal erosion and deposition, and
vegetation; D, dormant old landslide features are weak and often
subtle. (Turner & Schuster, 1996).
B.III-8
2.2.2 Distribution of activity
The distribution of activity describes where the landslide is moving and
permits to predict the type of landslide evolution in the space. Following the
distribution of activity a landslide is:
advancing: if the surface of rupture is extending in the direction of
movement;
retrogressive: if the surface of rupture is extending in the direction
opposite the movement of the displaced material;
progressive or multi-directional: if the surface of rupture is enlarging
in two or mode directions;
diminishing: if the volume of displaced material is decreasing with
time;
confined: landslide with a scarp but no visible surface of rupture in
the foot of the displaced mass;
const ant : if the displaced mass continues to move without
considerable change of the rupture surface and volume of the
displaced mass;
enlarging: if the rupture surface is developed on one or both lateral
margins of the landslide.
2.2.3 Style of activity
The style of activity is the way in which different movements contribute to
the landslide. Following the style of activity a landslide can be defined as:
complex: characterised by the combination, with time, of at least two
types of movement (fall, topple, slide, expansion, flow);
composite: characterised by the combination, with time, of at least
two types of movement (fall, topple, slide, expansion, flow)
simultaneously in different areas of the displaced mass;
successive: characterised by a movement of the same type to an
earlier and adjacent landslide, where displaced masses and rupture
surfaces are clearly distinct;
single: characterised by a single movement of the displaced mass;
multiple: characterised by repeated movements of the same type,
often following enlargement of the failure surface.
In order to characterise the type of evolution of a landslide it can be very
useful to refer to the frequency of reactivations instead of the state of
activity detected during field survey. On this subject the distinction
proposed by Del Prete et al. (1992) among continuous, seasonal and
intermittent (pluriannual or pluridecennial return time) landslides or what
proposed by Bisci & Dramis (1991) and Flageollet (1994) reported in Table
2.2.
State of activity Recurrence Return time Last activation
ACTIVE Continuous - Presently moving
Seasonal > 1 year Recent
Short-term recurrence 1 - 10 years Recent history
QUIESCENT Medium-term recurrence 10 - 100 years Recent history
Long-term recurrence 100 - 1000 years Recent or ancient history
STABILISED Very long-term recurrence > 1000 years Ancient history and prehistory
Tab. 2.2 Landslide activity (BISCI & DRAMIS, 1991 and
FLAGEOLLET, 1994, modified).
B.III-9
2.3 Landslide causes
Landslide causes analysis consists in examining the various factors that
contribute to slope instability, in their parameterisation and subdivision in
classes and, finally, in their representation as thematic maps.
A list of major predisposing factors, derived by literature (Terzaghi, 1950;
Carrara & Merenda, 1974; Cotecchia, 1978; Varnes, 1978; Hansen, 1984;
Esu, 1984; Crozier, 1986; Canuti et al., 1992; Amanti et al., 1992; Cruden
& Varnes, 1994; Hutchinson, 1995) is reported in the following table:
LITHO-STRATIGRAPHY
a) lithological characteristics (i.e. weak materials, presence of clayey
particles);
b) stratigraphical characteristics (i.e. rheological contrast: rigid
material over ductile material;
c) textural characteristics (i.e. porosity, materials with metastable
texture);
d) primary structures (layers, schistosity, fissility);
e) mineralogical, petrographical, geochemical characteristics (i.e.
typology of clayey minerals, weathering).
TECTONIC
a) secondary structures (joints, faults, folds, shear bands, bending);
b) tectonic setting of the area;
c) neo-tectonic uplift and/or e/o tilting;
QUATERNARY GEOLOGY
a) weathering (physical and/or chemical);
b) depth of soil, regolith and degradation covers;
c) climatic fluctuations;
d) eustatic fluctuations;
e) melting of glaciers (i.e. unloading of pressures);
f) melting of permafrost;
g) glacio-eustasy and glacio-isostasy;
h) ancient or relict landslides.
HYDROGEOLOGY
a) hydrography and springs;
b) permeability, contrast of permeability;
c) drainage conditions;
d) characteristics of groundwater (i.e. free, suspended, confined,
semi-confined aquifers);
e) pore pressure in soils and discontinuities;
f) filtration;
g) capillarity and negative pore pressures;
h) evapotranspiration, runoff and infiltration;
i) groundwater geochemistry;
GEOTECHNICS AND GEOMECHANICS
a) granulometry;
b) index properties (i.e. Atterberg limits, point load);
c) cementation (i.e. content of CaCO3);
d) density (with natural water content, dry, saturated);
e) shear strength of material (peak, critical condition, residual;
drained or undrained);
f) tensile strength;
g) geometrical characteristics of discontinuities (i.e. orientation,
spacing, persistence, roughness);
h) mechanical characteristics of discontinuities (i.e. shear strength);
i) presence of pre-existing shear surfaces;
j) presence of organic matter;
k) sensitivity (change in strength with remoulding);
l) fragility and progressive rupture;
m) cracking and softening;
n) swelling and consolidation;
o) stress history (i.e. pressure and overconsolidation ratio);
p) in situ tensional state;
SEISMICITY
a) neotectonics, regional geodynamic model;
b) historical and instrumental seismicity, seismotectonic model;
c) characteristics of the source (recurrence, maximum expected
magnitude, hypocentral depth, geometry of the source);
d) attenuation law;
e) seismic macrozoning: ground shaking (i.e. intensity, peak
acceleration, response spectrum)
f) seismic microzoning: local seismic response (i.e. amplification),
dynamical effects on terrain properties (liquefaction; dynamical
effects on pore pressure and shear strength).
VOLCANIC ACTIVITY
a) steam emission and subsequent condensation;
b) tephra accumulation;
c) hydrothermal alteration;
d) ice and snow melting;
e) volcanic uplift;
f) diversion of hydrographic network.
GEOMORFOLOGY
a) slope morphometry (i.e. slope angle, height, length, shape,
orientation);
b) morphometry of catchments and channels;
c) relief energy;
d) erosion (i.e. fluvial, marine, glacial) on the foot of the slope;
e) superficial erosion (diffuse or concentrated runoff);
f) underground erosion (i.e. solution, karst, piping);
g) slope loading;
h) deforestation (natural causes);
CLIMATOLOGY, METEOROLOGY E HYDROLOGY
a) rainfall pattern;
b) frequency, intensity and duration of extreme events (i.e. intense
rainfall, extremely prolonged rainfall);
c) thermal pattern (ice/snow melting, freezing of spring waters);
d) fluctuation of hydrographical level (lakes or rivers);
e) fluctuation of sea level;
f) thermal excursion (freeze-thaw cycles);
g) fluctuation of soil humidity (imbibition / desiccation).
h) pre-existing mass movements and frequency of reactivations.
VEGETATION AND LAND USE
a) pedologic characteristics (i.e. soil type, texture, structure, depth,
organic matter, content in carbonates);
b) agricultural land use (i.e. crop, tree crop, specialised cultures,
grassland, bush, forest)
c) type and state of vegetation (i.e. leave cover, depth and strength
of roots, weight of vegetation);
d) agricultural techniques (i.e. superficial tillage, strip, terrace).
HUMAN FACTORS
a) excavation on the slope or slope toe;
b) overloading on slope or crest;
c) fluctuation of piezometric levels of artificial basins (i.e. critical
height; rapid emptying);
d) deforestation and forestation;
e) irrigation;
f) mining activity;
g) artificial vibrations;
h) water leakage (reservoirs, aqueducts, sewage systems).
Tab.2.3 Causative factors of landslides.
B.III-10
3 Intensity or Magnitude (I)
Geometrical and mechanical severity of a landslide. It may be expressed as
a relative scale or as one or more landslide parameters (i.e. velocity,
volume, energy).
A conceptual distinction between magnitude and intensity is reported in
Hungr (2001) in the dynamic analysis of fast-moving landslides (flows and
slides). The magnitude is a parameter that describes the scale of an event.
As a general rule, the volume of the involved material can express the
magnitude of a landslide. The initial volume (i.e. the volume of a rock mass
before the detachment) should be distinguished from the volume of a
landslide deposit, that can be larger due to swelling or erosion phenomena,
or smaller due to partial deposition or diversion of material during the
travel.
Therefore, the magnitude defines the total volume of the displaced mass, as
a sequence of connected episodes, considered as a single event. The
intensity, as for earthquakes, is not a single parameter but a spatial
distribution of different characteristics that describe, qualitatively or
quantitatively, the impact of a landslide in different sites. Velocity, duration
of movement, height of displaced mass, depth of deposits are some of
quantitative parameters of intensity. These parameters are a function of the
areas involved by a landslide and tend to annul at lateral and distal margins
of the path, defining in such a way the extension of the impact zone. With
respect to other field such as seismicity and flood where the intensity may
be clearly defined (i.e. magnitude of an earthquake, height or discharge of
water flow) the definition of the severity of a landslide (in terms of intensity
or magnitude) is a very difficult task for experts due to the objective
difficulty in the assessment of the various parameters. In addition, the
expression of intensity related to potential damage or losses should be
avoided being depending on vulnerability of potential exposed element.
3.1 Velocity
Hungr (1981) proposed a scale of landslide intensity based on classes of
velocity related to a scale of damage. This scale has been partially modified
by Cruden & Varnes (1996) as shown in Table 3.1.
Class Description Potential damage Velocity (mm/s)
7 Extremely rapid
Catastrophe of major violence; buildings destroyed by impact of
displaced material; many deaths; escape unlikely.
5 m/s 5 x 10
3
6 Very rapid
Some lives lost; velocity too great to permit all persons to
escape
3m/min 5 x 10
1
5 Rapid
Escape evacuation possible; structures, possessions and
equipment destroyed
1.8 m/h 5 x 10
-1
4 Moderate
Some temporary and insensitive structures can be temporarily
maintained
13m/mon
th
5 x 10
-3
3 Slow
Remedial construction can be undertaken during movement;
insensitive structures can be maintained with frequent
maintenance work if total movement is not large during a
particular acceleration phase
1.6
m/year
5 x 10
-5
2 Very slow Some permanent structures undamaged by movement
15
mm/year
5 x 10
-7
1 Extremely slow
Imperceptible without instruments; construction possible with
precautions
Table 3.1. Scale of landslide intensity based on velocity and induced
damage (Cruden & Varnes, 1996)
B.III-11
The assessment of velocity of a landslide is generally a difficult task; it may
be assessed approximately considering the typology and activity of a
landslide (Varnes, 1978) (Tab 3.2).
CLASSES OF VELOCITY
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Fall
Topple
Rock slide (F)
Rock slide (R)
Debris slide
Earth slide (F)
Earth slide (R)
Lateral expansion of rock mass
Lateral expansion of rock mass overlaying clay bedrock
Lateral expansion due to liquefaction
Rock flow
Debris flow
Cohesive earth flow (F)
Cohesive earth flow (R)
Tab. 3.2 - Landslide velocity (referred to the classes proposed by
Cruden & Varnes, 1996) based on typology, material and state of
activity; F =first-triggered landslide; R = reactivation
A similar approach has been proposed by Canuti & Casagli (1996), based on
landslide typology, involved material and state of activity (first-triggered or
reactivated landslides) (Tab. 3.3).
Typology Fall Slide Flow
Material Rock Rock Debris Earth Rock Debris Earth
State of activity - F R - F R - - -
Class of velocity 6-7 5-6 1-5 1-6 5-6 1-5 1-2 1-7 1-4
Table 3.3. Landslide velocity proposed by Canuti & Casagli (1996)
based on typology, material and state of activity. F =first-triggered
landslide; R = reactivation
The relationship between movement and velocity is quite evident: a debris
flow or a rock fall are generally very rapid or extremely rapid, while an
earth flow is usually slow or very slow. Generally a first-triggered landslide
exhibits a higher velocity than a reactivation, except for some cases
discussed by Hutchinson (1987). The former is characterised by a fragile
rupture mechanism while the latter by a ductile rupture mechanism where
the shear strength is proximate or equal to residual values.
Another way to assess landslide intensity, based on velocity, can be done
comparing the surface area of present or potential landslides with their
estimated velocity (Tab.3.4 and 3.5). The potential unstable areas are
assessed taking into account landslide phenomena that are developing over
slopes with similar geological and morphological setting.
VELOCITY
Class V0 V1 V2 V3
Values - < 10
-6
m/s
(< m/month)
10
-6
- 10
-4
m/s
(m/month - m/h)
> 10
-4
m/s
(>m/h)
Class Values Description NEGLIGIBLE SLOW MODERATE RAPID
A0 - NEGLIGIBLE I0 I0 I0 I0
A1 < 10
3
m
2
SMALL I0 I1 I2 I3
A2 10
3
- 10
5
m
2
MEDIUM I0 I1 I2 I3
A
R
E
A
A3 > 10
5
m
2
LARGE I0 I2 I3 I3
Tab. 3.4 Diagram for simplified assessment of intensity
B.III-12
Intensity Description
I0 NEGLIGIBLE Stable or potentially stable areas
I1 SMALL Areas with small or potentially small landslides
I2 MEDIUM Areas with intermediate or potentially intermediate landslides
I3 LARGE Areas with large or potentially large landslides
Tab. 3.5 Classes of intensity referring table 3.4
3.2 Dimension
Landslide intensity can be also estimated through the dimension of the
displaced mass (Fell, 1994) (Tab. 3.6).
Intensity (I) Description Volume (m
3
)
7 Extremely large > 5 x 10
6
6 Very large 1 x 10
6
5 x 10
6
5 Large 2.5 x 10
5
1 x 10
6
4 Medium 5 x 10
4
2.5 x 10
5
3 Small 5 x 10
3
5 x 10
4
2.5 Very small 5 x 10
2
5 x 10
3
2 Extremely small < 5 x 10
2
Table 3.6 - Scale of intensity of landslides based on the volume of
the displaced mass (Fell, 1994)
The estimation of the displaced mass is often difficult to calculate;
therefore, the intensity may be preferably expressed as landslide area.
The assessment of intensity, based on dimension, should take into account
the different landslide typologies. DRM (1990) has proposed to associate
the volume of displaced mass following landslide types (Tab. 3.7) compared
with intensity levels and consequent damage on human life and economy.
The intensity of slides is evaluated through the depth of phenomena since
the estimation of volumes, for this type of landslides, is rather difficult.
FALLS AND TOPPLES
Volume (m
3
) Description
H1 E1 < 10
2
Fall of isolated blocks
H2 E2 10
2
- 10
4
Fall, topple or sliding of blocks
H3 E3 10
4
- 10
6
Large fall of blocks
H3 E4 > 10
6
Catastrophic fall or sliding
FLOWS
Volume (m
3
) Description
H1 E1 < 5 x 10
2
Mud flow or mud slide
H2 E2 5 x 10
2
- 10
4
Mud or debris flow
H3 E3 10
4
- 10
6
Rapid debris flow
H3 E4 > 10
6
Exceptional mass movement
SLIDES
Depth (m) Description
H0 E1 < 2 Superficial slide or solifluxion
H0 E2 2 10 Localised slide
H0 E3 10 50 Slide of a slope
H0 E4 > 50 Exceptional slide
Table 3.7 - Relationship between intensity and physical
characteristics of landslides (DRM, 1990)
In the table 10 the distinction between intensity and consequences on
human setting (H
0
H
3
) and economic setting (E
1
E
4
) has been kept. With
respect to the velocity of movements, the scales of intensity referred to falls
and slides (rapid movements) are the same; as regarding slides, that are
generally slow movements, the intensity, referred to human setting, is
B.III-13
equal to zero (H
0
) independently from landslide dimension. This definition
includes an analysis of social and economic vulnerability. Finally, the
symbols H and E are referred to the French terminology humaine and
conomique (human and economic respectively) and not to the UNESCO
terminology H (Hazard) and E (Element at risk).
3.3 Energy
As reported by Morgenstern (1985) and Cruden & Varnes (1996), small and
very rapid landslides may be more disastrous than large slow-moving
landslides due to their high kinetic energy.
Intensity may be considered as equal, or proportional, to the kinetic energy
developed by landslides. The energy is variable with the time: equal to zero
at the initial conditions, increasing up to the highest value after the
landslide triggering, then decreasing up to zero again. Landslide intensity
can be measures as the maximum kinetic energy or the average value
developed by a landslide.
An assessment of the energy balance may be done following the sl ed
model, proposed by Heim (1932) and after by Scheidegger (1973), Hs
(1975) and Sassa (1988), based on the assumption that all the energy of
the movement is lost for friction.
3.4 Consequences
Another way of assessing landslide intensity is to relate the event with the
potential damage. This approach has been proposed by the French project
PER (Plan dExposition aux Risques) (DRM, 1988, 1990) where the intensity
levels are defined with respect to the potential damage for human lives
(Tab. 3.8) and economy (Tab. 3.9).
Degree Intensity Potential consequences Landslide types
H0 Very low
Improbable damage (except induced
damage)
Slow-moving landslides
H1 Medium Isolated damage Isolated falls
H2 High Some victims Falls, slides or mud flows
H3 Very high Catastrophe (some tens victims)
Catastrophic falls and slides,
rapid mud/debris flows
Table 3.8 - Scale of landslide intensity with respect to potential
consequences on human life (DRM, 1990)
Degree Intensity Potential consequences Example
E0 Low
10% of worth of an individual single
house
Detachment of unstable blocks
E1 Medium
Technical intervention on few houses or
small lots
Rock detachment or falling
rock barriers; drainage of
small unstable areas
E2 High
High qualified technical intervention of a
large area, with relevant costs
Stabilisation of a large
landslide; consolidation of a
rock slope
E3 Very high
Any t echni cal i nterventi on has
unacceptable costs for populations
Catastrophic fall or slide
Table 3.9 - Scale of landslide intensity with respect to potential
economic losses (DRM, 1990)
B.III-14
3.5 Hybrid
Landslide intensity can be assessed using different parameters as velocity,
kinetic energy, depths and heights of landslide deposits, applied, following
their suitability, for different landslide types. This approach is adopted in the
guidelines for landslide hazard and risk assessment in Switzerland (Raetzo
et al., 2002). Indicative values of these parameters are used to subdivide
potential unstable areas or risk areas in three different intensity classes:
high, medium, low (Tab. 3.10). The criterion for assessing landslide
intensity is applied on the most diffuse landslide types, distinguishing for
each one those parameters that properly characterise the intensity.
Landslide types Low intensity Average intensity High intensity
Rock falls E < 30 kj 30 < E < 300 kj E > 300 kj
Rock avalanches E > 300 kj
Slides v 2 cm/year v: dm/year (> 2 cm/year) Large differential movements: v >
0.1 m/day for superficial slides;
displacement > 1 m per event
Earth/debris flow
Potential e < 0.5 m 0.5 m < e < 2 m e > 2 m
Real - h < 1 m h > 1 m
Table 3.10 - Criteria for intensity assessment. E = kinetic energy; v
= long-term average velocity; e = depth of unstable mass; h =
height of deposit (Raetzo et al., 2002)
The BUWAL method (1998), used for the assessment of hazard in
Switzerland, provides an intensity analysis by defining the magnitude as
product of velocity vs. geometrical severity. The velocity is compared with
velocity classes provided by Cruden & Varnes (1996) (see table 3.11).
Class Description Velocity Potential damage for people
Velocity
BUWAL
7 Extremely rapid 5 m/s
6 Very rapid 3m/min
Severe injury and/or death 3
5 Rapid 1.8 m/h
4 Moderate 13m/month
Moderate injury 2
3 Slow 1.6 m/year
2 Very slow 16 mm/year
1 Extremely slow
Minor/no injury 1
Table 3.11 - Landslide intensity scale following BUWAL (1998)
compared with intensity scale from Cruden & Varnes, 1996
The geometrical severity is defined through the following table.
Falls Slides and flows Geometrical severity
Diameter of blocks > 2 m Depth > 10 m 3
Diameter of blocks 0.5 - 2 m Depth 2 - 10 m 2
Diameter of blocks < 0.5 m Depth < 2 m 1
Table 3.12 - Landslide intensity scale following BUWAL (1998) based
on geometrical severity compared with different landslide types
The magnitude is the product of geometrical severity by velocity (Tab 3.13)
Potential damage to structures Magnitude
Severe (disruption) 6-9
Functional 3-4
Minor 1-2
Table 3.13 - Landslide intensity expressed as total magnitude
(BUWAL, 1998)
B.III-15
4 Return period of landslides
The most common criteria for the assessment of landslide return times are
the following:
a) Geomorphological criteria or qualitative analysis;
b) Analysis of temporal series related to effects: the analysis of temporal
series of mass movements enables to define directly the return times of
landslides;
c) Analysis of temporal series related to causes: the correlation between
landslides and long-time records of possible triggering elements (i.e.
rainfall, seismicity) permits to define critical thresholds and associated
return times;
d) Monitoring: the instrumental observation of piezometric levels or slope
displacement for single landslides allows the prediction of slope
movements through the comparison with thresholds or models calibrated
on the observed unstable or potentially unstable areas.
4.1 Geomorphological criteria or qualitative analysis
The recurrence of landslides can be assessed subjectively from general or
qualitative information such as historical, geomorphological and
geotechnical analyses. The direct analysis, using geomorphological and
geotechnical information, in case of lack of historical data, can provide a
probabilistic estimation on landslide occurrence. This approach, although
subjective, is an effective way for assigning relative probability of return
times of landslides in a given area. For instance, a lower probability of
landslide occur in slope that exhibit rounded and vegetated crown areas
while higher probability can be associated to steep slopes with tension
cracks.
4.2 Analysis of temporal series related to effects
Historical analysis is the main source for assessing landslide return times.
The main sources are:
a) Multi-temporal analysis of maps (i.e. geomorphological maps, landslide
inventory maps);
b) Multi-temporal analysis of aerial photos or satellite images;
c) Newspapers;
d) Direct observations;
e) Scientific publications;
f) Technical reports.
Long-term activity of landslides can be analysed with datation methods,
commonly used in Earths Sciences, such as radiocarbon, lichenometry and
dendrocronology methods (Starkel, 1966; Schoeneich, 1991; Corominas et
al., 1994).
The annual frequency f(N) of landslides in a period of N years, is the ratio
between the number of events n and the number N of observed years. If N
is quite long, f(N) is an estimation of the annual probability of occurrence P.
Landslide hazard can be calculated as follows:
H(N) = 1 - (1 - P)
N
= 1 - (1 - 1/T)
N
(4.1)
B.III-16
When landslide events are very low compared to the time under analysis,
namely N << T, the equation is:
H(N) NP = N/T (4.2)
4.3 Analysis of temporal series related to causes
Return time of landslides can be estimated through the recurrence of critical
threshold related to specific triggering causes. These are mainly related to
precipitation, human activity and, subordinately, seismicity.
Theoretically, the probability of a landslide occurrence is the sum of
probabilities related to different triggering causes (Fell, 1994):
P = P
r
+ P
a
+ P
s
(4.3)
The problems related to landslide hazard assessment associated to human
activity regard the prediction stage and should be analysed in the phase of
spatial planning and risk management.
4.3.1 Precipitation
Precipitation can be considered the most common triggering cause of
landslides. The effect of precipitation is the increasing of pore pressure u
that cause a decreasing of shear strength. This, for saturated terrains, is
expressed by:
= - u (4.4)
where and represent respectively total and effective strength. Such a
reduction results in decreasing of shear strength, following the Mohr-
Coulombs failure criterion:
f
= tan + c (4.5)
In literature numerous studies on landslide-induced precipitation are
available. Generally pluviometric data are available for areas where
pluviometric stations are working; therefore, rainfall data can be effectively
used both for implementing landslide hazard models (forecasting) and for
prevention scopes (e.g. alarm systems for risk mitigation).
The possible approaches may be summarised in 7 different cathegories,
starting from empirical to quantitative models (Polemio & Petrucci, 2000):
1. empirical correlations aimed at detecting possible triggering thresholds
based on rainfall duration-intensity functions vs. landslides;
2. reconstruction of cumulated and antecedent rainfall vs. landslides;
3. long-term precipitation vs. landslides;
4. methods for analysis of effective precipitation
5. hydrological simplified methods,
6. integrated methods for precipitation-slope stability analysis;
7. complete slope stability methods.
These approaches can be grouped in 3 categories:
a) statistical or empirical models (black-box models): where a direct
correlation between rainfall height, in a defined time interval, and slope
B.III-17
movements is analysed without implementing physical laws that rule the
transformation rainfall-infiltration-piezometric response;
b) deterministic models: where hydrological models are use for analysis of
various parameters (rainfall, run-off, effective infiltration) and
hydrogeological models for analysis of piezometric height and aquifer
recharge;
c) hybrid models: where the above approaches are usually coupled (e.g.
aquifer recharge through a hydrological model and piezometric response
by means of a statistical analysis).
4.3.2 Earthquakes
The influence of earthquakes on slope stability is still quite controversial
and, often, overestimated.
The effects of an earthquake on a slope can be direct or indirect. The former
may cause slope movements during the seismic event; the former may
occur from some hours to some days after an earthquake (Hutchinson,
1993).
The main effect results in increasing of destabilizing stresses through the
application of a transient horizontal inertial stress (F = KW), where W is the
weight of the potential unstable mass and K is the coefficient of seismic
acceleration. Such a stress is generally assumed in the calculation of limit
equilibrium for the assessment of the safety factor under pseudo-static
conditions. Since the wavelengths of strong earthquakes, in most of
terrains, are some tens meters, the effects of direct destabilization may
occur only along short slopes, with length generally < 30m (Ambraseys,
1977; Hutchinson, 1987). For longer slopes, in fact, the destabilizing
acceleration produced toward the external part of slopes is balanced by a
stabilizing acceleration, with opposite direction, caused by the succeeding
waves. The highest synchronous acceleration, associated to the maximum
peak of K, results for landslides that have a dimension equal to half
wavelength.
Rock falls, debris flows and earth flows are the most common landslide
types triggered by earthquakes, especially under saturated conditions of
terrains. Re-activation of slides and flows may occur also in cohesive
materials (Hutchinson & Bhandari, 1971).
Another important effect of earthquakes, affecting saturated loose granular
soils, is the dynamic liquefaction (Seed & Idriss, 1967; Seed, 1968; Valera
& Donovan, 1977; Crespellani et al., 1988). An earthquake can cause a
consolidation of soils due to a structural collapse and, consequently,
promote critical pore pressure values that result in liquefaction. In this case,
the shear strength of soils can decrease abruptly causing sliding also along
gentle slopes. Many landslide-induced earthquakes are generally associated
to liquefaction (Seed, 1975). Moreover, since ground failure is fragile,
landslides generated by liquefaction are characterised by high velocity and
long run-out, constituting very hazardous phenomena. The assessment of
potential liquefaction of a soil is based on seismic parameters (e.g.
magnitude, duration, number of cycles, distance from epicentre, maximum
site acceleration) as well as on geotechnical parameters (e.g. grain-size
distribution, uniformity, relative density, SPT test, initial stress state).
B.III-18
The indirect effects, generally, cause the re-activation of pre-existing
landslides, also large landslides in cohesive soils, due to the cyclic load on
pore pressure regime. Some investigations (Lemos et al., 1985; Sassa,
1992) have shown that the application of rapid cyclic loads in special shear
ring apparatus can cause, in some cohesive materials, a progressive
decreasing of residual shear strength after an initial peak. Such a behaviour
can explain the delay between the seismic shake and landslide trigger.
The triggering thresholds of landslides can be assessed as local seismic
response parameters (i.e. intensity, peak acceleration) or as earthquake
source parameters (i.e. magnitude). A common adopted methodology is to
implement a deterministic analysis (i.e. pseudo-static slope stability
analysis) to calculate the critical acceleration that produce a safety factor
equal to 1. Another method is to compare empirically landslides occurrence
with site intensity of magnitude at the source.
4.4 Monitoring
The assessment of landslides occurrence based on monitoring provides the
most detailed and reliable information, especially in landslide hazard and
risk analysis at local/site scale.
Two distinct approaches can be adopted in landslide hazard analysis
through monitoring: mechanical and kinematical approaches.
4.4.1 Mechanical approach
Theoretically, the prediction of landslide movements or potentially unstable
slopes can be done through the monitoring of all parameters, variable in
time, that define the safety factors such as pore pressure, slope
morphology, geotechnical parameters of terrains, loads.
In practical terms, pore pressure is the parameter that exhibits a large
uncertainty as well as a wide variability in time. Therefore, the mechanical
approach is essentially based on piezometric measures.
Generally, 1-2 years of piezometric observations are used to deduce a
possible correlation between rainfall and groundwater fluctuation. The
prediction of hazard can be done through a statistical analysis of
precipitation. Estimated pore pressures can be used as input in slope
stability models for assessing the safety factor; in addition, their
probabilistic assessment through the analysis of annual extremes enables to
associate a return time to each safety factor value (hazard analysis).
A wide scientific literature is available on the prediction of piezometric
fluctuation related with rainfall and other meteorological parameters, based
on empirical, deterministic and hybrid approaches applied to slope stability
assessment.
4.4.2 Kinematics approach
A direct approach for predicting the time of failure of a slope is based on
displacement monitoring, through topographic, extensometric or
inclinometric measures.
B.III-19
5 Hazard assessment (H)
Hazard is defined as the probability that a landslide with a given intensity
may occur in a specific time and area. It can be expressed as annual
probability or return time of a landslide. Landslide hazard is to be referred
to a well defined intensity:
H = H ( I )
5.1 Basic concepts
As a basis for landslide hazard assessment and zoning any methodology
should be referred to the following four fundamental assumptions, widely
accepted by landslide experts (Varnes et al., 1984; Carrara et al., 1991;
Hutchinson & Chandler, 1991; Hutchinson, 1995; Turner & Schuster, 1995):
Landslides will always occur in the same geological, geomorphological,
hydrogeological and climatic conditions as in the past;
The main conditions that cause landsliding are controlled by identifiable
physical factors and laws that can be empirically, statistically and
deterministically defined;
The degree of hazard can be evaluated;
All types of slope failures can be identified and classified.
On this basis a complete assessment of landslide considers prediction of the
following parameters (Hartln & Viberg, 1988):
Typology: prediction of the landslide type that may occur in the
considered area;
Affected area: prediction of where a landslide may occur;
Return time: prediction of when a landslide may occur;
Intensity: prediction of dimension (area and/or volume), velocity or
energy of a landslide;
Evolution: prediction of run-out, retrogression limits and/or lateral
expansion of a landslide.
A rigorous landslide hazard assessment needs a large amount of
information on the various parameters. In addition, considering that reliable
scenarios should be done at local/site scale, this implies a time and money-
consuming activities for analysis and mapping.
The basic principle for which past and present unstable areas will be
affected by landslides in the future can be valid for factors that are constant
in time, such as geological, structural and geotechnical setting. A correct
landslide hazard assessment should take into account the variability of
those factors that may play a role in slope stability like climate and land use
modifications.
Due to the objective conceptual and operational limits, most of landslide
hazard maps should be defined as landslide susceptibility maps.
Limitations of landslide hazard analysis mainly include:
o Spatial and temporal discontinuity of landslides,
B.III-20
o Objective difficulty in the prediction of causes, triggering
factors and cause-effect relations,
o Long-term and exhaustive historical records on landslides and
potential triggering factors (i.e. long-term climatic records).
5.2 Prediction of landslide types
The prediction of landslide types that may occur in an area can be done
starting from an accurate landslide inventory map. In this case, the spatial
and temporal prediction of landslides can be differentiated according to
Cruden & Varnes classification.
As concerning potentially unstable areas, the expected landslide type can be
assessed on the basis of the typologies occurring in areas with similar
geological, geomorphological, geotechnical and land use characteristics.
5.3 Prediction of landslide intensity
The prediction of the landslide intensity is mainly depending on the amount
and quality of information from landslide inventory. Landslide hazard, or the
probability of occurrence, should be differentiated according to the
intensity, in order to have an estimation of consequences (risk analysis).
On this issue, some authors (i.e. Fell, 1994) provide a different definition of
landslide hazard that can be expressed as the product of intensity (I) and
probability of occurrence (P).
The methodology proposed by Fell (1994) considers the product of an index
of intensity by an index of probability associated to intensity and hazard
classes (Tab. 5.1).
INTENSITY PROBABILITY HAZARD
I Description Volume (m3) P Description P (annual) H = I P Description
7 Extremely high > 5 x 10
6
12 Extremely high 1 30 Extremely high
6 Very high
1 x 10
6
5 x
10
6
8
Very high 0.2
20-29
Very high
5 High
2.5 x 10
5
1 x
10
6
5
High 0.05
10-19
High
4 Medium
5 x 10
4
2.5 x
10
5
3
Medium 0.01
7-9
Medium
3 Small
5 x 10
3
5 x
10
4
2
Small 0.001
3-6
Small
2.5 Very small
5 x 10
2
5 x
10
3
1
Very small 0.0001
2
Very small
2
Extremely
small
< 5 x 10
2
Table 5.1 - Assessment of landslide hazard with prediction of
intensity (Fell, 1994)
The approach proposed by DRM (1990) for PER implementation is more
correct since it provides the definition of the probability of occurrence
depending on different levels of intensities. Anyway, in the implementation
of PER sometimes the local authorities have used operational criteria where
landslide hazard is not properly expressed as combination of probability by
intensity (Perrot, 1988).
B.III-21
The expression of hazard as I x P is not coherent with the UNESCO
terminology and can present some problems. In fact, an event of small
dimensions and very frequent can have the same hazard of a very large and
less frequent landslide event. In addition, the vulnerability is already related
to landslide intensity. This implies that intensity is taken into account two
times in the risk assessment. To overcome this problem Fell defines the
specific risk as the product of probability by vulnerability.
5.4 Prediction on landslide affected area
The spatial prediction of hazard consists in the assessment of relative
hazard. This is the degree of hazard of a slope compared with other slopes,
without indicating the probability of occurrence of landslides (temporal
occurrence), generally based on historical and present instability.
5.4.1 Methods of relative hazard analysis
The methods for the assignment of the different hazard levels can be
qualitative or quantitative, direct or indirect:
Qualitative methods are subjective and describe the hazard zoning in
terms substantially descriptive;
Quantitative methods provide numerical estimations, in terms of
probability, on landslide occurrences for each hazard class;
Direct methods produce essentially geomorphological mapping of
landslide hazard (Verstappen, 1983);
Indirect methods are essentially carried out through distinct stages. First
of all, these require a field analysis and a landslide inventory map in the
study area or in a subset area (training area). The second step is the
detection and mapping of a set of physical factors that are directly or
indirectly related to slope instability (predisposing factors). Finally, an
assessment of the relative contribution of the various predisposing
factors for landsliding and a hierarchisation of landslide hazard in areas
with distinct hazard degree (hazard zoning).
5.4.1.1 Qualitative methodologies
In general qualitative approaches are based entirely on expert judgement.
The input data are usually derived from assessment during field trips,
possibly integrated by aerial photo interpretation. These methodologies can
be divided into two types: field geomorphological analysis and combination
or overlaying of index maps (heuristic approach).
5.4.1.1.1 Field geomorphologic analysis
This approach is a direct and qualitative method based on the experience of
the earth scientist in assessing present and potential landsliding without any
specific indication of rules that have led to the assessment and/or zoning. In
this case the stability maps are directly evolved from detailed
geomorphological maps. The assessment of slope stability takes into
consideration a very large number of factors. They can be used successfully
at any scale and adapted to specific local requirements. The field
geomorphological analysis does not require the use of a Geographical
B.III-22
Information System which, in this case, is simply a drawing tool. Examples
of geomorphological-based hazard analysis are very frequent in scientific
literature of the 70s and 80s.
Perhaps one of the most comprehensive projects reported in the literature is
the French ZERMOS (Zones Exposes des Risques aux MOuvements du
Sol et du sou-sol) procedure which involves two main phases: analysis and
extrapolation. In the first phase, all the predisposing factors are examined,
both permanent (e.g. topography, geology, hydrogeology) and temporary
(e.g. climate, land use and other man-made factors). Active and/or inactive
landslides may be analysed. In the following phase all the factors are
extrapolated by the author to areas with similar physical conditions, thus
enabling zoantion of the area into three sections with varying degrees of
hazard (defined as risque):
null or low hazard, areas in which no instability should occur;
potential or uncertain hazard, areas with potential instability of uncertain
nature and extent;
ascertained hazard, areas with declared instability and certain threat of
failure.
The hazard calculated is of a relative nature and the authors acknowledge
that the various hazard categories cannot be compared from one area to
another. The choice of three classes is inspired to the necessity to let the
hazard maps comprehensive by stakeholders and end users (Public
Administration)
The main disadvantages of such approaches are:
The subjectivity in the selection of both the data and the rules that
govern the stability of slopes or the hazard of instability; this fact makes
it difficult to compare landslide hazard maps produced by different
investigators or experts;
Use of implicit rather than explicit rules hinders the critical analysis of
results and makes it difficult to update the assessment as new data
become available;
Lengthy field surveys are required.
5.4.1.1.2 Combination of index maps or heuristic approach
In this approach, the expert selects and maps the factors that affect the
slope stability and, based on personal experience, assigns to each a
weighted value that is proportionate to its expected relative contribution in
generating failure. The following operations should be carried out:
subdivision of each parameter into a number of relevant classes;
attribution of a weighted value to each class;
attribution of a weighted value to each of the parameters;
overlay mapping of the weighted maps;
development of the final map showing hazard classes.
The advantages of such a methodological approach are that it considerably
reduces the problem of the hidden rules and enables total automation of the
operations listed above through appropriate use of a GIS. Furthermore, it
enables the standardisation of data management techniques, from
acquisition through final analysis. This technique can be applied at any
B.III-23
scale. In order to provide a better coherence to physical processes, the
attribution of weights can be supported by statistical analysis on the
assessment of the contribution of single predisposing parameters to slope
instability.
The major disadvantage is the lengthy operations involved, especially where
large areas are concerned. In addition, the reliability of heuristic methods
depends largely on how well and how much the investigator understands
the geomorphological processes acting upon the terrain. Since this
knowledge can be formalised into rules, the method could take into account
local geomorphological variability or specific conditions leading to slope
failures. Major limitations refer to the fact that in most cases the available
knowledge on the causal relations between environmental factors and
landslides is inadequate and, most importantly, is essentially dependent on
the experience of the investigator. At present, maps obtained by this
method cannot be readily evaluated in terms of reliability or certainty.
Additionally, landslide hazard is not directly expressed in terms of
probability, limiting the use for risk evaluation and economic estimates.
5.4.1.2 Quantitative methodologies
5.4.1.2.1 Statistical analysis
The attribution of weighted values on a subjective basis to the numerous
factors governing slope stability represents the main limitation in all the
methods described above. The solution to this problem could be to adopt a
statistical approach that compares the spatial distribution of landslides with
the parameters that are being considered. The results could then be applied
to areas currently free of landslides but where conditions may exist for
susceptibility to future instability. The major difficulty consists in
establishing the slope failure processes and in systematically identifying and
assessing the different factors related to landsliding. One of the principal
advantages is that the investigator can validate the importance of each
factor can validate the importance of each factor and decide on the final
input maps in an interactive manner. The use of GIS makes these
operations much easier and to a large extent explains the increasing
adoption of the statistical approach which closely parallels the ever-
increasing application of GIS techniques.
Statistical analyses can be either bivariate or multivariate.
Bivariate statistical analysis
In bivariate statistical analysis each individual factor is compared to the
landslide map. The weighted value of the classes used to categorise every
parameter is determined on the basis of landslide density in each individual
class. The following operations are required:
selection and mapping of significant parameters and their categorisation
into a number of relevant classes;
landslide mapping;
overlay mapping of the landslide map with each parameter map;
B.III-24
determination of density of landslides in each parameter class and
definition of weighted values;
assignment of weighting values to the various parameter maps;
final overlay mapping and calculation of the final hazard or susceptibility
value of each identified land unit.
The simplest models consider the determination of threshold value of slope
angle, for each lithological type, that may cause potential slope instability.
The models are based on a series of empirical functions that relate two or
more significant parameters, such as slope height or slope angle of
landslide areas.
The bivariate statistical approach is widely employed by the earth scientists
and numerous parameters may be taken into consideration: lithology, slope
angle, slope height, land use, distance from major structures, drainage
density, relief morphology, closeness of the facet to a river, attitude of
lithotypes. This approach has been successfully employed by researchers
mapping hazard of superficial failures that affect prevalently weathered and
soil covers, triggered by heavy rainfall.
Multivariate statistical analysis
Although the multivariate statistical approach had already been successfully
applied in several areas of applied geology, such as petroleum exploration,
the application of this technique to landslide hazard assessment began since
the second half of 70s. The so-called black-box statistical approaches are
based on the analysis of functional links among the various predisposing
factors and present and past landslide distribution.
The procedure involves several preliminary steps which are undertaken in a
test area. Once the results achieved have been verified, they are extended
to the entire area under examination. The following steps are required.
1. Classification of the study area into land units.
2. Identification of significant factors and creation of input maps.
The input variables include information concerning the landslides (i.e.
typology, degree of activity) and geo-referencing. Several attributes are
automatically derived from statistical operations performed on the basic
parameters (mean, standard deviation, maximum or minimum values). An
important aspect is the conversion of various parameters from nominal to
numeric, such as geological composition or vegetation cover. This can be
done through the creation of dummy variables or by coding and ranking the
classes based on the relative percentage of the area affected by landsliding.
The two methods are similar but the latter is to be preferred.
3. Construction of a landslide map.
4. Identification of the percentage of landslide-affected areas in every land
unit and their classification into unstable and stable units.
The threshold value of this classification is fixed every time on the basis of
two requirements: a) in areas with high landslide density, the threshold
should be based on relatively high percentages in order to achieve two
statistically representative groups; b) however, even a relatively low
landslide density must be taken into consideration as it could represent a
B.III-25
risk for human activities. In general, the decision to carry out the analysis
on two groups only (unstable and stable land units) simplifies the problem
from a statistical point of view but hinders the identification of various
combinations of factors related to different hazard types.
5. Combination of the parameter maps with the land unit map and creation
of an absence/presence matrix of a given class of a given parameter within
each land unit.
6. Multivariate statistical analysis.
The statistical analysis most frequently used are discriminant analysis or
regressive multiple analysis which are often employed in parallel within the
same project. It is preferable to apply discriminant analysis (stepwise or
canonical discriminant analysis) with continuous variables, while the
regressive analysis can be used even with nominal variables.
7. Reclassification of land units based on the results achieved in the
previous phase and their classification into susceptibility classes.
In the discriminant analysis for example, the inspection of the standardised
discriminant coefficient allows the contribution of various parameters in
causing slope instability to be quantified and, as a result, enables objective
reclassification of the study area. By transforming the classification function
scores into probabilities, the susceptibility map can then be converted into a
hazard map.
Black-box are conceptually simple but, due to the great complexity in
identifying the slope failure processes and the difficulty in systematically
collecting the different factors related to landsliding, the task of creating
a geomorphological predictive model enabling actual/potential unstable
slopes to be identified over large areas, is difficult operationally.
Errors in mapping past and present landslides will exert a large and not
readily predictable influence on statistical models, particularly if errors
are systematic in not recognizing specific landslide types.
Additionally, being data-driven, a statistical model built up for one region
cannot readily be extrapolated to the neighbouring areas.
5.4.1.2.2 Geotechnical models
Deterministic analysis
This type of approach involves analysing specific sites or slopes in
engineering terms. The main physical properties are quantified and applied
to specific mathematical models and the safety factor is calculated. These
models (mono, bi- and tri-dimensional) are commonly used in soil
engineering for slope-specific stability studies. The approach is widely
employed in civil engineering and engineering geology and has been applied
to landslide hazard assessment and mapping, especially after the
introduction of GIS. Accuracy and reliability is improved as detailed
knowledge of the area of application increases. A deterministic approach
was traditionally considered to be sufficient for both homogenous and non-
homogenous slopes. The index of stability is the well known safety factor,
based on the appropriate geotechnical model. The calculation of the safety
B.III-26
factor, F, requires geometrical data, shear strength parameters and
information on pore water pressure. Moreover, decisions must be made on
whether to use peak shear strength values or residual shear strength values
(or values in between) for specific parts of the slip surface. For these
reasons such methods are normally applied only in small areas and at
detailed scales. Calculations of the safety factor must be made for each
individual slope or area before a hazard map can be prepared.
The safety factor enables the evaluation on the slope stability degree and
an objective comparison among different slopes. Usually the probability of
occurrence of a landslide is not calculated unless the safety factor is related
to the temporal occurrence of the possible triggering factor (i.e. critical
precipitation return time). A reference for assessing the relative hazard
based on F has been proposed by Ward (1996).
Tab.5.2 - Hazard classes related to safety factor F (Ward, 1976).
Probabilistic analysis
For decades, geotechnical modelling and analysis within a deterministic
framework has facilitated the quantification of safety or reliability. However,
performance indicators such as the factor of safety, F, do not take into
account the variability of geotechnical parameters of terrains such as
cohesion c, angle of internal friction and the undrained shear strength s
u
some of which may also vary in magnitude with time. The spatial and
temporal variability of pore water pressure is again very important but is
not reflected in the calculated values of the conventional factor of safety.
The probability of failure is defined as the probability that the performance
function has a value below the threshold value. Considering the factor of
safety, F, as the performance function, the threshold value is 1 and
probability of failure pf may, therefore, defined as:
pf = P[F<1] (5.1)
The probability of success or the reliability ps is therefore the complement
of pf:
ps = 1 - pf (5.2)
In order to calculate the probability of failure, the probability density
function of the performance function is required. Thus it is recognised that F
is not a single-valued function. Its probability distribution may be
characterised by means of at least two statistical parameters, the mean or
central value F and the standard deviation
F
.
It is often useful to define a reliability index which combines the mean and
standard deviation of the performance function. Thus, if F is the
performance function
= (F 1)/ F (5.3)
Hazard F
High < 1.2
Medium 1.2 - 1.7
Low > 1.7
B.III-27
The numerator gives the extent to which the average value is above the
threshold value and the denominator reflects the dispersion from this
average value.
Three commonly used methods of probability calculation are:
First Order Second Moment Method (FOSM);
Point Estimate Method;
Monte Carlo Simulation Method.
The availability of GIS can facilitate the use of a deterministic or a
probabilistic geotechnical approach as part of a methodology of landslide
hazard assessment. For example, after subdivision of an area or region into
elements or small areas, the factor of safety of individual sloping areas may
be computed and then mapped. Alternatively, using a probabilistic
framework, the probability of failure of individual slopes could be computed
and then mapped. Depending on the adopted hazard assessment approach,
this information could be used on its own or combined with other factors or
factor maps to produce susceptibility maps and/or hazard maps.
The deterministic models that provide safety factor calculation usually do
not provide return time of landslide phenomena.
Systematical uncertainties derive from the following considerations:
o a soil mass can only be investigated at a finite number of points;
o the number of field and laboratory tests conducted to determine soil
parameters is limited by financial and time constraints;
o the testing equipment and methods are not perfect.
Other uncertainties are associated with geotechnical models, landslide
mechanisms, their occurrence and impact.
A deterministic analysis of landslide hazard can be done only for single
slopes or limited areas where a large and detailed geotechnical data are
available.
Reliable mechanical models are not yet available for several types of
structurally complex rock units.
5.5 Temporal prediction
The temporal prediction of landslide hazard is essentially based on definition
of the probability of occurrence of landslides. While spatial prediction
provides a relative hazard of different slopes, the temporal prediction
provides an absolute hazard.
For some authors the term absolute hazard is not referred to the probability
of occurrence, but to the definition of the safety factor (F) that, as already
discussed, indicates only a relative zoning of a slope-failure propensity and
not a probabilistic estimate of occurrence.
5.5.1 Analysis of return time
If P is the annual probability of occurrence of a landslide, the return time T
of the event is given by 1/P.
B.III-28
The probability of occurrence of m events in a period of N years is given by:
P m N
N
m N m
P P
m N m
( , )
!
!( )!
( ) =

1
In case of rare events compared with the available temporal scale (for
N>30 or P<0.02 the error is <1%) the binomial distribution can be
represented by Poissons distribution:
( )
P m N
NP e
m
m
NP
( , )
!
=

Hazard, H, is defined as the probability of occurrence of at least one
landslide in a period of N years or:
H N P m N ( ) ( , ) = = 1 0
Therefore, on the basis of binomial distribution the equation is:
H N P
T
N
N
( ) ( ) = =
1 1 1 1
1
while following Poissons distribution:
H N e e
NP N T
( )
/
= =

1 1
As concerning rarer events compared with the analysed temporal scale (for
NP<0.02 the error is <1%) the equation can be approximated to:
H N NP
N
T
( ) =
The probability of occurrence can be calculated both in absolute terms
(annual probability or return times) or following nominal scales (e.g. high
probability, low probability).
In literature, the interpretation of recurrence of slow-moving re-activated
landslides is illustrated in the following tables.
Class Hazard T (years) Landslide movement
1 Very high > 2 Continuous or seasonal
2 High 2-5 Periodical
3 Medium 5-20 Periodical
4 Low 20-50 Periodical
5 Very low >50 Periodical
Table 5.3 - Landslide hazard classes based on return time (Del Prete
et al., 1992)
Hazard T (years) P (annual)
Extremely high 1 1
Very high 5 0.2
High 20 0.05
Medium 100 0.01
Low 1000 0.001
Very low 10000 0.0001
Table 5.4 - Landslide hazard classes based on return time (Fell,
1994)
B.III-29
5.5.2 Analysis of intensity/magnitude
The BUWAL method (1998) is used for the analysis of landslide hazard. This
is calculated through a matrix between intensity, expressed as velocity
(Tab. 5.5) and magnitude (Tab. 5.6), vs. return times of potential
landslides.
Velocity Return time (years) Probability (annual) Hazard
1 < 1 (active) 1 1
1 1-30 0.03 3
1 30-100 0.01 2
1 100-1000 0.001 2
2 < 1 (active) 1 3
2 1-30 0.03 4
2 30-100 0.01 3
2 100-1000 0.001 2
2 > 1000 0.0001 1
3 < 1 (active) 1 4
3 1-30 0.03 4
3 30-100 0.01 4
3 100-1000 0.001 3
3 > 1000 0.0001 2
Table 5.5 - Potential landslide hazard related to velocity and return
time (BUWAL, 1998)
Magnitude Return time (years) Probability (annual) Hazard
1-2 < 1 (active) 1 2
1-2 1-30 0.03 3
1-2 30-100 0.01 2-3
1-2 100-1000 0.001 2
3-4 < 1 (active) 1 3
3-4 1-30 0.03 3-4
3-4 30-100 0.01 3
3-4 100-1000 0.001 2-3
3-4 > 1000 0.0001 1
6-9 < 1 (active) 1 4
6-9 1-30 0.03 4
6-9 30-100 0.01 4
6-9 100-1000 0.001 3
6-9 > 1000 0.0001 1-2
Table 5.6 - Potential landslide hazard related to magnitude and
return time (BUWAL, 1998)
Since vulnerability is proportional to landslide phenomena, the levels of
landslide hazard, when associated to the elements at risk, correspond to
specific risk (Cruden & Varnes, 1996).
5.6 Prediction of evolution
The prediction of landslide evolution consists in the detection of the area
that can be directly or indirectly affected by a landslide, through the
analysis of:
o prediction of run-out;
o prediction of retrogression limits;
o prediction of lateral expansion.
B.III-30
5.6.1 Prediction of run-out
Current an past research into the run-out calculation of a fast-moving
landslide (i.e. rock falls, debris flows, rock avalanches) can generally be
grouped into three categories. The first includes empirical models aimed at
providing practical tools for predicting the run-out distance and distribution
of landslide accumulation. The second category includes simplified analytical
models that describes the physical behaviour of mass movement, based on
lumped mass approaches in which the mass is assumed as a single point.
The third includes numerical simulations of conservation equations of mass,
momentum and energy that describe the dynamic motion of landslide mass,
and/or a rheological model to describe the material behaviour of sliding
mass.
5.6.2 Prediction of retrogression limits
The prediction of retrogression limits is essentially based on the analysis of
geomorphologic evidences on the field that define the distribution of activity
(i.e. tension cracks, counter slopes). Some landslide typologies are
generally characterised by a retrogressive evolution such as rotational and
translational slides, rock topples/falls affecting jointed rocks. In most cases,
the ultimate limit is represented by the catchments divide so that the
analysis, although conservative, can be carried out simply by using
topographical information.
5.6.3 Prediction of lateral expansion
The prediction of lateral expansion is important in the analysis of earth
flows or liquefaction phenomena, when the displaced mass is very fluid and
may expand to the slope toe. The prediction is very complex and mostly
depends on slope morphology, grain-size and water content of soils, shear
strength of materials, pore pressure and lateral stress coefficient.
6 Landslide hazard mapping
6.1 Introduction
The identification and map portrayal of areas highly susceptible to
damaging landslides are first and necessary steps toward loss-reduction
(Zeizel, 1988). There are four general categories of potential users of
landslide hazard information (Wold and Jochim, 1989):
o scientists and engineers who use the information directly;
o planners and decision makers who consider landslide hazards among
other land-use and development criteria;
o developers, builders, and financial and insuring organizations;
o interested citizens, educators, and others with little or no technical
experience.
Members of these groups differ widely in the kinds of information they need
and in their ability to use that information (Wold and Jochim, 1989).
Most local governments do not have landslide hazard maps and do not have
funding available for mapping activities, and such communities usually look
to a higher level of government for mapping. The U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) has provided maps in some areas (e.g., demonstration
B.III-31
mapping of San Mateo County, California; Brabb et al., 1972), but in
general, landslide hazard mapping by the USGS has had limited geo-
graphic coverage. Although most local communities look to their state as
the primary source of maps, few states have undertaken significant
landslide hazard mapping programs. However, there are important
exceptions. California and Oregon, for example, have undertaken landslide
hazard mapping at standard USGS mapping scales. These maps provide an
excellent starting point for local communities and, importantly, form the
basis for state laws that require a certain level of compliance with the
information they provide.
The considerable variability among state geological agencies, particularly in
terms of their existing mapping capabilities and projected funding
environments, makes it difficult to provide detailed commentary and
suggestions regarding the partnerships between the USGS and states for
landslide hazard mapping and assessment. Historically, there have been
strong ties between the USGS and state geological surveys in the realm of
mapping (e.g., Ellen et al., 1993; Coe et al., 2000b) and, to a lesser extent,
for the identification and mitigation of natural hazards. The suggestion in
the national strategy proposal (Spiker and Gori, 2000) of mapping
partnerships, using a model based on competitive grants and matching
funds (as with the existing National Geologic Cooperative Mapping
Program), would undoubtedly provide resources for a considerable amount
of much-needed mapping. However, such a model raises the possibility that
hazard mapping assessed as having a high priority might not be possible if
state matching funds are not available.
It is important that the details of the cooperative mapping partnership be
worked out carefully, in close consultation with state geologists, as the
national strategy implementation plan is being developed. Landslide hazard
zonation is commonly portrayed on maps. Preparation of these maps
requires a detailed knowledge of the landslide processes that are or have
been active in an area and an understanding of the factors that may lead to
an occurrence of potentially damaging landslides.
Accordingly, this is a task that should be undertaken by geoscientists. In
contrast, vulnerability analysis, which assesses the degree of loss, requires
detailed knowledge of population density, infrastructure, economic
activities, and ecological and water quality values and the effects that a
specific landslide would have on these elements. Specialists in urban
planning and social geography, economists, and engineers should perform
these analyses.
Because landslides both leave a topographic signature when they occur and
are driven largely by topographic effects, improved sources of high-
resolution topographic information have the potential to greatly increase the
accuracy of landslide hazard maps.
6.2 Susceptibility and hazard mapping
A national strategy (Spiker and Gori, 2000) should identify three activities
that are required to provide the maps, assessments, and other information
needed by officials and planners to reduce landslide risk and losses:
B.III-32
1. Develop and implement a plan for mapping and assessing landslide
and other ground failure hazards nationwide.
2. Develop an inventory of known landslide and other ground failure
hazards nationwide.
3. Develop and encourage the use of standards and guidelines for
landslide hazard maps and assessments.
The landslide inventory and landslide susceptibility maps are critically
needed in landslide prone regions of the nation. These maps must be
sufficiently detailed to support mitigation action at the local level. To cope
with the many uncertainties involved in landslide hazards, probabilistic
methods are being developed to map and assess landslide hazards (Spiker
and Gori, 2000, p.13). Hazard zoning may be mapped at various scales;
user requirements and the intended applications determine the appropriate
scale. Because a clear understanding of the different types of landslide
hazard maps is critical for successful implementation of a national strategy.
In the absence of accepted national standards for landslide hazard maps, a
variety of mapping styles have been employed for each type of map. This
even applies to landslide inventory mapsthe most basic type of landslide
map. These document the locations and outlines of landslides that have
occurred in an area during a single event or multiple events. Small-scale
landslide inventory maps may show only landslide locations and general
outlines of larger landslides, whereas large-scale maps may distinguish
landslide sources from landslide deposits, classify different kinds of
landslides, and show other pertinent data.
The quantitative definition of hazard or vulnerability requires analysis of
landslide-triggering factors, such as earthquakes or rainfall, or the
application of complex models. Both tasks are extremely difficult when
dealing with large areas. Consequently, the legends for most landslide
hazard maps usually describe only the susceptibility of certain areas to
landslides, or provide only relative indications of the degree of hazard, such
as high, medium, and low. Not all methods of landslide zonation are equally
applicable at each scale or for each type of analysis. Some require very
detailed input data that can be collected only for small areas because of the
required levels of effort and the high cost.
Consequently, selection of an appropriate mapping technique depends on
the type of landslide problems occurring within an area of interest and the
availability of data and financial resources, as well as the duration of the
investigation and the professional experience of the experts involved. When
carefully applied by well-qualified experts, the inferential approach may
describe the real causes of slope instability, based on scientific and
professional criteria.
However, due to the scale and complexity of slope instability factors, the
basic inferential approach is unlikely to be definitive over large areas when
mapping is conducted at small scales. For such applications, the
combination of expert inference and qualitatively weighted contributing
parameters greatly improves the objectivity and reproducibility of the
zoning. Combined statistical and process based approaches may efficiently
provide reliable regional landslide zoning over large areas, by classifying the
terrain into susceptibility classes that reflect the presence and intensity of
causative factors of slope instability.
B.III-33
For detailed studies of small areas, large amounts of data may become
available, and in such cases, simple process-based models become
increasingly practical for establishing landslide hazard zoning. They allow
variations in the safety factor to be approximated and, thus, yield
information useful to design engineers.
6.3 Hazard zoning scales
Characteristics and Use Data Acquisition and Mapping Procedures
National zoning maps:
Provide a general inventory of problem areas for
the landslide inventories nation with a low level of
detail. These maps are useful to national policy
makers and the general public.
National summary of regional landslide and map
products
Regional zoning maps:
Provide engineers and planners an overview of
potential landslide impacts on large projects or
regional developments during initial planning
phases. The areas investigated are quite large and
the required map detail is low.
Detailed data collection for individual factors
(geomorphology, lithology, soils, etc.) is not a cost-
effecti ve approach. Data gathered from
stereoscopic satellite imagery combined with
regional geologic, tectonic, or seismic data should
delineate homogeneous terrain units.
Local zoning maps:
Identify land sliding zones for large engineering
structures, roads, and urban areas. The
investigations may cover quite large areas; yet a
considerably higher level of detail is required.
Slopes adjacent to landslides should be evaluated
separately and may be assigned different hazard
scores depending on their characteristics.
Data collection should support the production of
detailed multi temporal landslide distribution maps
and provide information about the various
parameters required in statistical analysis.
Site-specific zonation maps:
Used during site investigations to provide absolute
hazard classes and variable safety factors as a
function of slope conditions and the influence of
specific triggering factors.
Data collection should relate to the parameters
needed for slope stability modelling (e.g., material
sequences and geotechnical properties, seismic
accelerations, hydrologic data).
Table 6.1 Hazard zoning scales
6.4 Landslide Hazard map types
A landslide inventory map shows the locations and outlines of landslides.
A landslide inventory is a data set that may represent a single event or
multiple events. Small-scale maps may show only landslide locations,
whereas large-scale maps may distinguish landslide sources from deposits,
classify different kinds of landslides, and show other pertinent data.
A landslide susceptibility map ranks slope stability of an area into
categories that range from stable to unstable. Susceptibility maps show
where landslides may form. Many susceptibility maps use a colour scheme
that relates warm colours (red, orange, and yellow) to unstable and
marginally unstable areas and cool colours (blue and green) to more stable
areas.
A landslide hazard map indicates the annual probability (likelihood) of
landslides occurring throughout an area. An ideal landslide hazard map not
only shows the chances that a landslide may form at a particular place, but
also the chances that a landslide from farther upslope may strike that place.
A landslide risk map shows the expected annual cost of landslide damage
throughout an area. Risk maps combine the probability information from a
landslide hazard map with an analysis of all possible consequences
(property damage, casualties, and loss of service).
B.III-34
6.5 Approaches to landslide mapping
6.5.1 The Inferential Approach
This approach is very common and relies on visual analysis of aerial
photographs, and other remote-sensing images, topographic and geologic
maps, and field observations and historical data, to create interpretative
maps of the extent and relatively activity of landslide features. Four major
classes of maps may be produced by the inferential approach:
1. Landslide inventory maps show the spatial distribution of mass
movements, represented either as affected areas to scale or as point
symbols (Wieczorek, 1984).
2. Landslide density maps show landslide distributions by landslide
isopleths (Wright et al., 1974).
3. Landslide activity maps are usually based on interpretation of aerial
photographs taken at different times.
4. Qualitative combination maps result when a scientist uses individual
expert knowledge to assign weights to a series of parameter maps
and then sums these to produce a series of relatively homogeneous
slope instability zones (Stevenson, 1977).
Limitations
Maps produced by the inferential approach, while rooted in direct
observation, are strongly dependent on the experience and skill of the
mapmaker. Inventory, density, and activity maps are costly to create and
require repeated updating after major landslide-producing storms.
Qualitative combination maps may be unreliable when insufficient field
knowledge of the important factors prevents the proper establishment of
factor weights, leading to unacceptable generalizations.
6.5.2 The Statistical Approach
The statistical approach consists of mapping a large number of parameters
considered to potentially affect landslides, and subsequent (statistical)
analysis of all potential contributing factors. This analysis hopefully
identifies conditions leading to slope failures. The advent of digital elevation
data has encouraged the use of two distinct statistical approaches:
1. Bivariate statistical analysis evaluates each factor map (e.g., slope,
geology, land-use) in turn with the landslide distribution map, and
weighting values based on landslide densities are calculated. Brabb et al.
(1972) provided an early example of such an analysis. USGS personnel in
Menlo Park, California later applied geographic information system (GIS)
techniques to statistical landslide mapping (Newman et al., 1978; Brabb,
1984, 1987; Brabb et al., 1989). Subsequently several statistical methods
have been applied to calculate the weighting values (van Westen, 1993).
2. Multivariate statistical models for landslide hazard zonation have been
developed in Italy, mainly by Carrara (1983, 1988) and his colleagues
(Carrara et al., 1991, 1992). All relevant factors are evaluated spatially
within grid cells or by morphometric units. The statistical model is built up
in a training area, where the spatial distribution of landslides is well
known. Then the model is extended to the entire study area, based on the
B.III-35
assumption that the factors that cause slope failure in the target area are
the same as those in the training area. Bernknopf et al. (1988) applied
multiple regression analysis to a GIS data set, using presence or absence of
landslides as the dependent variable and the factors used in a slope stability
model (soil depth, soil strength, slope angle) as independent variables.
Limitations. Statistical approaches have the advantage of using an objective
procedure for hazard delineation and are relatively inexpensive to create
once the digital data are available and statistical analyses have been
performed. Good results are found in homogeneous zones or areas with
only a few types of slope instability processes. In more complex situations,
very large data sets may be required because the methods do not make use
of selective criteria based on professional experience. Another disadvantage
of the statistical approach is that specific empirical relationships may be of
limited generality; hence statistical relationships have to be determined for
each study region, the boundaries of which are not clear.
6.5.3 The Process-Based Approach
This approach uses a deterministic or process-based analysis to delineate
relative landslide potential. Quantitative theory for slope instability is
applied using digital elevation data and other digital information, such as
geologic attributes and vegetation cover. The slope instability theory is
commonly coupled to process-based hydrologic models. This approach
emerged in the past 10 years and is undergoing rapid evolution, driven in
part by new observational technology (see below). Despite problems related
to collection of sufficient and reliable input data, deterministic models are
increasingly used for hazard analysis over larger areas, especially with the
aid of GIS techniques, which can handle the large number of calculations
involved when determining safety factors over large areas. Yet this
approach is applicable only when the geomorphic and geologic conditions
are fairly homogeneous over the entire study area and the landslide types
are simple.
Limitations. The main problem with process-based methods is their high
degree of simplification. Slope stability is often strongly dependent on local
conditions, such as planes of weakness in bedrock, root strength, or
groundwater conductivity, which are at present nearly impossible to map at
the resolution needed over a large area. Hence, the controlling parameters
in processed-based models can be difficult to estimate, and considerable
uncertainty must be accepted in model results.
6.6 The mapping unit for GIS Technique
Evaluation of landslide hazard requires the preliminary selection of a
suitable mapping unit, according to data availability, scale of analysis and
representation and potential landslide hazard methodological approach to
be implemented.
The mapping unit refers to a portion of the land surface which contains a
set of ground conditions that differ from the adjacent units across definable
boundaries (Hansen, 1984). At the scale of the analysis, a mapping unit
represents domain that maximises internal homogeneity and between-units
heterogeneity. Various methods have been proposed to partition the
B.III-36
landscape for landslide hazard assessment and mapping (Meijerink, 1988;
Carrara et al., 1995). All methods fall into one of the following five groups:
1. grid-cells;
2. terrain units;
3. unique-condition units;
4. slope units;
5. topographic units.
Gr i d- cel l s, preferred by raster-based GIS users, divide the territory into
regular squares of pre-defined size which become the mapping unit of
reference. Each grid-cell is assigned a value for each factor (e.g.
morphology, lithology, geotechnical parameters) taken into consideration.
Alternatively, a stack of raster layers, each mapping a single instability
factor, is prepared.
Terrai n uni ts, traditionally used by geomorphologists, are based on the
observation that in natural environments the interrelations between
materials, forms and processes result in boundaries which frequently reflect
geomorphological and geological differences. Terrain units are the base of
the land-system classification approach which has found application in many
land resources investigations.
Uni que- condi ti on uni ts imply the classification of each slope-instability
factor into a few significant classes which are stored into a single map, or
layer. By sequentially overlying all the layers, homogeneous domains
(unique conditions) are singled out whose number, size and nature depend
on the criteria used in classifying the input factors.
Sl ope- uni ts, automatically derived from high-quality DTMs, partition the
territory into hydrological regions between drainage and divide lines.
Depending on the type of instability to be investigated the mapping unit
may correspond either to the sub-basin or to the main slope-unit. Slope-
units can be further subdivided into topographi c uni ts defined by the
intersections of contours and flow tube boundaries orthogonal to contours.
For each topographic unit, local morphometric variables and the cumulative
drainage area of all up-slope elements are computed.
Selection of an appropriate mapping unit depends on a number of factors
such as: the type of landslides under analysis; the scale of investigation;
the quality, resolution, scale and type of the thematic information required;
the availability of the adequate information management and analysis tools.
Each technique for tesselling the territory has advantages and limitations
that can be stressed or reduced choosing the appropriate hazard evaluation
method.
7 Element at Risk (E) or exposure
7.1 Definition
Elements at risk can be defined as Population, property, economic activity,
public services or environmental goods situated in a location exposed to
danger. In landslide risk assessment, finalised on spatial planning, the
main topic is not only calibrated on the existing activities and goods but also
on the scenario provide by development plane.
B.III-37
7.2 Cartography related to the element at risk - Map of
Exposure -
The map of element at risk (map of exposure), constitute one of the most
important start data, not only for a complete landslide risk analysis
(forecasting applications), but also for the mitigation measurements
planning and for preparedness of emergency plan.
Data available for the production of an exposure map could be provided by
public stakeholders (i.e. municipality, region, province, district) trough their
planning and urbanisation instruments (i.e. strategic regional plan,
preparatory land-use planning, detailed land-use planning)
A correct and exhaustive exposure map could be containing the inventory of
all settlement, structure and infrastructure element exposed at risk like:
a ) Urban settlement, commercial, industrial and agriculture activities,
organized by human density, buildings typology and function;
b) Transport infrastructure and in particular the more sensitive area, in
order to prevent the problems of services interruption; the infrastructure
exposed at fall and occlusions;
c) Services infrastructure like hydro drinkable distributions net, lifelines in
general and pipelines in general; in order to pointed out the more
sensitive tract and point;
d ) Public structures (i.e. school, barrack, city hall) and rescue and
emergency structures (i.e. hospital, fire department, civil protection)
e) Technological and industrial plant potentially pollutant;
f) Cultural heritage, historical, artistic, cultural, environmental and
landscape goods.
7.3 Economic value of element at risk
For each single typology of element at risk could be defined the economic
value W or number of units of each element at risk situated in a given
location:
W = W(E)
The value of element at risk could be expressed in terms of number N or
quantity of exposed unity (i.e. number of persons, buildings) or in terms of
exposed area S (i.e. hectares of terrain) or in alternative in monetary
terms. The value is a specific function of every single element at risk:
W = N otherwise W = S
For the comparison between different element at risk sometimes is usefull
to express the value in monetary terms, simply multiply the number N o
element or the surface S by a unitary cost w
W = N x w otherwise W = S x w
The expression of the value in monetary terms is particularly indicated for
the risk analysis of elements with difficult parametrisation. For examples in
the national France project PER, risk is been calculated separately between
human life and socio economical settlement.
B.III-38
7.3.1 Human life Value
The economic value of element at risk, in terms of human life proposed by
DRM (1990) is showed below in the table.
The monetary value is normalized with the assumption that 1 is the medium
cost of the human life. The high value linked to injured is strictly connected
by the highest social cost for the permanent invalidity with respect the
dead.
Dead Injured Homeless
1 2 - 3 0.2 - 1
Tab.7.1. - Relative costs about human life at risk in France (DRM,
1990)
7.3.2 Goods and activities value
The economic value of goods and activities should be evaluated for each
homogeneous area of land use (tab 7.2)
The monetary value is normalized with the assumption that 1 is the medium
cost of the losses of one hectares of agricultural terrain
As been carried out a different relative costs depending on typologies of
goods and activities developed into.
Land use zone Goods Activities
Agricultural zones 1 0.5
Isolated houses 6 2
Groups of houses 10 1
Big urban areas 23 8
Industrial, artisan, commercial area 8 28
Urban centre 16 30
Tab.7.2. - Relative costs per hectares linked by land use in France
(DRM, 1990)
In the experiences of Province of Modena & GNDCI (1994), focused on the
risk assessment in urban area, the socio economical value for the element
at risk has been estimated trough an empirical scale as shown below.
Cost: High Medium Low
Weight: 1 0.7 0.3
Buildings
Civil habitations, public
buildings, cemetery,
agricultural areas, hotel
and residence
Civil habitations, tourist
habitations, stalls
Service infrastructure
commercial and artisan
infrastructure
Streets
Road conditions: public
primary road
Public secondary road Minor road system
Aqueduct Reservoir, main collector
Electro duct
Power station, cabin of
transformation
Urban power station
Gas duct Reservoir, Main pipelines
Various
infrastructures
Architectonic emergency
Phone line
Drainage system
Sports center, tourist
infrastructure
Tab.7.3 - socio economic value for the element at risk in urban
area (Province of Modena & GNDCI U.O. 2.9, 1994a e 1994b)
B.III-39
7.3.3 Global Value
In same cases could be useful to express a global value taking into account
all the element at risk in a particular area
In monetary terms, the global value is given simply by the sum of the single
cost of each different element at risk.
Del Prete et alii (1992) propose, as an example, the use of the following
expression for the evaluations of the total value of the element at risk
W = [R
m
(M
m
-E
m
)] N
ab
+ N
ed
C
ed
+ C
str
+ C
morf
where:
R
m
is the medium income of the inhabitants;
M
m
is the medium age of dead of inhabitants;
E
m
is the medium age of inhabitants;
N
ab
is the number of inhabitants;
N
ed
is the number of buildings;
C
ed
is the medium costs of buildings;
C
str
is the costs of structures and infrastructures;
C
morf
is the costs of morphological modifications.
In the correct definitions of risk, the total value W could be multiply to an
appropriate index of vulnerability.
8 Vulnerability (V)
Vulnerability is the degree of loss produced on specific element or group of
element at risk as a consequence of a natural phenomena of a specific
intensity.
In other terms is the propensity of a society to experience damage,
disruption and causalities as a result of a natural hazard.
The vulnerability should be expressed by a scale starting from 0 (nobody
loss) to 1 (total loss) and is a function of intensity of the phenomena and
typology of element at risk.
V=V( I ;E)
More in details the concept of vulnerability define the correlations between
the intensity of a specific phenomena with his possible consequences.
Formally the vulnerability concept should be expressed in terms of
dependent probability (Einstein, 1988):
V = P(damage event)
In other words: the probability that the element at risk suffers a specific
damage due to the occurrence of a landslide of a specific intensity.
In the same time the vulnerability concept should be include a
measurement of severity of damage.
Using Morgan et al.(1992) definition, the complete evaluation of
vulnerability is expressed by the simple product of several quantity
(everyone defined trough a relative scale from 0 to 1):
V = V
S
x V
T
x V
L
B.III-40
where:
V
S
is the probability of spatial impact: define the probability that a
certain element at risk is involved by a landslide, (e.g. the probability
that a rapid debris flow involve a specific building ).
V
T
is the probability of temporal impact: define the variability of
characteristics of the element at risk trough the time (e.g. the
probability that a specific building is occupied in during the landslides
occurrence).
V
L
is the probability of loss of human life of each occupant of the
element, or in otherwise the value portion injured that could be lose.
In addition of the intensity of the phenomena and typologies of the element
at risk, in the definitions of the vulnerability, several factors, with difficult
parametrisation, are involved. This parameters are linked to social
organisation of the area test (Panizza, 1988).
The vulnerability, with parity of other conditions, is minor in that country
equipped with prevention and emergency plan
The evaluation of vulnerability could be based on statistic method, in the
specific case of frequent and repeatable phenomenas. For example, in the
case of rock fall is possible to estimate, on statistical base, the probability
that a rock detachment produce a specific damage on a specific building.
8.1 Vulnerability: some web definitions
In the following table various definitions of vulnerability are listed:
Source Definition
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/6075/Glossar
y.htm
Likely to be damaged or disrupted
http://www.ben.edu/semp/htmlpages/glossaryh1.html Susceptibility of a population
http://www.mmeirs.org/glossary.html The degree to which a socio-economic
system, for example, is either susceptible or
resistant
International Agreed Glossary of Basic Terms Related to
Disaster Management (1992) UN-DHA, IDNDR
Degree of loss
http://www.reliefweb.int/library/mcda/refman/glossary.htm
l
The extent to which a community, structure,
service or geographic area is likely to be
damaged or disrupted
American Heritage College Dictionary, 3 rd edition Susceptibility to a physical injury or attack.
Fema (2001) How exposed or susceptible to damage an
asset is.
Tab.8.1 - Definitions of vulnerability
8.2 Conceptual approach: vulnerability assessment
8.2.1 Definition
Vulnerability assessment poses problems of understanding the interaction
between this phenomenon and the exposed element.
This interaction can be expressed by so-called damage functions, or by
extension, vulnerability functions. These enable a structuring of the various
components of the vulnerability concept, which is the first step towards
vulnerability assessment (Leone et al., 1996).
B.III-41
8.2.2 Vulnerability components
Three main groups of exposed elements susceptible to damage are defined:
property or land, including any structures on it, but also whole areas
or land use means;
people;
various activities and functions.
Each group has its corresponding specific type of damage function:
a structural-damage function for material assets;
a corporal-damage function for people;
an operational-damage function for the various activities and
functions
Vulnerability of a structural asset depends on the intensity of the
phenomenon and the resistance of the structure to the mechanical stress by
the phenomenon.
Vulnerability of a person also depends on the intensity of the phenomenon,
plus the intrinsic and extrinsic sensitivity of the person concerned:
Intrinsic sensitivity is made up of:
perceptive factors (level of danger perception);
cognitive factors (knowledge of how to protect oneself);
mobility factors (level of mobility when faced with danger).
Extrinsic sensitivity is made up of:
factors of physical protection (provided by the surrounding
structures);
technical and functional circumstances (efficiency of the ways and
means of raising the alarm, evacuation, emergency aid, treatment,
e.g.).
Functional vulnerability depends on the:
damage level of the material assets (technical factors);
people (human factors);
secondary functions that ensure the activity in question (functional
factors) as well as the ability of the disaster-struck society to restore
this activity (social, economic and institutional factors).
The specificity of landslide phenomena is essentially manifested by
structural and corporal damage. Such functions are difficult to formalize
from an analytical point of view due to the:
diffuse character of the phenomena,
complexity of the type of associated damage,
rarity of consolidated balance sheets to the damage.
To progress, it is vital to collect and compare historical data of the damage-
recording.
The result is the progressive development of damage matrices, after
drawing up:
suitable typologies for the processes,
modes of occurrence,
and damage rate that are specifically caused by landslides.
B.III-42
In general the estimations of vulnerability in large part is based on
objectives assessment methodologies.
A lot of researchers includes in the vulnerability evaluation, a sort of
implicitly estimation of phenomena unpredictability.
Its our opinion, for a correct evaluation of every single parameters, in the
risk assessment procedure, to remain separate the concept of hazard, value
of element at risk and vulnerability.
Its opportune discriminate the vulnerability evaluations in terms of typology
of element at risk, because the vulnerability depends of the intensity of the
phenomena.
In particular different approach are developed depending from the typology
of element at risk (e.g. human life vulnerability or goods and activities
vulnerability)
8.3 Human life vulnerability
In the real case in which the element at risk is mainly represented by
human life, the vulnerability should be expressed by the probability of dead,
injured or homeless after the occurrence of a specific landslide of a specific
intensity.
The vulnerability in that case is directly dependent by the populations
density in an exposed area (Fell, 1994).
In the scope of PER projects, the value of probability of dead, injured and
homeless is fixed by the DRM (1990), in relationship by the intensity of
landslides phenomena (see tab. 8.2).
That kind of value of probability could be used directly to express
vulnerability.
Damage H0 H1 H2 H3
dead 0 10
-5
10
-3
10
-2
injured 0 10
-4
10
-2
10
-1
homeless 0 10
-4
10
-1
10
-1
Tab. 8.2. - Probability in terms of effects on human life for different
scale of intensity. (DRM, 1990)
If we are able to define the intensity in terms of displacement velocity, the
edge of human life vulnerability (possibility of dead or injured) has been
fixed by Hungr (1981) and Morgenstern (1985) in 1 m/s, corresponding to
human run velocity.
Del Prete et al. (1992) propose to halve that threshold, considering the time
of reaction of all the people involved. Cruden & Varnes (1996) reduce the
threshold to 0.05 m/s (about 3 m/min), in order to consider the possibility
of totally evacuation of the risk area.
8.4 Vulnerability of good and activities
In the situations of a particular element at risk, for example good and or
activities, the vulnerability express the percentage of the economic value
that could be loss after the occurrence of a landslides phenomena.
B.III-43
Depending on the scale of work the vulnerability of each building could be
detected and evaluated or in alternative the vulnerability of an
homogeneous land use.
In the case of a single building the vulnerability evaluation is based on the
estimation of damage. A preview estimation of damage is given by the
economic commitment useful to restore and re establish the situation before
the landslide occurs.
In a very preliminary approach the damage could be evaluated by:
aesthetical;
functional;
structural.
Scale of damage severity about buildings has been developed and adopted:
by Tomlinson et al. (1978), in particular referred to foundations
problems;
by Alexander (1989) for damages due to different typologies of
landslides; and
by Ragozin & Tikhvinsky (2000) linking deep of foundations and slip
surfaces (tab 8.3).
Depth of foundations (m) Depth of slip surface (m) Vulnerability
2 < 2 1.0
> 2 < 2 0
Minor than slip surface 2 10 1.0
10 13 2 10 0.5 1.0
> 13 2 10 0 0.5*
Every depth > 10 1.0**
Tab.8.3 - Vulnerability value respect to depth of foundations and
slip surfaces (Ragozin & Tikhvinsky, 2000)
Note: (*) the value are grater than 0 for the slip surface landslides major than the depth of
foundations, the displacements velocity Vs the building is more than 1 m/s and the volume is
grater than 100 m3, (**) not including special foundations
Scale of damage severity in terms of percentage of building cost, is given
by DRM (1990) and shown in the tab 8.4.
Degree of
damage
% of building
value
Kind of damage
1 some % Light damage and non structural. The stability is uncompromised.
2 10 30 Crack on the walls.
3 50 60 Important deformations. Crack open. Evacuation is necessary.
4 70 90 Partial floor subsidence and walls disarticulations. Immediate evacuation.
5 100 Total disruption: Restoration is impossible.
Tab.8.4 - Conventional scale of damage severity (inspired to
Mercalli scale) (DRM, 1990)
The damage degree is strictly linked by the intensity of phenomena and
structural typologies (tab. 8.5).
B.III-44
Intensity Typology A B C1 C2
Sliding 5 3 4 2 1 2
Flow 2 5 1 3 1 2 1 E1
Fall 4 5 3 5 3 5 2 3
Sliding 5 5 3 5 3 5
Flow 3 5 1 4 1 3 1 E2
Fall 5 5 5 4 5
Sliding 5 5 4 5 4 5
Flow 5 3 5 1 5 1 5 E3
Fall 5 5 5 5
Sliding 5 5 5 5
Flow 5 5 5 5 E4
Crollo 5 5 5 5
Tab.8.5 - Relative damage evaluation due to different landslide
typology and intensity correlated to building structural typology
(DRM, 1990)
A = old buildings, mediocre quality, without foundations, in that categories belong the B
typology with a particular level of decay; B = normal and traditional buildings in masonry or
light structure without concrete (small cottage and so on ); C = Good quality buildings in
concrete or CAP. The categories is divided in two sub classes:; C1 = single buildings of small
dimension; C2 = buildings with more than three floor .
At spatial planning level, for examples at the municipality scale, it is very
difficult to evaluate the vulnerability for each single building. It is more
reasonable trying to define percentage of damage in homogeneous areas of
land use in function of the landslides intensity.
For that kind of vulnerability map always in DRM (1990) is useful the
tab.8.6.
Land use area E1 E2 E3
Agricultural area 70 90 100
Isolated building 60 90 100
Group of buildings 36 80 100
Village 10 60 90
Commercial and industrial areas 40 80 100
Urban areas 50 80 90 100
Tab.8.6 - Damage degree divided in percentage of homogeneous
area of land use and intensity of landslide (DRM, 1990)
Fell (1994) gives a relative and descriptive scale for the vulnerability
associated to property loss tab. 8.6 That kind of scale could be used to link
a numerical value to an empirical evaluation of degree of loss
Vulnerability of good and
activity
Vulnerability
Extremely high V 0.9
high 0.5 V < 0.9
medium 0.1 V < 0.5
low 0.05 V < 0.1
Very low V < 0.05
Tab 8.7 - Vulnerability scale of good and activity (Fell, 1994)
B.III-45
9 Analysis of Risk (R)
9.1 Definition
Risk: A combination of the probability or frequency of occurrence of a
defined hazard and the magnitude of the consequences of the occurrence.
More specifically, risk is defined as the probability of harmful consequences,
or expected loss (e.g. lives, injured people, property, livelihoods, economic
activity disrupted or environment damaged) resulting from interactions
between natural or human-induced hazards.
The evaluation of landslide risk is the combination and parameterisation of
several different factors (e.g. socio economical factors, environmental
geological factors).
The definition of those parameters involves different competences and skills
(e.g. geologists, engineers, spatial planners, stakeholders).
The three different components of risk (Hazard, Vulnerability and Worth of
elements at risk) should be defined with different degree of detail
depending on data availability and experiences from expertises and
scientific communities.
In some cases, it could be necessary to develop only a simple and partial
synthesis of information, evaluating the specific risk rather than total risk.
During the risk assessment procedure, a fundamental priority is the
acceptable risk threshold definition, because it is possible to define the
critical interpretation of the results and further activities (i.e. risk
assessment, zoning).
The acceptable risk definitions permit the discrimination of a list of priority
in order to assess mitigation measurements.
Depending on the objectives of the analysis and data availability, the
acceptable thresholds risk could be defined as total or specific risk.
9.2 Qualitative analysis
This is the most simple expression of landslide risk assessment. This
considers the acquisition of information on landslide hazard, elements at
risk and their vulnerability, by expressing them with qualitative
classifications (i.e. low, medium, high risk) based on expert judgement.
9.2.1 Damage propensity
The definition of the damage propensity or risk susceptibility considers only
a part of the base elements or simply defining them qualitatively or semi-
quantitatively. In the landslide risk analysis a typical approach of damage
propensity can be implemented by, for instance, overlapping the elements
at risk with landslide inventory maps or landslide susceptibility maps.
Due to the objective difficulty to undertake an exhaustive and quantitative
landslide risk analysis, almost all the existing literature and applications on
landslide risk assessment can be considered as damage propensity analysis.
B.III-46
For instance, the Italian Law 180/98 on landslide risk assessment is a
typical example of damage propensity analysis. This takes into account the
following steps:
a) Landslide inventory mapping;
b) Overlapping of landslide areas with the potential elements at risk;
c) Definition of 4 distinct risk classes (R1-R4), defined qualitatively
according to the social and economic consequences.
9.3 Quantitative analysis
The general framework of a quantitative landslide risk assessment is a
typical multi-discipline approach based on the following tasks:
a) Landslide hazard assessment, namely the probability of occurrence
and characteristics of potential landslides;
b) Identification of elements at risk, as number and characteristics;
c) Analysis of vulnerability of the various elements at risk;
d) Risk evaluation.
9.3.1 Total risk
Expected loss of human lives, injured, damage to the property and
economic activities caused by a landslide event. It can be expressed as
annual cost or number or amount of lost units per year. It is a function of
the elements at risk E and a given intensity I of the landslide:
R( I ;E) = H( I ) V( I ;E) W( E)
According to the considered element at risk, the following risk typologies
can be identified:
a) Induced risk on human life: expected number of deaths, injured or
homeless per year, or their economic worth caused by a landslide;
b) Induced risk on properties: expected number of damaged houses per
year or lost land surface per year, or expected cost of damage caused
by a landslide;
c) Induced risk on economic activities: expected cost of direct and
indirect damage on economy caused by a landslide;
d) Induced risk on goods of public interest: expected cost of damage on
facilities and environment caused by a landslide.
By expressing all the quantities as money it is possible to define a global
risk given by the algebraic sum of the costs associated to each simple
component.
The a priori definition of the total risk applied to spatial planning is quite
problematic. The choice of the risk levels should be done at local level
taking into account the specific socio-economic condition of each zone.
Nevertheless, this differentiation at local level determines some difficulty in
comparing various risk maps designed in distinct areas. For this scope it can
be useful to identify some general criteria for the choice, time by time, of
the risk classes to adopt for landslide risk zoning.
This approach has been adopted for the implementation of PER in France
that identify three distinct landslide risk classes (tab. 9.1). The cost for
prevention measures equal to 10% of the worth of the element at risk is the
acceptable risk threshold.
B.III-47
Class Description Prevention measures
Red Zone Prone to landslide with high intensity
and high probability of occurrence
Protection measures cannot be implemented.
Constructions are not allowed.
Blu Zone Prone to landslide with moderate
intensity and probability of occurrence
Landsl i de ri sk mi ti gati on measures can be
implemented for structures done before the publication
of the Plan; the cost of measures cannot exceed 10%
of the worth of goods.
White Zone No expected hazard. No prescription
adopted.
Landslide mitigation measures are not necessary.
Tab.9.1 Classes of risk zoning in the project PER (DRM, 1988)
Another general scheme is proposed in table 9.2 where risk is classified in 4
classes. Where a quantitative assessment of the various components of risk
cannot be undertaken, it is possible to adopt nominal scales, as proposed in
9.1 to utilise combining hazard, following table 9.4, and potential damage
assessed with table 9.5.
Risk Description
R0 NUL Negligible risk
R1 LOW Socially tolerable risk
No prevention activities
R2 MEDIUM Socially intolerable risk
Prevention activities are necessary
R3 HIGH Catastrophic risk
Urgent prevention activities to implement
Tab. 9.2 Total risk classes
WL0 WL1 WL2 WL3
H0 R0 R0 R0 R0
H1 R0 R1 R1 R2
H2 R0 R1 R2 R3
H3 R0 R2 R3 R3
Tab.9.3 Scheme for risk assessment based on hazard and
potential damage
9.3.2 Potential damage (W
L
)
Potential amount of losses caused by a landslide with a given intensity. It
can be expressed as number or amount of exposed units or as monetary
worth. For a given typology of element at risk E and a given intensity I the
potential damage is:
W
L
( I ;E) = W( E) V( I ;E)
Potential damage W
L
takes into account the worth of elements at risk and
their potential degree of loss or damage, as a function of the element
characteristics and landslide intensity. Thus, the assessment of potential
damage requires only general information on landslide intensity (that
affects vulnerability) and is mostly based on the characteristics of the
elements at risk. Such an assessment can be done, therefore, by urban
planners and administrators.
The unit of the loss worth is the same of the worth of the elements at risk,
namely the number or area of damageable units, or the expected cost for
damage.
B.III-48
The risk can be estimated from potential damage, starting from
assumptions on landslide hazard (recurrence intervals) using the following
equation:
R( I ;E) = W
L
( I ;E) H( I )
In the following sub-chapters, two distinct methodologies for the
assessment of potential damage are reported: the former is based on a
direct application of the definition where vulnerability and worth of elements
at risk are calculated separately; the latter is a simplified assessment based
on the typology of the element at risk and landslide intensity (taking into
account, implicitly, vulnerability and worth of the elements at risk).
The choice between the two methodologies is substantially based on the
level of analysis and data availability.
9.3.2.1 Rigorous assessment
The risk assessment methodology adopted in the project PER (DRM, 1985,
1988, 1990) considers a detailed definition of potential losses (defined, not
properly, as vulnerability) vs. one or more landslide events with given
hazard and intensity.
In general, potential damage can be expressed as money loss:
W
L
= N w V (9.1)
Where N is the number of exposed elements, w their unitary worth and V
their vulnerability.
The assessment of potential damage is differentiated according to the
different typologies of element at risk:
a) potential damage for human life WLh: possibility that a landslide can
cause deaths, injured or homeless;
b) potential damage for goods and economic activities WLe: economic
worth of damage to goods and employment;
c) potential damage on goods of public interest: damage on public
structures and infrastructures.
Each component of potential damage is assessed separately following
different landslide intensities, as defined in the Tables 6 and 7. In addition,
the potential damage is assessed for each homogeneous land area defined
by the Municipality Plans. The potential damage at municipality scale can be
obtained by summing the values referred to the different homogeneous
areas.
The potential damage associated to human life can be calculated with the
following function:
W
Lh
(zone) = N [(w V)
deaths
+ (w V)
injured
+ (w V)
homeless
] (9.2)
where N is the number of residents in the considered zone, w the monetary
worth of each element at risk (Tab. 16) and V their vulnerability (Tab. 19).
The potential damage of goods and economic activities WLe is calculated
with the following equation:
W
Le
(zone) = S [(w V)
goods
+ (w V)
activities
] (9.3)
B.III-49
where S is the area of the zone, w the worth of elements at risk per area
(Tab. 16) and V their vulnerability (Tab. 23).
The potential damage for goods of public interest WLp is calculated with the
following equation:
W
Lp
(zone) = k W
Le
(zone) + D (9.4)
where k is a coefficient that depends on landslide intensity and D a
coefficient that takes into account the number and worth of public facilities
in the zone.
The potential damage at municipality scale is given by, respectively:
W
Lh
(municipality) = [W
Lh
(zone) A] human life;
W
Le
(municipality) = [W
Le
(zone) C] goods and economic activities;
W
Lp
(municipality) = W
Lp
(zone) goods of public interest;
where A is a coefficient that takes into account the additional presence of
people in tourist areas (1.3 in tourist areas and 1 in non-tourist areas) and
C is a coefficient that considers the density of facilities vs. municipality
population.
9.3.2.2 Simplified assessment.
The analysis is based on a schematic classification of the territory in
homogeneous urban and land use areas. For each zone, the potential
damage is calculated following the type of element at risk, considering its
relative worth, and landslide intensity.
Four general classes of elements at risk are proposed, combined with the
four classes of intensity defined in tab. 9.4 and tab. 9.5, provide four
classes of potential damage.
Intensity
Elements at risk I0 I1 I2 I3
E3 Urban areas, large industrial and commercial areas,
architectural, historical and artistic goods, main roads, relevant
social facilities
WL0 WL2 WL3 WL3
E2 Small urban areas, minor industrial, artisan and commercial
areas, secondary roads WL0 WL1 WL2 WL3
E1 Isolated houses, minor roads, agricultural areas, public parks
WL0 WL1 WL1 WL2
E0 Uninhabited or unproductive areas
WL0 WL0 WL0 WL0
Tab. 9.4 Scheme for simplified assessment of potential damage)
Danno Descrizione
WL0 NUL No damage
WL1 LOW Aesthetic or minor functional damage on buildings that are neither affecting human
life safety nor the continuity of socio-economic activities
WL2 MEDIUM Functional damage to buildings, possibility of homeless and occasional accidents,
possible breakdown of socio-economic activities
WL3 HIGH Severe damage to buildings, possibility of deaths and injured, disruption of socio-
economic activities
Tab. 9.5 Classes of potential damage
B.III-50
9.3.3 Specific Risk (R
s
)
Expected degree of loss as consequence of a landslide with a given
intensity. It is expressed as annual probability. For each typology of
element at risk E and a given landslide intensity I the specific risk is:
R
s
(I;E) = H(I) V(I;E)
The specific risk, unlike potential damage, is a parameter mainly based on
landslide characteristics. The assessment of specific risk, hence, is typically
undertaken by landslide specialists.
The total risk can be estimated by the specific risk using the information on
elements at risk worth:
R(I;E) = Rs(I;E) W(E)
The assessment of the specific risk is very important since it allows to
estimate the consequences of landslides independently from the number
and worth of the element at risk.
The specific risk can be used, in specific cases, for the definition of the
acceptable risk (see chapter 10).
Tab. 9.6 Scale of specific risk of goods and activities (Fell, 1994)
9.4 Probability of acceptable rupture
In the framework of reliability analysis, there are well defined levels of
probability of acceptable rupture. These values can be differentiated
according to the typology and amount of elements at risk and, therefore,
the vulnerability is implicitly taken into account. For this reason they can be
considered as measures of acceptable risk.
Anyway, the temporal factor is not directly considered. In fact, the
acceptable thresholds are directly compared with the values of probability of
rupture calculated with probability analysis (probability that the safety
factor is lower or equal to 1). The uncertainty of the safety factor is only a
consequence of the uncertainties of the various input parameters in slope
stability calculation. Hence, the probability of rupture cannot be directly
associated to a probability of occurrence (landslide return time).
In civil engineering, different criteria for the calculation of probability
tolerable rupture are adopted. CIRIA (Construction Industry and Research
Information Association) in USA has proposed the following criteria:
Social criteria: P K
n
n
a s s
d
r
( )
(%) =
1000
where:
K
s
is a constant depending on work typology and its social use;
n
d
is the service time of the system;
n
r
is the number of individuals exposed to risk in the time n
d
.
Specific risk Rs (annual)
Extremely high Rs 0.1
High 0.02 Rs < 0.1
Medium 0.005 Rs < 0.02
Low 0.001 Rs < 0.005
Very low Rs 0.001
B.III-51
Economic criteria: P
b
C E
a e
i
( )
.
(%) = 100
23
where:
b is a constant depending on population standard of living (0.06 in USA for
1982-83);
E
i
is the initial cost (USD) of the structure;
C is a coefficient referred to the cost of a rupture consequence related to
the initial cost of the structure (namely a measure of the vulnerability).
Socio-economic criteria: P b
K
q n
a se
s
d
( )
.
(%) = 100
23
2
where:
q is the average value (USD) established by the insurance system for
human life (100 000$ in USA for 1982-83).
Kirsten & Moss (1985) have adapted the criteria of CIRIA to rock slope
stability criteria, providing the values of the input coefficients and risk
thresholds following an empirical classification of slopes based on service
time, social use and surveillance required.
Cat. Service time Social use Surveillance
required
Ks nd
(ys)
nr Pa(s)
(%)
Pa(se)
(%)
1 ZERO Access
forbidden
Continuous
monitoring with
high-tech
systems
12000 0.4 0.06
4
75 75
2 EXTREMELY
SHORT
(temporary open
mines)
Access
strongly
forewarned
Continuous
monitoring with
high-tech
systems
5600 1 0.16 35 5.6
3 VERY SHORT
(temporary slopes in
open mines)
Access
actively
forewarned
Continuous
monitoring with
high-tech
systems
2400 2.5 0.4 15 0.38
4 SHORT
(semi-temporary
slopes in open mines,
quarries, civil works
Access
forewarned
Continuous
monitoring with
simple systems
1200 6.25 1.0 7.5 0.018
5 MEDIUM
(semi-permanent
slopes)
Access
discouraged
Intentionally
superficial
observation
460 16 2.56 2.5 0.031
6 LONG
(almost-permanent
slopes)
Access
permitted
Occasional
observation
160 40 6.4 1.0 10
-4
7 VERY LONG
(permanent slopes)
Free access No control
30 100 16 0.19 3 10
-6
8 VERY LONG
(impact on
environment and
threat for human life)
6 250 40 0.003
8
10
-7
9 EXTREM. LONG
(high impact on
environment; serious
threat for human life
1 625 100 0.006
3
2.6 10
-
9
Table 9.7 Criteria for the assessment of the probability of
acceptable rupture for rock slopes (from Kirsten & Moss, 1985). The
probability of the acceptable rupture following an economic criterion
is independent from the slope category and is equal to
P
a(e)
=0.00013%.
Priest & Brown (1983) have proposed some criteria for the interpretation of
rock slope stability probabilistic analysis. According to the typology of slope
B.III-52
and elements at risk, they have defined different threshold values for the
average value of the safety factor E(F), rupture probability P(F<1), and
probability that F<1.5 (Table 9.8). If one, two or all three criteria are
satisfied, the authors provide an interpretation of the slope behaviour,
suggesting risk mitigation strategies (Table 9.10).
CRITERIA
Class Consequences Element at risk E(F) P(F<1.0) P(F<1.5)
1 Slight Quarry terraces
Modest excavation (H<50m) far from
roads
1.3 0.1 0.2
2 Moderate Permanent or semi-permanent slopes 1.6 0.01 0.1
3 Severe Medium-high slopes (H>50m) near
roads or below structures
2.0 0.003 0.05
Table 9.8 - Acceptable risk assessed following probabilistic analysis
(from Priest & Brown, 1983)
CRITERIA
E(F) P(F<1.0) P(F<1.5) Interpretation
V V V STABLE
V
V
F
V
V
F
Risk can be or cannot be acceptable; the risk level can be decreased
with monitoring
F V V The risk level can be decreased with a modest re-shape of the slope
F
F
F
V
F
F
F
V
F
UNSTABLE: the risk level can be decreased only with a substantial re-
shape of the slope, or with reinforcement of the rock slope; monitoring
can be necessary
Table 9.10 Interpretation of the risk level and mitigation
strategies following the criteria proposed in Table 3.5 (from Priest &
Brown, 1983): V = criterion satisfied; F = criterion not satisfied.
10 Risk management
10.1 Introduction
Landslide and slope engineering have always involved some form of risk
management although it was seldom formally recognised as such. This
informal type of risk management was essentially the exercise of
engineering judgement by experienced engineers. Recent advances in risk
analysis and risk assessment are beginning to provide systematic and
rigorous processes to formalise the engineering judgements and enhance
slope engineering practice.
Landslide risk management, like many other forms of risk management of
natural and/or civil engineering hazards, is a relatively new discipline with
evolving analysis techniques.
Risk management is relatively well established in other industries,
particularly the nuclear and hazardous process industries, where standards
for risk analysis and risk management have been developed. Within the
societal context, safety regulation involves achieving an appropriate balance
between cost and safety over a range of diverse activities. If it is possible to
achieve this balance, either in part or in full, then consistent methods of
evaluation across the entire range of activities will be required.
In developing landslide risk management methods, it is important to keep in
mind the wide range of landslide and slope stability problems which need to
B.III-53
be considered. The systems need to be capable of handling landslides which
are:
small, (e.g. single boulders) through to very large (several million m
3
)
extremely slow moving (mm per year) to extremely rapid (>100 km/hr)
from natural slopes (eg. boulder falls, debris flows, avalanches), and
man-made slopes (e.g. cuts and fills, for highways, behind buildings,
houses)
a hazard to property and life.
The systems also need to recognise that there are many levels of detail and
different methods which can be used depending on the situation, e.g.
detailed probabilistic analysis may be appropriate for slopes with detailed
engineering investigation, but observational methods using geomorphology
and expert judgement may be appropriate for assessment of natural slope.
10.2 Framework for landslide risk management
10.2.1 General framework
The risk management process comprises three components:
1. Risk analysis
2. Risk assessment
3. Risk management
Risk analysis and risk assessment are sub-sets of risk management and risk
analysis is a subset of risk assessment.
In contrast, in an engineering standards approach, the level of safety is not
known, rather those design, construction and maintenance standards that
have proven to be successful in the past, form the bases for decision-
making. Standards usually increase if a standards based engineered facility
fails, because failure of an engineered facility, represents to many, failure of
engineering. In terms of standards-based approaches, the engineering
profession is almost completely in control of the level of safety of
engineered facilities. We use the term almost to indicate that engineering
standards are not solely decided by engineers, the requirements of the
courts, economics and public expectation also play a role. Unfortunately,
there is no unified framework to integrate all of the components of the
standards-based approach, and the engineering profession often finds itself
trying to balance the often conflicting interests of owners, who pay the
engineers fees and the public who would be affected by the failure of the
facility. One consequence of this is the enormous legal liability carried by
engineers, a liability that in many cases is rather more onerous than that
associated with other professions that deal with matters of public safety.
Conversely, risk-based methods involve acceptance of failure as an
inevitable consequence of societys need for engineered facilities. Failure is
permissible provided the risks (probability of failure x consequences) are
tolerable. Risk based methods, when used for safety evaluations of existing
facilities do not involve the concept of designing for failure, and many of
the criticisms of risk-based engineering do not apply.
Risk management techniques provide an integrated approach to safety
decision-making and have the advantage that the engineer is not faced with
B.III-54
having to determine what is an appropriate level of safety, this is done by
those policy makers who are responsible for these matters. The engineers
perform the risk analysis, and provide a measure of how safe a facility is.
How safe it needs to be is determined by the owner and the government
body that represents the public (regulators). Engineers can provide various
risk management related services in addition to analysing risk; they can
even assist decision makers in developing decision analysis techniques and
in choosing appropriate decision criteria, without being responsible for the
actual decision.
One of the most important knowledge base for the risk assessment and
management is the hazard zoning; that specific step is structured by the
interpretation and the possible framework of operational decision for the
risk reduction and mitigation.
The risk management aspect phase is typically under the influence of
political and administrative approach; nevertheless fundamental should be
the rules of scientist and experts of the scientific communities in order to
define the priority of actions and mitigations strategies.
One of the most important example of risk management comes from the
experiences of Plans dExpsition aux Risqu (PER, DRM 1987), in France.
PER instruments are integrated document, of spatial planning and urban
standard, regulating, land use and territory development.
Three possible prevention strategies are individuated:
1) increasing of social acceptable threshold risk;
2) mitigation of risk through structural action to hazard reduction;
3) mitigation of risk through non structural action to potential damage
reduction;
The total risk evaluation, (in terms expected annual cost of damage),
permits to choose through different mitigations strategies with cost-benefit
analysis.
By every single cost of each action, a benefit in terms of risk reduction
should be associated, expressed by the reduction of annual cost of landslide
damage.
In this view it is possible to define the minimum number of years in which
the total cost could be amortized.
10.2.2 Increasing of social acceptable threshold risk
The increasing of social acceptable threshold risk could be obtained through
the population information and responsibility. It is widely demonstrated that
the awareness of tolerable risk thresholds are in general higher than the
unconscious ones.
It is possible to encourage a campaign of information in the highest risk
areas, not only in the emergency phase, but also preventively , in order to
let the population aware of risk.
Instruments for that kind of campaign could be:
a) use of mass media communication;
B.III-55
b) diffusion of informative brochures that describe the kind of risk and the
behaviour to assume in case of alarm and emergency;
c) assemblies and meetings with administrations and stakeholders;
d) installation of hazard signage;
e) stipulation of insurance for damage coverage.
The informative activities for the risk tolerance increasing is a very low-cost
approach and could be adopted for large areas.
10.3 Acceptable and tolerable risk from landsliding
10.3.1 General issues
There is an implied level of acceptability and tolerability of landslide risks in
every jurisdiction where slope instability poses a problem. Unfortunately,
there is rarely, if ever, any indication of what this level of tolerable risk
actually is. Landslide risk analysis can be carried out, albeit with difficulty,
without the requirement to define what is tolerable whereas such a
definition is required for landslide risk management. There have been a
number of initiatives to define acceptable risks for engineered facilities,
unfortunately few have been accepted by policy makers (the nuclear
industry and hazardous chemical industries are the exceptions). There are
several reasons why this is so.
These include but are not limited to the following:
1. Apparent reluctance of policy makers to deal with the issues.
2. Apparent unreasonableness of court decisions concerning hazardous
activities.
3. Apparently unreasonable public expectations.
4. Possibly an unreasonably high standard of duty of care assumed by
some professional bodies responsible for public safety, or imposed on
them by the courts.
5. Lack of suitable framework to deal with such complex decision
making processes.
6. Apparent unwillingness of stakeholders to invest the time and
resources necessary to develop a sound and logical process.
7. Shortage of suitably trained and experienced individuals and groups
to develop the processes, even if the resources were available.
8. A prevailing attitude that the problem of developing rational methods
of risk management is so enormous that it is a hopeless task which is
simply not worth the effort.
9. Shortage of data necessary for precise estimates of probabilities.
10. Lack of engineering analysis tools developed for predicting failure,
and so on.
While Fell (1994), Hungr, Sobkowicz and Morgan (1993) and Morgan et al
(1992) have discussed acceptable risk criteria for landsliding, there have
been no acceptable risk criteria established for landslides established by a
government authority, National or International Technical Society in the
way that has been done for hazardous industries or other like dam.
Some example of acceptable risk diagram as shown in the following figures:
B.III-56
Starr (1999), according to statistical data on accidents and diseases,
propose a standard level of acceptable specific risk of R
s
=10
-6
per year. Fell
(1994) observes that public opinion seem to tolerate high levels of risk
(R
s
=10
-2
10
-4
per year) when voluntarily exposed to risk (e.g. road
accidents, work or sport accidents) while when prone to unintentional risk
(e.g. fires, natural hazards, engineering works collapse) it tolerates much
lower levels (R
s
=10
-5
10
-6
per year).
B.III-57
For landslides developed in natural slopes, when the population is aware of
risk, the tolerance is high, comparable with the tolerance of voluntary risk.
In those situations Whitman (1984) indicates an acceptable specific risk of
10
-2
per year. Fell (1994) estimates an acceptable specific risk of 10
-2
per
year, for damage to properties, and 10
-3
for human life. In artificial slopes,
the tolerable risk is like those for unintentional risk (R
s
= 10
-5
per year).
This value, or slightly lower, should represent also the acceptable risk for
landslides developed on reinforced slopes.
A further consideration, associated to the concept of voluntary or
unintentional risk, is the distinction between the acceptable specific risk of a
single individual in a landslide hazardous area, and the acceptable specific
risk of the whole population. For instance, according to the data provided by
the Italian Ministry of Public work (Catenacci, 1992), the global probability
of death caused by landslides in Italy, in the period 1945-1990, is about 10
-
6
per year per person. This is comparable with the acceptable unintentional
specific risk thresholds. Nevertheless, in landslide areas, the population is
exposed, almost consciously, to risk levels of some orders higher.
Fell (1994) has proposed a scale of specific risk of damage to properties
that can be used for interpreting the results of a risk zoning or to compare
risk levels calculated for different scopes.
10.4 Treatment
At the end of the evaluation procedure, it is up to the client or policy
makers to decide whether to accept the risk or not, or to decide that more
detailed study is required. The landslide risk analyst can provide
background data or normally acceptable limits as guidance to the decision
maker, but as discussed above, should not be making the decision. Part of
the specialist advice may be to identify the options and methods for treating
the risk.
Typical treatment options would include:
Accept the risk; this would usually require the risk to be considered to be
within the acceptable or tolerable range.
Avoid the risk; this would require abandonment of the project, seeking an
alternative site or form of development such that the revised risk would be
acceptable or tolerable.
Reduce the l i kel i hood; this would require stabilisation measures to
control the initiating circumstances, such as re-profiling the surface
geometry, groundwater drainage, anchors, stabilising structures or
protective structures etc. After implementation, the risk should be
acceptable or tolerable.
Reduce the consequences; this would require provision of defensive
stabilisation measures, amelioration of the behaviour of the hazard or
relocation of the development to a more favourable location to achieve an
acceptable or tolerable risk.
Monitoring and warning systems; in some situations monitoring (such
as by regular site visits, or by survey), and the establishment of warning
systems may be used to manage the risk on an interim or permanent basis.
Monitoring and warning systems may be regarded as another means of
reducing the consequences.
B.III-58
Transfer the risk; by requiring another authority to accept the risk or to
compensate for the risk such as by insurance.
Postpone the decision; if there is sufficient uncertainty, it may not be
appropriate to make a decision on the data available. Further investigation
or monitoring would be required to provide data for better evaluation of the
risk.
10.4.1 Risk mitigation through structural action and measures
The landslide probability occurrence (hazard) in certain risk area should be
minimized through the following structural action:
a) reduction of the triggering factors (previous mentioned in chapther 4 and
5), for example by land use reclamations and hydrological and geological
environmental restoration work, or through rationalisation of land use
and agricultural activities;
b) direct intervention on actives landslides in order to prevent remobilisation
and control the evolution. This is possible by means of stabilisation
works. These can be designed to reduce the mobilisation forces (slope re-
profiling, detachment of unstable blocks) or increase resistant forces (i.e.
drainage, chemical and physical treatment, concrete injection, walls,
nails, anchors, bolts, piling)
Structural actions and measures have often high costs and are usually
adopted for the risk mitigation of unstable slope where other strategies
cannot be promoted (i.e. urban areas, Cultural Heritage, strategic
structures).
10.4.2 Risk mitigation with non-structural action and measures
The non-structural actions are oriented to the reduction of the potential
damage. This can be done by acting on the elements at risk an their
vulnerability.
The reduction of the worth and importance of the elements at risk have to
be assessed during the spatial planning activities.
The action of reducing value of the element at risk can be summarised in:
a) transfer of the element at risk from landslide prone areas to stable
areas (delocalisation);
b) limitation of urban expansion (restrains and limits);
c) land use definition of unstable areas;
The vulnerability should be reduced through the implementation of technical
measures or restrains according to the social characterisation of the
territory.
Some actions are summarised below:
a) reinforcement of buildings with reduction of the potential damage;
b) implementation of mitigation measures (stabilising structures or
protective structures i.e. anchors, rails, tunnels, trenches), in
order to prevent or reduce the possibility that the element at risk
could be affected by a landslide; with no constrain for the
occurrences and magnitude of the event;
B.III-59
c) setting up of monitoring systems and early warning systems to
reduce potential losses (human lives and goods)
d ) organisation of prevention, emergency and recovery plans, in
order to reduce the effects and damage.
The non-structural actions and measures are more flexible than structural
measures; in addition, the former usually have lower costs. This kind of
measures are strongly recommended in high landslide risk areas.
10.5 Public Awareness, Education and Capacity
Building
Before individuals and communities can reduce their risk from landslide
hazards, they need to know the nature of the threat, its potential impact on
them and their community, their options for reducing the risk or impact,
and how to carry out specific mitigation measures.
Achieving widespread public awareness of landslides hazards will enable
communities and individuals to make informed decisions on where to live,
where to purchase property, or locate a business. Local decisions and
critical facilities to reduce the potential damage from landslides hazard are:
Develop public awareness, training, and education programs
involving land-use planning, design, landslide hazard curricula,
landslide hazard safety programs, and community risk reduction;
Evaluate the effectiveness of different methods, messages, and
curricula in the context of local needs;
Disseminate landslide hazard related curricula and training modules
to community organizations, universities, and professionals societies
and associations.
10.6 Emergency Preparedness Plan
A landslide usually occur without warning. The energy of a landslide mass
moving down a slope can devastate anything in its path. The emergency
prepardeness plan are generally structured in this form:
1. Before landslide occur;
2. During disaster event;
3. After the event.
Two simple example of preparedness plan developed by the F.E.M.A. is
reported below.
10.6.1 Before the Landslide
You can reduce the potential impacts of land movement by taking steps to
remove yourself from harm's way. Assume that burn areas and canyon,
hillside, mountain and other steep areas are vulnerable to landslides and
mudslides. Build away from steep slopes. Build away from the bottoms or
mouths of steep ravines and drainage facilities. Consult with a soil engineer
or an engineering geologist to minimize the potential impacts of landslides.
Develop a family plan that includes:
Out-of-state contact
Place to reunite if family members are separated
B.III-60
Routes to evacuate
Locations of utility shut-offs
Store the following emergency supplies:
Food
Water
First aid kit
Flashlights and batteries
Battery-operated radios
Special medications/eye care products
Store an evacuation kit that includes:
Cash (small bills and change)
Important documents (Birth certificates, insurance policies, marriage
certificates, mortgage documents)
Irreplaceable objects
Games, toys for children
Purchase supplies to protect your home:
Hammer
Nails
Plywood
Rain gauge
Sand
Sandbags
Shovel
Limit the height of plants near buildings to 18 inches. Use fire-retardant
plants and bushes to replace chaparral and highly combustible vegetation.
Water landscape to promote early growth. Eliminate litter and dead and dry
vegetation. Inspect slopes for increases in cracks, holes and other changes.
Contact your local public works department for information on protection
measures.
10.6.2 When it Rains
Monitor the amount of rain during intense storms. More than three to four
inches of rain per day, or 1/2-inch per hour, have been known to trigger
mudslides or debris flows.
Look for geological changes near your home:
New springs
Cracked snow, ice, soil or rocks
Bulging slopes
New holes or bare spots on hillsides
Tilted trees
Muddy waters
Listen to the radio or watch television for information and instructions from
local officials. Prepare to evacuate if requested to do so. Respect the power
of the potential mudslide. Remember, mudslides move quickly, can cause
damage and kill. Prioritize protection measures:
Make your health and safety and that of family members the number
one priority.
Make your home the number two priority.
B.III-61
Make pools, spas, patios and other elements the next priority.
Implement protection measures when necessary:
Place sandbags
Board up windows and doors
10.6.3 Key Considerations
Use permanent measures, rather than sandbags, if possible.
Deflect, rather than stop or dam debris.
Use solutions that do not create problems for your neighbours.
10.6.4 What Can You Do If You Live Near Steep Hills
10.6.4.1 Prior to Intense Storms:
1. Become familiar with the land around you. Learn whether debris flows
have occurred in your area by contacting local officials, State geological
surveys, or departments of natural resources, and university departments
of geology. Slopes where debris flows have occurred in the past are likely to
experience them in the future.
2. Support your local government in efforts to develop and enforce land-use
and building ordinances that regulate construction in areas susceptible to
landslides and debris flows. Buildings should be located away from steep
slopes, streams and rivers, intermittent-stream channels, and the mouths
of mountain channels.
3. Watch the patterns of storm-water drainage on slopes near your home,
and note especially the places where runoff water converges, increasing
flow over soil-covered slopes. Watch the hillsides around your home for any
signs of land movement, such as small landslides or debris flows or
progressively tilting trees.
4. Contact your local authorities to learn about the emergency-response
and evacuation plans for your area and develop your own emergency plans
for your family and business.
10.6.4.2 During Intense Storms:
1. Stay alert and stay awake! Many debris-flow fatalities occur when people
are sleeping. Listen to a radio for warnings of intense rainfall. Be aware that
intense short bursts of rain may be particularly dangerous, especially after
longer periods of heavy rainfall and damp weather.
2. If you are in areas susceptible to landslides and debris flows, consider
leaving if it is safe to do so. Remember that driving during an intense storm
is hazardous.
3. Listen for any unusual sounds that might indicate moving debris, such as
trees cracking or
boulders knocking together. A trickle of flowing or falling mud or debris may
precede larger flows. If you are near a stream or channel, be alert for any
sudden increase or decrease in water flow and for a change from clear to
muddy water. Such changes may indicate debris flow activity upstream, so
B.III-62
be prepared to move quickly. Dont delay! Save yourself, not your
belongings.
4. Be especially alert when driving. Embankments along roadsides are
particularly susceptible to landslides. Watch the road for collapsed
pavement, mud, fallen rocks, and other indications of possible debris flows.
10.6.5 After the Disaster
Stay away from the slide area as there may be additional danger from
further slides or flows;
Check for injured or trapped victims and give first aid if you're trained;
Check on neighbours, especially elderly or special needs victims;
Listen to radio or television for emergency information;
Flooding can occur after a mudflow or landslide;
Check for damaged utility lines, building foundations and surrounding
damage;
Replant damaged areas as soon as possible since erosion can cause
addition flooding and slides;
Have the area inspected by geo-technical experts to evaluate the area
for additional risks.
10.7 The Phases of emergency Plan (planning,
response, recovery)
10.7.1 Emergency Phases
Emergency management activities are often conducted within three
generally defined phases. However, because each disaster is unique,
individual disasters may not include all indicated phases:
Planning;
Response;
Recovery.
10.7.2 Planning Phase
The planning phase involves activities that are undertaken in advance of an
emergency or disaster. These activities assess threats, develop operational
capabilities and design effective responses to potential incidents. Planning
activities include:
o Completing hazard analyses;
o Designing and implementing hazard mitigation projects consistent
with the hazard analyses;
o Developing and maintaining emergency plans and procedures;
o Developing mutual aid agreements;
o Conducting general and specialized training;
o Conducting exercises;
o Improving emergency public education and warning systems.
B.III-63
10.7.3 Response Phase
The response phase includes increased readiness, initial and extended
response activities upon receipt of a warning or the observation that an
emergency situation is imminent or likely to occur.
Incidents that may trigger increased readiness activities include:
Receipt of a flood advisory or other special weather statement;
Conditions conducive to wild land fires, such as the
combination of high heat, strong winds, and low humidity;
A hazardous materials incident;
Information or circumstances indicating the potential for acts
of violence or civil disturbance.
Increased readiness activities may include, but are not limited to the
following:
Increasing public information efforts;
Accelerating training efforts;
Inspecting critical facilities and equipment, including testing warning
and communications systems;
Warning threatened areas of the population;
Conducting precautionary evacuations in potentially impacted areas;
Mobilizing personnel and pre-positioning resources and equipment.
10.7.3.1 Initial Response
The Countys initial response activities are primarily performed at the field
response level. Emphasis is placed on minimizing the effects of the
emergency or disaster. Support and coordination activities take place in the
Emergency Management Center with operational links to field response
units.
Examples of initial response activities include:
Making all necessary notifications, including County
departments and personnel, local cities;
Disseminating warnings, emergency public information, and
instructions to the citizens of Santa Cruz County;
Declaration of a local emergency;
Conducting evacuations and/or rescue operations;
Caring for displaced persons and treating the injured;
Road clearing, debris removal, flood fight
Conducting initial damage assessments and surveys;
Assessing need for mutual aid assistance;
Restricting movement of traffic/people and unnecessary access to
affected areas;
Developing and implementing Initial Action Plans;
Securing incident sites
Conducting search and rescue operations;
Fire suppression.
B.III-64
10.7.3.2 Extended Response
Extended response operations involve the coordination and management of
resources and information necessary to facilitate the transition to recovery.
Although not a specific action, but rather an evolutionary transition in the
response timeline, extended operations generally begin 72 hours after the
initial disaster incident.
Examples of extended response activities include:
Coordination with state and federal agencies working within
the local agencies;
Preparing initial damage assessments;
Operating mass care facilities;
Conducting coroner operations,
Procuring, allocating and monitoring resources required to
sustain operations;
Coordinating mutual aide resources;
Restoring essential services;
Initiating advance planning activities;
Documenting expenditures;
Developing and implementing Action Plans for extended
operation; and
Disseminating emergency public information.
10.8 Recovery Phase
Recovery activities involve the restoration of the affected area(s) to pre-
emergency conditions. Recovery activities may be both short-term and
long-term, ranging from restoration of essential utilities such as water and
power, to implementation of mitigation measures designed to minimize the
impact of future occurrences of a given threat.
Examples of recovery activities include:
Restoring utilities and infrastructure;
Reinstating autonomy for displaced persons
Reconstruction of damaged property;
Conducting residual hazard analyses;
Coordination of Federal, State, public and private assistance;
Determining and recovering costs associated with response
and recovery.
11 Glossary of all keywords
Absolute Risk: Pure risk without the mitigating effects of Internal Controls.
See also Managed Risk.
Acceptable Risk A risk for which, for the purposes of life or work, we are
prepared to accept as it is with no regard to its management. Society does
not generally consider expenditure in further reducing such risks justifiable.
Aleatoric Probability: Relating to the uncertain outcome of an event (such
as the role of a die) in a generally predictable distribution; also known as
pure chance.
B.III-65
Assurance: A system of Corporate Governance that provides feedback on
the efficiency and effectiveness of operations, compliance with laws and
regulations, and accuracy and reliability of financial information. Both
Internal Audit and Risk Management are part of the assurance process.
Avoiding Risk: A Risk Management technique of redesigning the task to
deal with a different set of risks (usually lower). Not to be confused with
Eliminating Risk.
Behavioral Risk Assessment: The assessment of Risk to an organization
as a result of examining its culture, structure, employee attitudes, and
mechanisms to relieve employees of stress.
Chief Risk Manager: The manager or executive who reports to senior
management on the organization's risk exposures and alternative
management actions required to deal with them.
conditional analysis: technique, based on Bayes theorem (Morgan, 1968),
according to which frequency data (such as landsliding area or number of
landslides) can be used to calculate probabilities that depend on knowledge
of previous events.
Containment: The Risk Management strategy that attempts to limit the
negative Consequences of a Risk Event. This strategy can include Internal
Controls and/or Contingency Planning.
Consequence The outcomes or potential outcomes arising from the
occurrence of a landslide expressed qualitatively or quantitatively, in terms
of loss, disadvantage or gain, damage, injury or loss of life.
Control: That functional part of a system that provides Feedback on how
the system is accomplishing its purpose or objectives. See Internal Control.
Control Framework: A Model or recognized System of Control categories
that covers all internal controls expected in an organization. Control
frameworks include COSO, CoCo, Cadbury, and the like. See also, Risk
Frameworks.
Control and Risk Self Assessment: Abbreviated CRSA. See Control Self
Assessment.
Control Self-Assessment: Abbreviated CSA. A class of techniques used in
an audit or in place of an audit to assess risk and control strength and
weaknesses against a Control Framework. The "self" assessment refers to
the involvement of management and staff in the assessment process, often
facilitated by internal auditors. CSA techniques can include
workshop/seminars, Focus Groups, Structured Interviews, and survey
questionnaires.
Control Risk: The tendency of the Internal Control system to lose
effectiveness over time and to expose, or fail to prevent exposure of, the
assets under control.
Cost/Benefit Analysis: A Risk Management tool used to make decisions
about Accepting Risk or using some other risk management technique.
discriminant analysis: a multivariate statistical method aimed at
maximizing the distance (separation) between two or more predefined
groups of objects on the basis of a linear combination (discriminant
function) of a set of known variables (discriminating variables).
drainage-divide networks: streamlines and corresponding watersheds
usually automatically derived form a DTM.
B.III-66
DTM (digital terrain model) or DEM (digital elevation model): any
digital representation of the continuous variation of ground relief over
space.
Elements at Risk Meaning the population, buildings and engineering
works, economic activities, public services utilities, infrastructure and
environmental features in the area potentially affected by landslides.
Expected Loss or Expected Value Approach: The evaluation of Risk
based on the dollar variation that results as a Consequence to the risky
Events.
Exposure: The susceptibility to loss, perception of Risk, or a Threat to an
asset or asset-producing process, usually quantified in dollars. An exposure
is the total dollars at risk without regard to the probability of a negative
event. A measure of importance.
Exposure Approach: The approach to Risk Assessment from the
perspective of the four classes of assets (physical, financial, human,
intangible) and their size, type, portability, and location.
factor: any characteristics, natural or man-induced, of the environment
which is directly or indirectly related to the causes of landsliding in a given
region.
Frequency A measure of likelihood expressed as the number of
occurrences of an event in a given time. See also Likelihood and Probability.
Global Risks: External or Envi ronment risks that are outside of the
immediate political or government regulatory risk boundaries.
Hazard A condition with the potential for causing an undesirable
consequence (the landslide). The description of landslide hazard should
include the location, volume (or area), classification and velocity of the
potential landslides and any resultant detached material, and the likelihood
of their occurrence within a given period of time.
heuristic (model): a method of solving a problem in which several
approaches are attempted and progresses toward a solution are evaluated
after each attempt.
Individual Risk The risk of fatality or injury to any identifiable (named)
individual who lives within the zone impacted by the landslide; or who
follows a particular pattern of life that might subject him or her to the
consequences of the landslide.
Insurance: A contract to finance the cost of risk. Should a named risk
event (loss) occur, the insurance contract will pay the holder the contractual
amount. See Risk Financing.
Integrated Risk Management: The consideration of Risk at all levels of
the organization, from the Strategic to the day-to-day job of the customer-
facing employee. Integrating risk management into internal auditing means
adopting Risk-Based Auditing and using risk management tools to plan
internal audits.
landslide hazard zonation: the division of the land surface into
homogeneous areas or domains and their ranking according to different
degrees of hazard due to mass-movement (see Varnes et al. , 1984).
landslide hazard: the probability of occurrence within a specific period of
time and within a given area of a potentially damaging landslide (see
Varnes et al., 1984.
B.III-67
Landslide Intensity A set of spatially distributed parameters related to
the destructive power of a landslide. The parameters may be described
quantitatively or qualitatively and may include maximum movement
velocity, total displacement, differential displacement, depth of the moving
mass, peak discharge per unit width, kinetic energy per unit area.
landslide inventory: the systematic mapping, through various techniques
(i.e., field surveys, aerial-photointerpretation, site measurements, historical
records, etc.) of past and recent landslides in a region.
landslide susceptibility (or propensity): an estimate of the slope-
instability conditions of a region mainly based on the qualitative judgment
of the investigator.
Likelihood used as a qualitative description of probability or frequency.
logistic regression analysis: a multivariate statistical method aimed at
estimating the probability of a dichotomous outcome variable on the basis
of a set of independent, variables measured in any scale. The model
assumes the form: Pr(event) = 1/(1 + exp(-(B0 + B1*X1 + B2*X2 + ......
+ Bm*Xm))).
Long-Term: The planning or Time Horizon that deals with events beyond
the Short-Term and Mid Term, typically from two to twenty years, though
most often two to five or seven years.
Loss: A negative outcome.
Matrix Approach: In Risk Assessment, an approach that matches system
components with risks, threats or controls with the object of measuring and
examining the combinations of the two axes.
Mean: The average value in a distribution.
Median: The value in a distribution where 50% of the distribution values
are greater than or less than the median value.
Mode: A measure of statistical central tendency that notes the most
frequent value in the distribution of values. The mode is also the peak
(highest) value of the curve. See Normal Curve.
model : a mathematical or physical system, obeying certain specific
conditions, whose behavior is used to understand a physical (or biological or
social) system to which is in some way analogous
multiple regression analysis: a multivariate statistical method aimed at
estimating a (dependent) variable on the basis of a linear combination of a
set of known (independent) variables.
multivariate model: a model which aims to predict or explain the behavior
of a dependent variable on the basis of a set of known independent
variables.
Planning Risk: The risk that the planning process is flawed. In Ri sk
Assessment, it is the risk that the assessment process is inappropriate or
improperly implemented.
predictive (model): a statistical or heuristic model which aims to forecast
the occurrence in space or time of an event on the basis of the values of a
set of variables or factors.
Probability The likelihood of a specific outcome, measured by the ratio of
specific outcomes to the total number of possible outcomes. Probability is
expressed as a number between 0 and 1, with 0 indicating an impossible
outcome, and 1 indicating that an outcome is certain.
B.III-68
raster (structure): an array of cells (pixel) referenced by a raw and
column number; each cell is independently addressed with the value of an
attribute; it is one of the fundamental ways of representing and storing
spatial data (see vector structure).
Residual Risk: The remaining Risk after Risk Management techniques have
been applied.
Risk A measure of the probability and severity of an adverse effect to
health, property or the environment. Risk is often estimated by the product
of probability x consequences. However, a more general interpretation of
risk involves a comparison of the probability and consequences in a non-
product form.
Risk Analysis The use of available information to estimate the risk to
individuals or populations, property, or the environment, from hazards. Risk
analyses generally contain the following steps: scope definition, hazard
identification, and risk estimation.
Risk Estimation The process used to produce a measure of the level of
health, property, or environmental risks being analysed. Risk estimation
contains the following steps: frequency analysis, consequence analysis, and
their integration.
Risk Evaluation The stage at which values and judgements enter the
decision process, explicitly or implicitly, by including consideration of the
importance of the estimated risks and the associated social, environmental,
and economic consequences, in order to identify a range of alternatives for
managing the risks.
Risk Assessment The process of risk analysis and risk evaluation.
Risk Control or Risk Treatment The process of decision making for
managing risk, and the implementation, or enforcement of risk mitigation
measures and the re-evaluation of its effectiveness from time to time, using
the results of risk assessment as one input.
Risk Management The complete process of risk assessment and risk
control (or risk treatment).
Risk Prioritization: The relation of acceptable levels of risks among
alternatives. See also Risk Ranking.
Risk Ranking: The ordinal or cardinal rank prioritization of the risks in
various alternatives, projects or units.
Risk Reduction: Application of Risk Management principles to reduce the
Likelihood or Consequences of an Event, or both.
Risk Response: Management's decisions and actions when risks are
revealed. See also Risk Management.
Risk Retention: Intentional (or unintentional) retaining the responsibility
for loss or Risk Financing within the organization.
Risk Scenarios: A method of identifying and classifying risks through
creative application of Probabilistic events and their Consequences. Typically
a Brainstorming or other creative technique is used to stimulate "what
might happen." See also Threat Scenarios.
Risk Transfer: Shifting the responsibility or Risk Financing burden to
another party.
Risk Treatment: Another term for Risk Management.
sampling unit: terrain-unit treated as a case in any statistical analysis.
B.III-69
slope-unit: the right or left side of a sub-basin of any order into which a
watershed can be partitioned, usually by means of a computer algorithm
which enables the automatic detection of stream lines and related divides
(see drainage-divide networks).
Scenario-Building (Scenario Building): The exercise of developing
Scenarios.
Scenario Planning: The use of Scenarios in (usually) Strategic Planning.
Scenario Plots: Various standard forms of organizing the Scenario-Building
process. Typical plots are: Winners and Losers (either/or), Lone Ranger (us
against them), Challenge and Response (both/and), Good News/Bad News
(worst thing), Tectonic Change (structural alteration), etc.
Scenarios: Narrative descriptions of assumptions, risks and environmental
factors and how they may affect operations. Scenarios attempt to explore
the effect of changing several variables at once with objective analysis and
subjective interpretations. See also Risk Scenarios and Threat Scenarios.
Societal Risk The risk of multiple fatalities or injuries in society as a
whole: one where society would have to carry the burden of a landslide
causing a number of deaths, injuries, financial, environmental, and other
losses.
Specific Risk: The type of risk that is found in specific activities. The level
of this risk is expected to vary from activity to activity, even though all
activities may have it.
Strategic Planning: Long-term plans based on the organizations overall
business objectives. Strategic plans are typically multiple years and reach
out 5 or 10 years (or more) using Scenarios or other planning methods that
identifies Assumptions, Risks, and Environmental factors.
Temporal Probability The probability that the element at risk is in the
area affected by the land sliding, at the time of the landslide.
terrain-unit (or mapping unit or homogeneous domain): that portion
of land surface which contains a set of ground conditions which differ from
the adjacent units across definable boundaries (Hansen, 1984). By
definition, the terrain-unit must be mappable at effective cost over the
entire region through criteria which are as objective as possible.
TIN (triangulated irregular network): a relief representation consisting
of a continuous set of connected triangular facets based on a Dalauny
triangulation of irregularly spaced nodes or elevation points.
Tolerable Risk A risk that society is willing to live with so as to secure
certain net benefits in the confidence that it is being properly controlled,
kept under review and further reduced as and when possible. In some
situations risk may be tolerated because the individuals at risk cannot afford
to reduce risk even though they recognise it is not properly controlled.
Transfer Risk: A Risk Management technique to remove risk from one area
to another or one party to another. Insurance transfers risk of financial loss
from insured to insurer. Partial transfers are known as Sharing Risk.
Triggers: In planning, these are external decisions or events that create
the need (or perecption) that a project must be planned.
uncertainty (certainty): the estimated amount by which an observed or
calculated value may depart from the true value.
B.III-70
union (of sets): a set consisting of those elements which are members of
at least one set in a given family of sets.
unique-condition unit: terrain-unit obtained by the sequential overlay of a
set of base maps portraying slope-instability factors (Chung et al. , 1995).
vector (structure): a set of graphic data that can be ultimately
decomposed into point locations described by generally absolute
coordinates; it may include points, lines (a set of related points) and areas
(a line or set of lines defining a polygon); it is one of the fundamental ways
of representing and storing spatial data (see raster structure).
Vulnerability: The degree of loss to a given element or set of elements
within the area affected by the landslide hazard. It is expressed on a scale
of 0 (no loss) to 1 (total loss). For property, the loss will be the value of the
damage relative to the value of the property; for persons, it will be the
probability that a particular life (the element at risk) will be lost, given the
person(s) is affected by the landslide.
12 Bibliography
Ahlberg P., Stigler B., Viberg L. (1988). Experiences of landslide risk
considerations in land use planning in Sweden. Proc. 5
th
Int. Symp. on
Landslides, Lausanne, 2, 1091-1096.
Aleotti P., Baldelli P., Polloni G. (1996). Landsliding and flooding event
triggered by heavy rains in the Tanaro basin (Italy). Proc. Int. Congr.
Interpraevent 1996, 1, 435-446.
Aleotti P. , Baldelli P., Polloni G. (1998). Soil slips, rock-block slides and
stream hydraulic processes caused by heavy rains: their interaction
and relevant hazard. Proc. of the 2
nd
Conf. Environ. Management
ICEM2, Wollongong, 10-13 Feb 1998, 1, 553-564.
Alexander E.D. (1989). Urban landslides. Progress in Physical Geography,
13, 157-191.
Alexander E.D. (1995). A survey of the field of natural hazards and disaster
studies. In: Carrara A., Guzzetti F. (Eds.), Geographical Information
Systems in Assessing Natural Hazards. Kluwer Academic Publisher,
Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1-19.
Amadesi E., Vianello G., Bonfatti G., Pignone R. & Preti D. (1977) - Guida
alla realizzazione di una carta della stabilit dei versanti. Regione
Emilia Romagna. MB T6. Ed.Pitagora., Bologna, 72pp.
Amadesi E. & Vianello G. (1978). Nuova guida alla realizzazione di una carta
della stabilit dei versanti. Mem. Soc. Geol. It., 19, 53-60.
Amanti M., Carrara A., Castaldo G., Colosimo P., Gisotti G., Govi M.,
Marchionna G., Nardi R., Panizza M., Pecci M. & Vianello G. (1992).
Linee guida per la realizzazione di una cartografia della pericolosit
geologica connessa ai fenomeni di instabilit dei versanti alla scala
1:50.000. Versione Preliminare. Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri.
Servizio Geologico. Progetto CARG 53pp.
Ambraseys N.N. (1977). On the response of structures to travelling waves.
Proc. CENTO Seminar on Earthquake Hazard Minimization, Teheran,
410-414.
Ambraseys N.N. (1983). Evaluation of seismic risk. In: Ritsema A.R. &
Gurpinar A. (ed.), Seismicity and seismic risk in the offshore North Sea
area. Reidel Pub. Co., Dordrecht, 317-345.
B.III-71
Ambraseys N.N. (1988). Engineering Seismology. Earthquake Engineering &
Structural Dynamics, 17, 1-105.
Antoine P. (1977). Rflextions sur la cartographie ZERMOS et bilan des
expriences en cours. Bulletin Bureau Recherche Geologique et
Mineraire, 3 (2), 1-2 ; 9-20.
Attewell P.B. (1987) - Aspects of risk assessment in engineering geology
and geotechnics. Memoir of the Geological Society of China, 9, 335-
365.
Attewell P.B. & Farmer I.W. (1973) - Principles of Engineering Geology.
Chapman & Hall, London.
Azimi C., Desvarreux P., Giraud A., Martin-Cocher J. (1982). Mthode de
calcul de la dinamique des chutes de blocs: application ltude du
versant de la Montagne de la Pale (Vecors). Bull. Liason Labor. Ponts et
Ch., 122, 93-102.
Baynes F.J., Lee, M. (1998). Geomorphology in landslide risk analysis, an
interim report. Proceedings of the 8
th
Congress of the Int. Assoc. of
Engineering Geologists, Moore and Hungr (Eds.), Balkema, pp.1129-
1136.
Baecher G. (1983). Applied geotechnical reliability analysis - reliability
theory and its applications in Structural and Soil Mechanics. In: Thoft-
Christensen P. (ed.), NATO Series 70 ASI, 237-270.
Baeza C. & Corominas J. (1996). Assessment of shallow landslide
susceptibility by means of statistical techniques. Proc. 7
th
Int. Symp. on
Landslides, Trondheim, 1, 147-152.
Barton M.E. & Thompson R.I. (1986) - A model for predicting groundwater
response to meteorological changes. Groundwater in Engineering
Geology. Geol. Soc. Eng. Group. Spec. Pub., 3, 299-311.
Bernknopf, R.L., Campbell, R.H., Brookshire, D.S., Shapiro, C.D. (1988). A
probabilistic approach to landslide hazard mapping in Cincinnati, Ohio,
with applications for economic evaluation. Bull. Am. Ass. of Eng. Geol.,
25 (1), 39-56.
Bertini T., Cugusi F., D'elia B. & Rossi-Doria M. (1984) - Climatic conditions
and slow movements of colluvial covers in central Italy. Proc. 4th Int.
Symp. on Landslides, Toronto (Canada), 1, 367-376.
Bertocci R., Canuti P., Casagli N., Garzonio C.A. & Vannocci P. (1995) -
Landslides on clay and shale hillslopes in Tuscany (Italy). In: Haneberg
W.C. & Anderson S.A. (eds.) Clay and Shale Slope Instability,
Geological Society of America Rewievs in Engineering Geology,
Boulder, (Colorado, USA) v.10, 107-119.
Bertozzi E. & Broili L. (1978). Considerazioni sui criteri di progettazione
delle opere di difesa nei processi di scoscendimento massi. Mem. Soc.
Geol. It., 19, 187-195.
Bieniawski Z.T. (1974) - Geomechanics Classification of rock masses and its
application in tunnelling. Proc. 3rd Cong. ISRM, Denver, 2A, p.27.
Bishop A.W. & Morgenstern N.R.(1960) - Stability coefficients for earth
slopes. Gotechnique, 10, 129-150.
Blanc R.P. & Cleveland G.B. (1968) - Natural slope stability as related to
geology, San Clemente Area Orange and San Diego counties,
California. California division of Mines And Geology Special Report, 98,
19pp.
Bonham-Carter G.F. (1994). Geographic Information Systems for
Geoscientists: Modelling with GIS. Pergamon, Ottawa, 398 pp.
B.III-72
Bosi C. (1978). Considerazioni e proposte metodologiche sulla elaborazione
di carte della stabilit. Geol. Appl. e Idrogeol., Bari, 13, 246-281.
Bosi C., Dramis F., Gentili B. (1985). Carte geomorfologiche di dettaglio ad
indirizzo applicativo e carte di stabilit. Geol. Appl. e Idrogeol., Bari, 20
(2), 53-62.
Bernknopf R.L., Campbell R.H., Brookshire D.S., Shapiro C.D. (1988). A
probabilistic approach to landslide hazard mapping in Cincinnati, Ohio,
with application for economical evaluation. Bull. American Assoc.
Engin. Geologists, 25 (1), 39-56.
Brabb E.E. (1984). Innovative approaches to landslide hazard mapping.
Proc. 4
th
Int. Symp. on Landslides, Toronto, 1, 307-324.
Brabb E.E. (1995). The San Mateo County California GIS project for
predicting the consequences of hazardous geologic processes. In:
Carrara A., Guzzetti F. (Eds.), Geographical Information Systems in
Assessing Natural Hazards. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht, The
Netherlands, 234-299.
Brabb E.E., Harrod, B.L. (Eds.) Landslides: Extent and Economic
Significance. Balkema Publisher, Rotterdam, 385 pp.
Brabb E.E., Pampeyan E.H. & Bonilla M.G. (1972) - Landslide susceptibility
in San Mateo County, California. USGS Misc. Field Investigation Map,
MF-360.
Brand E.W. (1988). Landslide risk assessment in Hong Kong. Proc. 5
th
Int.
Symp. on Landslides, Lausanne, 2, 1059-1074.
Brand E.W., Styles K.A., Burnett A.D. (1982). Geotechnical land use maps
for planning in Hong Kong. Proc. 4
th
Congress IAEG, New Delhi, 1, 145-
153.
Brand E.W. & Hudson R.R. (1982) - CHASE, an empirical approach to the
design of cut slopes in Hong Kong soils. 7th Southeast Asian
Geotechnical Conference, Hong Kong, 1, 1-16.
Brand E.W., Premchitt J., Phillipson H.B. (1984). Relationship between
rainfall and landslides. Proc. 4
th
Symp. on Landslides, Toronto, 1,
BiTech Publishers, Vancouver, Canada, 377-384.
Broili L. (1973). In situ tests for the study of rockfall. Geologia Applicata e
Idrogeologia, 8(1).
Bromhead E.N. (1997). The treatment of landslides. Proc. of Institution of
Civil Engineers, Geotechnical Engineering, 125, 85-96.
Brugner W. & Valdinucci A. (1972). Schema di cartografia tematica relativa
alla stabilit dei terreni ed esempio della sua applicazione nel territorio
di Alpago (Prov. di Belluno). Boll. Serv. Geol. DIt., 93, 189-194.
Brunsden, D. (1993). Mass movements; the research frontier and beyond: a
geomorphological approach. Geomorphology, 7, 85-128.
Bunce C.M., Cruden D.M., Morgenstern N.R. (1995). Hazard assessment for
rock fall on a highway. Proc. of the Canadian Geotechnical Conference,
Vancouver, 449-508.
Burnett A.D., Brand E.W., Styles K.A. (1985). Terrain classification mapping
for a landslide inventory in Hong Kong. Proc. 4
th
Int. Conf. And Field
Workshop on Landslides, Tokyo, 63-68.
Caine N. 1980 - The rainfall intensity-duration control of shallow landslides
and debris flows. Geografiska Annal, 62A, 23-27.
Campbell R.H. (1973). Isopleth map of landslide deposits, Point Dume
quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California. U.S. Geol. Surv. Misc. Map
MF-535.
B.III-73
Cancelli A. & Nova R. (1985) - Landslides in soil and debris cover triggered
by rainfall in Valtellina (Central Alps-Italy). Proc. Iv Int. Conf. & Field
Workshop on Landslides, Tokio, 267-272.
Cannon S.H. & Ellen S.D. (1985). Rainfall conditions for abundant debris
avalanches, San Francisco Bay region, California. California Geology,
38 (12), 267-272.
Cannon S.H. & Ellen S.D. (1988) - Rainfall that resulted in abundant debris
flow activity during the storm. In: Landslides, floods and marine
effects of the storm of Jan 3-5, 1982, in the San Francisco Bay region,
California. USGS Prof. Papers., 1434, 27-35.
Cannon S.E., Savage W.Z. (1988). A mass change model for debris flow.
The Journal of Geology, 96, 221-227.
Canuti P. & Casagli N. (1996). Considerazioni sulla valutazione del rischio di
frana. Da: Fenomeni franosi e centri abitati. Atti del Convegno di
Bologna del 27 maggio 1994. CNR-GNDCI-Regione Emilia Romagna.
Pubbl. n. 846, 58 pp.
Canuti P., Dramis F. & Esu F. (1992). Le condizioni di instabilit dei pendii
nei centri abitati. Principi e criteri generali ad uso degli Uffici Tecnici di
Enti Pubblici. CNR-GNDCI Pubbl. n. 544, Tecnoprint, Bologna, 100 pp.
Canuti P., Focardi P., Garzonio C.A., Rodolfi C., Zanchi C. (1984). Analysis
of the dynamic of a mass movement on silty clayey lacustrine deposits
in north-central Italy - Proc.IV ISL, Toronto, A.A.Balkema, pp XX.
Canuti P., Focardi P., Garzonio C.A. (1985). Correlation between rainfall and
landslides. Proc. 27th I.G.C., Moscow. Bull. IAEG., 32, 49-54.
Canuti P., Garzonio C.A., Rodolfi G., Vannocci P. (1985). Stabilit dei
versanti nell'area rappresentativa di Montespertoli (Firenze). Carta di
attivit delle forme e di densit dei fenomeni franosi. Tipografia
S.EL.CA. Firenze.
Capecchi F & Focardi P. (1988). Rainfall and landslides: research into a
critical precipitation coefficient in an area of Italy. Proc. 5th Symp. on
Landslides, Lausanne, 1131-1136.
Carrara A. (1983). A multivariate model for landslide hazard evaluation.
Mathematical Geology, 15, 403-426.
Carrara A. (1988). Drainage and divide networks derived from high-fidelity
digital terrain models. In: Chung C.F. (Ed.) Quantitative Analysis of
Mineral and Energy Resources. Reidel, Dordrecht, NATO-ASI Series,
581-597.
Carrara A. (1989). Landslide hazard mapping by statistical methods: a
"black-box" model approach. Proc. of the Workshop on Natural
Disasters in European-Mediterranean Countries, Perugia, CNR-US NFS,
427-445.
Carrara A., Guzzetti F. (Eds.) (1995), Geographical Information Systems in
Assessing Natural Hazards. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht, The
Netherlands, 353 pp.
Carrara A. & Merenda L. (1974). Metodologia per un censimento degli
eventi franosi in Calabria. Geol. Appl. & Idrogeol., 9, 237-255.
Carrara A. & Merenda L. (1976). Landslide inventory in northern Calabria,
southern Italy. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., 87, 1153-1162.
Carrara A., DElia B., Semenza E. (1985). Classificazione e nomenclatura dei
fenomeni franosi. Geol. Appl. Idrogeol., 20, 223-243.
B.III-74
Carrara A., Catalano E., Sorriso-Valvo M., Reali C., Ossi I. (1978). Digital
Terrain Analysis for land evaluation. Geol. Appl. e Idrogeol., 13, 69-
127.
Carrara A., Cardinali M., Detti R., Guzzetti F., Pasqui V. & Reichenbach P.
(1990). Geographical Information Systems and multivariate model in
landslide hazard evaluation. In: A. Cancelli (ed.) Alps 90. 6th Int.
Conf. & Field. Workshop on Landslides. Milano., 17-28.
Carrara A., Cardinali M., Detti R., Guzzetti F., Pasqui V., Reichenbach P.
(1991). GIS techniques and statistical models in evaluating landslide
hazard. Earth Surface Processes and Landsform, 16, 427-445.
Carrara A., Cardinali M., Guzzetti F. (1992). Uncertainty in assessing
landslide hazard and risk. ITC Journal, The Netherlands, 2, 172-183.
Carrara A., Cardinali M., Guzzetti F., Reichenbach P. (1995). GIS technology
in mapping landslide hazard. In: Carrara A., Guzzetti F. (Eds.),
Geographical Information Systems in Assessing Natural Hazards.
Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 135-175.
Carrara A., Bitelli G., Carl R. (1997). Comparison of techniques for
generating digital terrain models from contour lines. International
Journal Geographical Information System, 11, (in stampa).
Carson M.A. & Kirkby M.J. (1972). Hillslope form and process. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 475 pp.
Casagli N. & Pini G. (1993). Analisi cinematica della stabilit di versanti
naturali e fronti di scavo in roccia. Atti 3 Convegno Nazionale dei
Giovani Ricercatori di Geologia Applicata. Potenza.
Casagli N. & Rinaldi M. (1994). Meccanismi di instabilit delle sponde
nellalveo del Fiume Sieve (Toscana). Atti del IV Convegno dei Giovani
Ricercatori del Gruppo Nazionale Geologia Applicata. Riccione, 18-21
Ottobre, 1994. Tecnoprint, Bologna.
Casagli N., Pini G. & Tarchiani U. (1994) - Valutazione del rischio di frana
nella falesia di Talamone (GR). Atti del IV Convegno Nazionale dei
Giovani Ricercatori del Gruppo Geologia Applicata. Riccione, 18-21
Ottobre, 1994. Tecnoprint, Bologna.
Casagrande A. (1971). On liquefaction phenomena: report of a lecture.
Gotechnique, 21, 197-202.
Cascini L. & Versace P. (1986). Eventi pluviometrici e movimenti franosi.
Atti XVI Conv. Naz. di Geotecnica, Bologna, 3, 171-184.
Cascini L. & Versace P. (1988). Relationship between rainfall and landslide
in a gneissic cover. Proc. 5th Int. Symp. on Landslides, Lausanne, 1,
565-570.
Catenacci V. (1992). Il dissesto geologico e geoambientale in Italia dal
dopoguerra al 1990. Servizio Geologico Nazionale. Mem. Descr. Carta
Geologica dItalia, 301pp.
Chandler R.J. (1984) - Recent european experience of landslides in over-
consolidated clays and soft rocks. Proc. 4th Int. Symp. on Landslides,
Toronto, 1, 61-78.
Chandler R.J. & Peiris T.A.(1989). Further extension to the Bishop &
Morgenstern stability charts. Ground Engineering, May 1989, 33-38.
Chandler R.J. & Skempton A.W. (1974). The design of permanent cutting
slopes in stiff fissured clays. Gotechnique, 24 (4), 457-466.
Chowdhury R.N. (1984). Recent developments in landslides studies:
probabilistic methods. Proc. 4
th
Int. Symp. on Landslides, Toronto, 1,
209-228.
B.III-75
Chowdhury R.N., Flentje, P.N. (1998). A landslide database for landslide
hazard assessment. Proc. 2
nd
Int. Conf. on Environmental
Management. Feb.10-13. Wollongong, Australia. Sivakumar, M.,
Chowdhury, R.N. (Eds.), Elsevier, London,1229-1239.
Chung C.H., Fabbri A.G. (1995). Multivariate regression analysis for
landslide hazard zonation. In: Carrara A., Guzzetti F. (Eds.),
Chung C.H., Fabbri A.G. (1999). Probabilistic prediction models for landslide
hazard mapping. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing,
65 (12), 1389-1399.
Clerici A. & DallOlio N. (1995). La realizzazione di una carta della stabilit
potenziale dei versanti mediante tecniche di analisi statistica
multivariata e un Sistema dInformazione Geografica. Geologia Tecnica
& Ambientale, 4, 49-57.
CNR-GNDCI & Regione Emilia Romagna (1993). Atlante dei centri abitati
instabili dellEmilia Romagna. Inquadramento generale. CNR, Roma, 66
pp.
Cooke R.U. & Doornkamp J.C. (1974). Geomorphology in environmental
management, an introduction. Claredon Press, Oxford, 413pp.
Corominas J. (1996). The angle of reach as a mobility index for small and
large landslides. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 33, 260-271.
Corominas J., Weiss E.E.J., Van Steijn H., Moya J. (1994) - The use of
dating techniques to assess landslide frequency, exemplified by case
studies form European countries. In: Casale R., Fantechi R. &
Flageollet J.C. (1994) Temporal Occurrence and Forecasting of
Landslides in the European Community. Programme EPOCH. Final
Report, 1, 71-94.
Cotecchia V. (1978). Evoluzione dei versanti, fenomeni franosi e loro
controllo (P.F. "Conservazione del suolo": S.P."Fenomeni franosi").
Mem.Soc.Geol.It., 19, 29-51.
Cotecchia V. (1978). Systematic reconnaissance mapping and registration
of slope movements. IAEG Bull., 17, 5-37.
Cotecchia V., Lenti V., Salvemini A. & Spilitoro G. (1986). Reactivation of
the large Buoninvente slide by the Irpinia earthquake of 23 Nov. 1980.
Proc. Int. Symp. on Engineering Geology Problems in Seismic Area,
Bari, Geol. Appl. Idrogeol., 21 (4), 217-243.
Crespellani T., Nardi R. & Simoncini C. (1988). La liquefazione del terreno in
condizioni sismiche. Zanichelli, Bologna, 185 pp.
Crozier M.J. (1984). Field assessment of slope instability. In: Brunsden &
Prior (Eds.) Slope Instability, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester, chp.
4, 103-142.
Crozier M.J. (1986). Landslides: Causes, Consequences and Environment.
Croom Helm Pub., London.
Cruden D.M. (1991). A simple definition of a landslide. IAEG Bull., 43, 27-
29.
Cruden D.M. (1997). Estimating the risk from landslide historical data. In:
Cruden D.M. & Fell R. (Eds.) Landslide Risk Assessment. Proc. Int.
Workshop on Landslide Risk Assessment, Honolulu, 19-21 Feb. 1997,
Balkema, Rotterdam, 177-184.
Cruden D.M. & Varnes D.J. (1996). Landslides Types and Processes. In:
Turner A.K. & Schuster R.L. (Eds.) Landslides: Investigation and
B.III-76
Mitigation. Transportation Research Board Special Report 247. National
Academy Press, WA, 36-75.
Cruden D.M. & Fell D.J. (1997). Landslide risk assessment. IUSG Working
Group on Landslides, Committee on Risk Assessment, Workshop,
Honolulu 19-21 Feb. 1997, Balkema, 371 pp.
Cruden, D.M. (1997). Estimating the risks from landslides using historical
data; in Landslide Risk Assessment, Cruden D.M., Fell R. (Eds.),
Dai F.C., Lee C.F. (2001). Frequency-volume relation and prediction of
rainfall-induced landslides. Engineering Geology, 59 (3/4), 253-266.
Dai F.C., Lee C.F., Ngai Y.Y. (2002). Landslide risk assessment and
management:an overview. Engineering Geology, 64 (1), 65-87.
Davies T.R.H. (1982). Spreading of rock avalanche debris by mechanical
fluidization. Rock Mechanics, 15, 9-24.
DeGraff J.V. (1985). Using isopleth maps of landslides deposits as a tool in
timber sale planning. Bull. Am. Ass. of Eng. Geologists, 22, 445-453.
DeGraff J.V.& Agard S.S. (1984). Defining geologic hazards for natural
resources management using tree-ring analysis. Environmental
Geology and Water Sciences, 6 (3), 147-155.
DeGraff J.V. & Canuti P. (1988). Using isopleth mapping to evaluate
landslide activity in relation to agricultural practices. IAEG Bull., 38,
61-71.
DElia B., Esu F., Pellegrino A. & Pescatore T.S. (1985). Some effects on
natural slope stability induced by 1980 Italian earthquakes. Proc. 11
th
ICSMFE, San Francisco, 4, 1943-1949.
Delaunay J. (1981). Carte de France des zones vulnrables a des
glissements, croulements, affaissements et effrondrements de terrain.
Bureau des Recherches Gologiques et Minires. 81 SGN 567 GEG, 23
pp.
Delmonaco G., Margottini C., Trocciola A. (1998). The hydroclimatic sceario
of the Tiber river basin. In: Casale R. Pedroli G.B. and Samuels P.
(Eds.) Hydrological and hydrogeological risks. Proc. of the 1
st
Ribamod
Workshop, Delft, 13-15 Feb. 1997. EUR 18019 EN, 195-210.
Delmonaco G., Leoni G., Margottini C., Puglisi C., Spizzichino D. (2001).
Methodological approaches applied to debris flow susceptibility and
hazard assessment of geological formations of the Vezza River basin.
TEMRAP - The European Multi-hazard Risk Assessment Project, Final
Report, (in stampa).
Del Prete M., Giaccari E., Trisorio-Liuzzi G. (1992). Rischio da frane
intermittenti a cinematica lenta nelle aree montuose e collinari
urbanizzate della Basilicata. Pubbl. n 841-GNDCI, 84 pp.
Descourdes F. & Zimmermann T.H. (1987). Three-dimensional dynamic
calculation of rockfalls. 5th Int. Congr. Rock Mechanics, Montreal (CA),
337-342.
Dietrich E.W., Reiss R., Hsu M.L., Montgomery D.R. (1995). A process-
based model for colluvial soil depth and shallow landsliding using
digital elevation data. Hydrological Process, 9, 383-400.
Dikau R., Brunsden D., Schrott L., Ibsen M.L. (1996). Landslide recognition.
Identification, movements and causes. Wiley, Chichester, England, 251
pp.
Dikau R., Cavallin A., Jager S. (1996). Databases and GIS for landslide
research in Europe. Geomorphology, 15 (3/4), 227-239.
B.III-77
DRM-Dlgation aux Risques Majeurs (1985). Catalogue de mesures de
prvention, mouvements de terrains. Plan dExposition aux risques.
Rapport administratif et technique provisoire. Premier Ministre. 443 pp.
DRM-Dlgation aux Risques Majeurs (1985). Mise en uvre des Plan
dExposition aux Risques naturels prvisibles. Plan dExposition aux
risques. Rapport administratif et technique provisoire. Premier Ministre.
DRM- Dlgation aux Risques Majeurs (1987). Clauses rglementaires -
Fiches informatives. Mouvements de terrain. Plan d'Exposition aux
risques. Ministre de l'Environnement. Direction de l'Eau et de la
Prvention des Pollutions et des Risques. La Documentation Franaise.
119pp.
DRM- Dlgation aux Risques Majeurs (1987). Mesures de prvention.
Mouvements de terrain. Plan d'Exposition aux risques. Ministre de
l'Environnement. Direction de l'Eau et de la Prvention des Pollutions et
des Risques. La Documentation Franaise. 529pp.
DRM-Dlgation aux Risques Majeurs (1988). Evaluation de la vulnerabilite.
Plan dExposition aux risques. Ministre de lEnvironnement. Direction
de lEau et de la Prvention des Pollutions et des Risques. La
Documentation Franaise. 112 pp.
DRM-Dlgation aux Risques Majeurs (1990). Les tudes prliminares la
cartographie rglementaire des risques naturels majeurs. Secrtariat
dEtat auprs du Premier ministre charg de lEnvironnement et de la
Prvention des Risques technologiques et naturels majeurs. La
Documentation Franaise. 143 pp.
Dunne T. (1991). Stochastic aspects of the relations between climate,
hydrology and landform evolution. Transaction Japanese
Geomorphological Union, 12, 1-24.
Edil T.B. & Shultz M.N. (1983) - Landslide hazard potential determination
along a shoreline segment. Eng. Geology, 19, 159-177.
Einstein H.H. (1988). Special lecture: landslide risk assessment procedure.
Proc. 5
th
Int. Symp. On Landslides, Lausanne, 2, 1075-1090.
Einstein H.H. (1997). Landslide risk systematic approaches to assessment
ad management. In: Cruden, D.M., Fell, R. (Eds.), Landslide Risk
Assessment. Proc. Int. Workshop on Landslide Risk Assessment,
Honolulu, 19-21 February 1997, Balkema, Rotterdam, 25-50.
Esu F. (1977). Behaviour of slopes in structurally complex formations. Int.
Symp. on the Geotechnics of Structurally Complex Formations, Capri 2,
292-304.
Esu F. (ed.) (1991). Frane costiere. Universit La Sapienza, Roma. CNR-
GNDCI, Pubblicazione Speciale.
Evans S.G. (1997). Fatal landslides and landslide risk in Canada. In: Cruden
D.M. & Fell R. (Eds.) Landslide Risk Assessment. Proc. Int. Workshop
on Landslide Risk Assessment, Honolulu, 19-21 Feb. 1997, Balkema,
Rotterdam, 185-196.
Evans S.G. & Hungr O. (1993). The assessment of rockfall hazard at the
base of talus slopes. Can. Geotech. J., 30, 620-636.
Falcetta J.L. (1985). Etude cinematique et dynamique de chutes de blocs
rocheaux. These, INSA, Lyon.
Fell R. (1994). Landslide risk assessment and acceptable risk. Can.
Geotechn. J., 31 (2), 261-272.
B.III-78
Fell R., Chapman T.G. & Maguire P.K. (1991). A model for prediction of
piezometric levels. In: R.J. Chandler (ed.) "Slope Stability
Engineering", ICE, London. 37-42.
Fell R., Mostyn G., OKeeffe L., Maguire P. (1988). Assessment of the
probability of rain induced landsliding. 5
th
Australia-New Zealand
Conference on Geomechanics, pp.72-77.
Fell R., Finlay P.J., Mostyn, G.R. (1996). Framework for assessing the
probability of sliding of cut slopes. Proc. 7
th
Int. Symp. on Landslides,
Trondheim. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 1, 201-208.
Fell R., Walker B.F., Finlay P.J. (1996). Estimating the probability of
landsliding. Proc. 7
th
Australia New Zealand Conf. on Geomechanics,
Adelaide. Institution of Engineers Australia, Canberra, 304-311.
Fell R., Hartford, D. (1997). Landslide Risk Management. In: Landslide Risk
Assessment, Cruden D.M., Fell R. (Eds.), Balkema, Rotterdam, pp.51-
110.
Fenti V., Silvano S., Spagna V. (1979). Methodological proposal for an
engineering geomorphological map. Forecasting rock-falls in the Alps.
IAEG Bull., 19, 134-138.
Finlay P.J., Fell R., Maguire P.K. (1997). The relationship between the
probability of landslide occurrence and rainfall. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal 34 (6), 811-824.
Flageollet J.C. (1994). The time dimension in the mapping of earth
movements. In: Casale R., Fantechi R. & Flageollet J.C. (1994)
Temporal Occurrence and Forecasting of Landslides in the European
Community. Programme EPOCH. Final Report, 1, 7-20
Flentje P.V., Chowdhury R.N. (1999). Quantitative Landslide Hazard
Assessment in an Urban Area. Proc. 8
th
Australia New Zealand Conf. on
Geomechanics. Vitharana N. (Ed.), Hobart, Tasmania. Institution of
Engineers, Australia.
Focardi P. (1982). Considerazioni cinematiche sul percorso di massi
provenienti da frane di crollo. Geologia Tecnica, 4, 13-23.
Fookes P.G., Dale S.G., Land J.M. (1991). Some observations on a
comparative aerial photography interpretation of a landslipped area.
Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology, 24, 249-265.
Fukuzono T. (1985). Proc. 5
th
Int. Conf. & Field Workshop on Landslides,
Tokio, 145-150.
Genevois R. & Tecca P.R. (1987). Analisi probabilistica della stabilit dei
versanti : applicazione per la realizzazione di una carta della
pericolosit nella media valle del Fiume Tammaro (BN). Mem. Soc.
Geol. It., 37 (1), 157-170.
Genevois R., Romeo R.W., & Scarascia Mugnozza G.M. (1987). Un approccio
probabilistico allanalisi di stabilit di versanti in roccia. Geologica
Romana, 26, 262-286.
Giani G.P. (1992). Potenzialit dei metodi di analisi nella previsione del
moto di caduta massi lungo versante. 4 Ciclo Conf. Meccanica e
Ingegneria delle Rocce, MIR, Politecnico di Torino, 11.1-11.12.
Glade T. (1998). Establishing the frequency and magnitude of landslide-
triggering rainstorm events in New Zealand. Evironmental Geology, 35,
2-3.
GNGFG (1987). Cartografia della pericolosit connessa ai fenomeni di
instabilit dei versanti. A cura di Carrara A., Carton A., Dramis F.,
Panizza M. & Prestininzi A. Boll. Soc. Geol. It., 106, 199-221.
B.III-79
Godefroy P. & Humbert M. (1983). La cartographie des risques naturales
lis aux movements de terrain et aux sismes. Hydrogologie-Gologie
de lIngnieur, 2, 69-90.
Goodman R.E. (1976). Methods of Geological Engineering in Discontinuous
Rocks. West Publ. Co., St. Paul (USA), 472 pp.
Goodman R.E. (1980). Introduction to Rock Mechanics. John Wiley & Sons
Ltd., New York, 562 pp.
Goodman R.E & Bray J.W. (1976). Toppling of rock slopes. Proc. Speciality
Conf. on Rock Engineering for Foundations & Slopes. ASCE, Boulder
(Colorado), 2, 201-234.
Govi G. (1977). Photo interpretation and mapping of landslides triggered by
the Friuli earthquake. IAEG Bull., 15, 67-72.
Govi M. & Sorzana P.F. (1977). Effetti geologico del territorio: frane. In: B.
Martinis (ed.), Studio Geologico dellarea maggiormente colpita dal
terremoto friulano del 1976. Progetto Finalizzato Geodinamica. Rivista
Italiana di Paleontologia e Stratigrafia, 83 (2), 329-368.
GSEGWP - Geological Society Engineering Group Working Party (1972). The
preparation of maps and plans in terms of Engineering Geology.
Q.J.Engng Geol., 5, 295-382.
Guerricchio A. & MelidoroG. (1979). Fenomeni franosi e neotettonici nelle
argille grigio-azzurre calabriane di Pisticci (Lucania). Geol. Appl. E
Idrogeol., 14, 105-138.
Guida D., Guida M., Iaccarino G., Lambiase S., Metacalf G., Salzano G.,
Vallario A., Vecchio V., Zicari G. (1979). Proposta per l'elaborazione di
cartografia tematica inerente alla dinamica dei versanti. Mem. Soc.
Geol It., 19, 170-198.
Gupta R.P., Joshi B.C. (1989). Landslide hazard zoning using the GIS
approach a case study from the Ramganga catchment, Himalayas.
Engineering Geology, 28, 119-131.
Govi M. & Sorzana P.F. (1980) - Landslide susceptibility as a function of
critical rainfall amount in Piedmont basins (NW Italia). Studia
Geomorphologica Carpatho-Balcanica, 14, 43-61.
Gumbel E.J. (1967) - Statistics of extremes. Columbia University Press, New
York.
Gutemberg B. & Richter C.F. (1954). Seismicity of the Earth and associated
phenomena. Her Pub. Co.
Guzzetti F., Cardinali M. (1990). Landslide inventory map of the Umbria
Region, Central Italy. In: Cancelli, A. (Ed.) ALPS 90, 6
th
Int. Conf. and
Field Workshop on Landslides, Milano, 273-284.
Guzzetti F., Cardinali M., Reichenbach P. (1994). The AVI Project: A
bibliographical and archive inventory of landslides and floods in Italy.
Environmental Management, 18 (4), 531-555.
Guzzetti F., Cardinali M., Reichenbach P. (1996). The influence of structural
setting and lithology on landslide type and pattern. Environmental and
Engineering Geology, 2 (4), 623-633.
Guzzetti F., Carrara A., Cardinali M., Reichenbach P. (1999). Landslide
hazard evaluation: a review of current techniques and their application
in a multi-scale study, Central Italy. Geomorphology, 31, 181-216.
Haneberg W. (1991). Observation and analysis of pore pressure fluctuations
in a thin colluvial landslide complex near Cincinnati, Ohio. Engineering
Geology, 31,159-184.
B.III-80
Hansen A. (1984). Landslide hazard analysis. In: Brunsden D., Prior D.B.
(Eds.), Slope Instability. Wiley, New York, 523-602.
Hansen A., Franks C.A.M., Kirk P.A., Brimicombe A.J., Tung F. (1995).
Application of GIS to hazard assessment, with particular reference to
landslides in Hong Kong. In: Carrara A., Guzzetti F. (Eds.),
Harr M.E. (1987). Reliability based design in civil engineering. McGraw Hill
Book Co., New York.
Hartln J. & Viberg L. (1988). General Report: Evaluation of landslide
hazard. Proc. 5
th
Heim A. (1932). Bergstruz und Menschenleben. Fretz und Wasmuth, Zurich,
218 pp.
Ho K., Leroi E., Roberts B. (2000). Keynote lecture: quantitative risk
assessment: application, myths and future direction. Proc. Int. Conf.
on Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, GEOENG 2000,
Melbourne, Australia, 1, Technomic, Lancaster, 236-312.
Hoek E. & Bray J.W. (1981). Rock Slope Engineering. Institution of Mining
and Metallurgy, London, 357 pp.
Hollingsworth R. & Kovacs G.S. (1981). Soil slumps and debris flows:
prediction and protection. Bull. Am. Ass. of Eng. Geologists, 18 (1), 17-
28.
Horlick-Jones T., Amendola A., Casale R. (Eds.) (1995). Natural risk and
civil protection. Commission of the European Communities, E&FN Spon,
London, 554 pp.
Howard A.D., 1994. A detachment-limited model of drainage basin
evolution. Water Resources Research, 30 (7), 2261-2285.
Hs K. (1975). Catastrophic debris stream (sturzstorm) generated by
rockfalls. Bull. Geol. Soc. of America, 86, 129-140.
Hudson J.A. & Harrison J.P. (1994). Principles of Engineering Rock
Mechanics.
Humbert M. (1976). La cartographie en France des zones exposes a des
risques lis aux mouvements du sols. Cartes ZERMOS. Lnternational
Association Engineering Geology Bulletin, 16, 80-82.
Humbert M. (1977)(a). Risk mapping of areas exposed to movements of soil
and sub-soil: French Zermos maps. IAEG Bull., 16, 80-82.
Humbert M. (1977)(b). La cartographie ZERMOS. Modalits dtablissement
des cartes de zones exposes a des risques lis aux movements du sol
et du sous-sol. Bulletin Bureau Recherche Geologique et Mineraire, 3,
5-8.
Hungr O. (1981). Dynamics of rock avalanches and other types of mass
movements. PhD Thesis. University of Alberta.
Hungr O. (1995). A model for the runout analysis of rapid flow slides, debris
flows and avalanches. Canadian geotechnical Journal, 32, 610-623.
Hungr O., Yau H.W., Tse C.M., Cheng L.F., Hardingham A.D. (1999).
Natural slope hazard and risk assessment framework. In: Clarke B.
(Ed.), Urban ground Engineering. Thomas Telford, london, 332-353.
Hungr O. (2001). Analytical models for slides and flows. Kyoto
Hutchinson J.N. (1969). A reconsideration of the costal landslide at
Folkestone Warren, Kent. Gotechnique, 19(1), 6-38.
Hutchinson J.N. (1970) - A coastal mudflow on the London Clay cliffs at
Beltinge, North Kent. Gotechnique, 20, 412-438.
B.III-81
Hutchinson J.N. (1973). The response of London clay cliffs to differing rates
of toe erosion. Geol. Appl. & Idrogeol., 8, 221-239.
Hutchinson J.N. (1986). A sliding-consolidation model for flow slides.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 23, 115-126.
Hutchinson J.N. (1987). Mechanisms producing large displacements in
landslides on pre-existing shears. 1
st
Sino-British Geol. Conf., Taipei,
Memoir of the Geological Survey of China, 9, 175-200.
Hutchinson J.N. (1988). General report : morphological and geotechnical
parameters of landslides in relation to geology and hydrology. Proc. 5
th
Hutchinson J.N. (1993). Some aspects of the morphological and geotechical
parameters of landslides, with examples drawn from Italy and
elsewhere. Atti 2 Conv. Naz. Giovani Ricercatori Geologia Applicata,
Viterbo, Geologica Romana.
Hutchinson J.N. (1995). Keynote paper : landslide hazard assessment. In
Bell (Ed.), Landslides. Balkema, Rotterdam, 1805-1841.
Hutchinson J.N. & Bhandari R.K. (1971). Undrained loading, a fundamental
mechanism of mudflows and other mass movements. Gotecnique, 21,
353-358.
Hutchinson J.N. & Chandler M.P. (1991). A preliminary hazard zonation of
the Undercliff of the Isle of Wight. In: Chandler R.J. (ed.): "Slope
Stability Engineering", Thomas Telford, London, 197-205.
Hutchinson J.N. & Gostelow T.P. (1976) - The development of an
abandoned cliff in London clay at Hadleigh, Essex. Phil. Trans. Roy.
Soc. London A283, 557-604.
IAEG - Commission on Engineering Geology Mapping (1981). Rock and soil
description and classification for engineering geological mapping. IAEG
Bull., 24, 235-274.
Ibsen M.L. & Brunsden D. (1996). The nature, use and problems of
historical archives for the temporal occurrence of landslides, with
specific reference to the south coast of Britain, Ventnor, Isle of Wight.
Geomorphology, 15, 241-258.
IDNHR, Advisory Committee (1987). Confronting Natural Disasters. An
International Decade for Natural Hazard reduction. National Academy
Press. WA, 60 pp.
IUGS Working Group on Landslides, Committee on Risk Assessment (1997).
Quantitative risk assessment for slopes and landslides: the state of the
art. In: Cruden D., Fell R. (Eds.), Landslide Risk Assessment. Balkema,
Rotterdam, 3-12.
Iverson R.M. & Major J.J. (1987) - Rainfall, groundwater flow and seasonal
movement at Minor Creek Landslide, NW California: physical
interpretation of empirical relations. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., 99, 579-594.
Ives J.D. & Messerli B. (1981). Mountain Hazard Mapping in Nepal :
Introduction to an Applied Mountain Research Project. Mountain
Research and Development, 1, 223-230.
Jade S. & Sarkar S. (1993). Statistical models for slope stability
classification. Engineering Geology, 36, 91-98.
Jibson R.W. (1989). Debris flows in Southern Puerto Rico. Geol. Soc. Am.
Spec. Pub., 236, 1-13.
John K.W. (1968). Graphical stability analysis of slopes in jointed rock. J.
Soil Mech. Found. Div Proc. ASCE, 94, SM2, 497-526.
B.III-82
Keefer D.K. (1984). Landslides caused by earthquakes. Bull. Soc. Geol.
Am., 95, 406-421.
Keefer D.K., Wilson R.C., Mark R.K., Brabb E.E., Brown W.M., Ellen S.D.,
Harp F.L., Wieczoreck O.F., Alger C.S., Zatkin R.S. (1987). Real time
landslide warning during heavy rainfall. Science, 238, 921-925.
Kienholz H. (1978). Maps of Geomorphology and Natural Hazard of
Griendelwald, Switzerland, scale 1:10.000. Artic and Alpine research,
10, 169-184.
Kienholz H., Hafner H., Schneider G., Tamrakar R. (1983). Mountain
hazards mapping in Nepals Middle Mountains. Maps of land use and
geomorphic damages (Kathmandu-Kakani area). Mountain Research
and Development, 3 (3), 195-220.
Kienholz H., Schneider G., Bichsel M., Grunder M., Mool P. (1984). Mapping
of mountain hazard and slope stability. Mountain Research and
Development, 4, 247-266.
Kirsten H.A.D. & Moss A.S.E. (1985). Probability applied to slope design -
case histories. Rock Masses: Modeling of Underground openings.
Probability of failure. Fracture of intact rock (edited by C.H.
DOWDING). ASCE, New York, 106-121.
Klugman M.A. & Chung P. (1976). Slope-stability study of the regional
municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, Ontario, Canada. Ontario Geol.
Survey Misc. Paper, MP 68, 13pp.
Kockelman W.J. (1986). Some techniques for reducing landslide hazards.
Bull. Am. Ass. Eng. Geologists, 23 (1), 29-52.
Koirala N.P., Watkins, A.T. (1988). Bulk appraisal of slopes in Hong Kong.
In: Bonnard C. (Ed.) Landslides, Proc. 5
th
Int. Symp. on Landslides,
Lausanne, Switzerland. Balkema, Rotterdam, 2, 1181-1186.
Komar P.D. (ed.) (1983). Handbook of Coastal Processes and Erosion. CRC
Press, Florida.
Krner H.J. (1981). The energy line method in the mechanics of avalanches.
Journal of Glaciology, Vol. 26, No 94.
Leone F., Aste J.P., Leroi E. (1996). Vulnerability assessment of elements
exposed to mass-moving: working toward a better risk perception. In:
Senneset (Ed.), Landslides. Balkema, Rotterdam, 263-269.
Lerner D.N. (1986) - Predicting piezometric levels in steep slopes.
Groundwater in Engineering Geology. Geol. Soc. Eng. Group. Spec.
Pubb., 3, 327-333.
Leroueil S., Locat J., Vaunat J., Picarelli L., Lee H., Faure R. (1996).
Geotechnical characterisation, risk assessment and mitigation. In:
Maric B., Lisac L., Szavits-Nossan A. (Eds.), Geotechnical Hazards.
Lemos L., Skempton A.W. & Vaughan P.R. (1985). Earthquake loading of
shear surface in slopes. Proc. 11
th
ICSMFE, San Francisco, 4, 1955-
1958.
Leroi E. (1996). Landslide hazard Risk maps at different scales:
objectives, tools and developments. In: Senneset (Ed.), Landslides.
Balkema, Rotterdam, 1, 35-52.
Li K.S. (1992). Some common mistakes in probabilistic analysis of slopes.
Proc. 6
th
Int. Symp. on Landslides, Christchurch, 1, 475-480.
Li Tianchi (1983). A mathematical model for predicting the extent of a
major rockfall. Z.Geomorph., 27, 473-482.
B.III-83
LPC - Laboratoire des Ponts et Chausses (1978) - Eboulements et chutes
de pierres sur les routes. Mthode de Cartographie. Group dEtudes des
Falaises (GEF). Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chausses. Rapport de
Recherche No.80, 63pp.
Lucini P. (1969) - Un metodo grafico per la valutazione della franosit.
Mem. Note Ist. geol. Appl. , Napoli, 2, 1-14.
Lumb, P. (1975). Slope failures in Hong Kong. Quarterly Journal of
MacKay C.H. (1997). Management of rock slopes on the Canadian Pacific
Highway. In: Cruden D.M., Fell R. (Eds.) Landslide Risk Assessment,
Balkema, 271-276.
Maione U. & Moisello U. (1981). Appunti di idrologia. La Goliardica Pavese,
2^ Edizione, 251 pp.
Mahr T. & Malgot (1978) -Zoning Maps for regional and urban development
based on slope stability. Proc. 3rd Int. Congr. IAEG, Sec.I, 1, 124-137.
Major G., Ross-Brown D. & Kim H.J. (1978) - A general probabilistic analysis
for three-dimensional wedge failures. Proc. 19th U.S. Rock Mech.
Symp, Mackay School of Mines, Nevada, 45-56.
Malgot J., Baliak F., Cabalova D., Mahr T., Nemcock A. (1973) - Mapa
svahovych deformacii Handlovskej kotliny. A. Zkland mapa; B.Mapa
ingeniersko-geologickeho rajonovania.
Mark R.K. (1992). Map of debris flow probability, San Mateo County,
California, scale 1:62.500. US Geological Survey Miscellaneous
Investigation Map, I-1257-M.
Mark R.K. & Ellen S.D. (1995). Statistical and simulation models for
mapping debris-flows hazard. In: Carrara A., Guzzetti F. (Eds.),
Markland J.T. (1972). A useful technique for estimating the stability of rock
slopes when the rigid wedge sliding type of failure is expected.
Imperial College Rock Mechanics Research Report, 19.
Margottini C. & Fantucci R. (1993). Dendrogeomorphology in landslide
analysis: state of art. RT/AMB/93/20, ENEA, Roma, 22 pp.
Matheson G.D. (1983). Rock stability assessment in preliminary site
investigations Graphycal Methods. Transport and Road Research
Laboratory Report, 1039, 30 pp.
Matheson G.D. (1989). The collection and use of field discontinuity data in
rock slope design. Q. J. Eng. Geol., 22, 19-30.
Matichard Y. & Pouget P. (1988) - Pluviomtrie et comportament de
versants instables. Proc. 5th Int. Symp. on Landslides, Lausanne, 1,
725-728.
McMahon B.K. (1975). Probability of failure and expected volume of failure
in high slopes. Proc. 2
nd
Australia-New Zealand Conf. Geomechanics,
Brisbane, 308-317.
Meherota G.S., Dharmaraju R., Kanungo D.P. (1994). Landslide hazard
zonation - a tool for environmental development and protection of hilly
terrain. In: Man and Mountain 94, primo convegno internazionale per
la protezione e lo sviluppo dell'ambiente montano, 101-113.
Meja-Navarro M., Wohl E.E., Oaks S.D. (1994). Geological hazards,
vulnerability and risk assessment using GIS: model for Glenwood
Springs, Colorado. Geomorphology, 10, 331-354.
B.III-84
Meijerink A.M.J. (1988). Data acquisition and data capture through terrain
mapping unit. ITC Journal, 1, 23-44.
Meneroud J.P. (1978) - Cartographie des risques dans les Alpes-Maritimes
(France). Proc. 3rd Cong. IAEG, Sec.I, 2, 98-107.
Montgomery D.R., Wright R.H., Booth T. (1991). Debris flow hazard
mitigation for colluvium-filled swales. Bull. Am. Ass. of Eng. Geologists,
28 (3), 303-323.
Montgomery D.R. & Dietrich W.E. (1994). A physically based model for the
topographic control of shallow landsliding. Water Resource Research,
30 (4), 1153-1171.
Moon A.T., Olds R.J., Wilson R.A., Burman, B.C. (1992). Debris flow zoning
at Montrose, Victoria. In: Bell D.H. (Ed.) Landslides. Proc. 6
th
Int.
Symp. on Landslides, Christchurch, New Zealand. Balkema, Rotterdam,
2, 1015-1022.
Moon A., Robertson M., Davies, W. (1996). Quantifying rockfall risk using a
probabilistic toppling failure model. In: Senneset (Ed.), Landslides.
Balkema, Rotterdam.
Morgan G.C., Rawlings G.E., Sobkowicz J.C. (1992). Evaluating total risk to
communities from large debris flows. Geotechnique and natural hazard.
BiTech. Publishers, Vancouver B.C., 225-236.
Morgenstern N.R. (1985). Geotechnical aspects of environmental control.
Proc. 11
th
ICSMFE, San Francisco, 1, 155-186.
Morgestern N.R. (1997). Toward landslide risk assessment in practice. In:
Cruden D, Fell R. (Eds.), Landslide Risk Assessment. Balkema,
Rotterdam, 15-23.
Moser m. & Hohensinn f. (1983) - Geotechnical aspects of soil slips in alpine
regions. Engineering Geology, 19, 185-211.
Mostyn G.R., Fell R. (1997). Quantitative and semiquantitative estimation of
the probability of landsliding. In: Cruden D, Fell R. (Eds.), Landslide
Risk Assessment. Balkema, Rotterdam, 297-315.
Mulder H.F.H.M. (1991). Assessment of landslide hazard. Profschrift ter
Verkrijging van Graad van Doctor an de Rijkuniversiteit te Utrecht,
University of Utrecht, 150 pp.
Murk B.W., Skinner B.J., Porter S.C. (1997). Dangerous Earth. An
Introduction to Geological Hazards. Wiley, New York, 300 pp.
Nardi R., puccinelli A., D'Amato Avanzi G. & Trivellini M. (1987). Valutazione
del rischio da frana in Garfagnana e nella Media Valle del Serchio
(Lucca). 2): Carta geologica e carta della franosit degli elementi
"Sillico", "Castelnuovo Garfagnana", "Cascio", "Castelvecchio Pascoli",
"Gallicano", "Barga", "Fornaci di Barga" e "Ghivizzano" (scala
1:10.000). Boll. Soc. Geol. It., 106, 819-832.
Neeley M.K. & Rice R.M. (1990). Estimating risk of debris slides after timber
harvest in northwestern California. Bull. Am. Ass. of Eng. Geologists,
27 (3), 281-289.
NERC-National Environment Research Council (1975). Flood studies report,
Vol 1.
Neuland H. (1976). A prediction model of landslips. Catena, 3, 215-230.
Newmark N.W. (1965). Effects of earthquakes on dams and embankments.
Gotechnique, 25, 4.
Nicoletti P.G., Sorriso-Valvo M. (1991). Geomorphic controls of the shape
and mobility of rock avalanches. Geol. Soc. of America Bull., 103 (10),
1366-1373.
B.III-85
Nieto A.S. (1989). Mechanical models and geological observations: closing
the prediction gap. Proc. of the Workshop on Natural Disasters in
European-Mediterranean Countries, Perugia, CNR-US NFS, 145-164.
Nilsen T.H. & Brabb E.E. (1977). Slope stability studies in the San Francisco
bay region, California. Geological Society of America, Reviews in
Nilsen T.H., Wright R.H., Vlasic C., Spangle W.E. (1979). Relative slope
stability and land-use planning in the San Francisco Bay region,
California. US Geological Survey Professional Paper 944, 104 pp.
Okimura T. & Kawatani T. (1987). Mapping of the potential surface-failure
sites on granite slopes. In: Gardiner E. (Ed.), International
Geomorphology 1986, Part I. Wiley, Chichester, 121-138.
Okunishi K., Okumura, T. (1987). Groundwater models for mountain slopes.
In: Anderson M.G., Richards K.S. (Eds.) Slope Stability. Wiley, 265-
285.
Oliver G. & Renet J.P. (1976). Essai de cartographie des risques lis des
mouvements de terrain dans la rgion de Saint-Martin-de-Belleville.
Bull. Liason Lab. P. et Ch., spcial, mars 1976, 40-55.
Ollier C.D. (1977). Terrain classification: methods, applications and
principles. In: J.R. HAILS (ed.) Applied Geomprphology, Elsevier,
Amsterdam, 277-371.
O'Loughlin E.M. (1986). Prediction of surface saturation zones in natural
catchments by topographic analysis. Water Resources Research, 22
(5), 794-804.
Olshansky R. (1990). Landslide hazard in the United States. Case studies in
planning and policy development. Garland Publishing, New York, 178
pp.
Omura H., Hicks D. (1992). Probability of landslides in hill country. In:
Landslides. Proc. 6
th
Int. Symp. on Landslides, Christchurch, New
Zealand. Balkema, Rotterdam.
Onofri R. & Candian C. (1979). Indagine sui limiti di massima invasione dei
blocchi rocciosi franati durante il sisma del Friuli del 1976.
Considerazioni sulle opere di difesa. Reg. Aut. friuli Venezia Giulia,
Cluet, Trieste, 1-42.
Osman A.M. & Thorne C.R. (1988). Riverbank stability analysis. Part I:
Theory. Journal of the Hydraulics Division, American Society of Civil
Engineers, 114, 125-150.
Paiola A. (1978). Movimenti franosi in Friuli. comportamento dei corpi che
cadono su di un pendio e calcolo del limite di espandimento potenziale.
Tecnica Italiana, 6.
Panizza M. (1988). Geomorfologia Applicata. La Nuova Italia Scientifica.
Papani G. & Tellini C. (1983) - Metodo elementare per elaborare
uniformemente carte della stabilit potenziale dei terreni. Studio della
parte media della Valle Tresinaro. Ateneo Parmense. Acta Naturalia, 9
(2).
Paronuzzi P. (1989). Probabilistic approach for design optimization of
rockfall protective barriers. Q.J. Engineering Geology, 22, 175-183.
Pasquero M. (1987). Dinamica della caduta massi rocciosi nello studio della
stabilit dei versanti. Tesi di Laurea, Politecnico di Torino.
Pellegrino A., Guerricchio A., Lazzari S., Nora B. & Valentini G. (1993). La
previsione delle frane ed i piani di emergenza. CNR-GNDCI. Rapporto
interno.
B.III-86
Perla R., Cheng T.T., McClung D.M. (1980). Rockslides and avalanches:
Basic principles and perspectives in the realm of civil and mining
operations. In: Rockslides and avalanches, Vol. 2, 1-92, (Voight B.,
ed.), Elsevier.
Perrot A. (1988). Cartographie des risques de glissements en Lorraine.
Proc. 5
th
Int. Symp. on Landslides, Lausanne, 2, 1217-1222.
Pike R.J. (1988). The geometric signature: quantifying landslide-terrain
types from digital elevation models. Mathematical Geology, 20 (5),
491-511.
Piteau D.R. & Clayton R. (1977). Discussion on paper : Computerised
design of rock slopes using interactive graphics for the input and
output of geometrical data of Cundall P.A., Voegele M.D. & Fairhurst
C. Proc. 16
th
Symp. on Rock Mechanics. University of Minnesota. ASCE,
62-63.
Piteau D.R. & Peckover F.L. (1978). Egineering of Rock Slopes. In: Turner
A.K. & Krizek R.J. (Eds.) Landslides analysis and control.
Transportation Research Board Special Report 176. National Academy
of Sciences 218-225.
Polemio M. & Petrucci O. (2000). Rainfall as a landslide triggering factor: an
overview of recent international research. In: Bromhead E., Dixon N. &
Ibsen M.L. (Eds.) Landslides in research, theory and practice. Proc. 8
th
Int. Symp. on Landslides, Cardiff, Thomas Telford, London, 2000,
1219-1226.
Pomeroy J.S. (1979). Map showing landslides and areas susceptible to
sliding in Beaver County, Pennsylvania. US Geological Survey
Miscellaneous Investigation Map I-1160.
Premchitt J., Brand E.W., Chen, P.Y.M. (1994). Rain-induced landslides in
Hong Kong 1972-1992. Asia Engineer, June, 43-51.
Priest S.D. & Brown E.T. (1983) - Probabilistic analysis of rock slopes.
Trans. Inst. Min. Metall., A92(1), A1-A12.
Provincia di Modena & GNDCI U.O. 2.9 (1994). Proposta di una carta del
rischio da frana per il centro abitato di Sestola (Appennino modenese).
CNR-GNDCI Linea 2 Previsione e Prevenzione di eventi franosi a
grande rischio Programma Speciale SCAI. 37 pp.
Provincia di Modena & GNDCI U.O. 2.9 (1994). Proposta di una carta del
rischio da frana per il centro abitato di Lama Mocogno (Appennino
modenese). CNR-GNDCI Linea 2 Previsione e Prevenzione di eventi
franosi a grande rischio Programma Speciale SCAI. 46 pp.
Radbruch-Hall D.H. & Crowther K.C. (1973). Map showing areas of
estimated relative amounts of landslides in California. U.S. Geol.
Survey Misc. Inv. Map, MF-771.
Radbruch-Hall D.H. & Varnes D.J. (1976). Landslides: causes and effect.
IAEG Bull., 14, 205-216.
Radbruch-Hall D.H., Colton R.B., Davies W.E., Skipp B.A., Lucchitta I., &
Varnes D.J. (1976) - Preliminary landslide overview map of the
Conterminous United States. U.S. Geol. Survey Misc. Field Studies
Map, MF-771.
Raetzo H., Lateltin O., Bollinger D., Tripet J.P. (2002). Hazard assessment
in Switzerland Codes of Practice for mass movements. Bull. Eng.
Geol. Env., 61, 263-268.
Ragozin A.L. & Tikhvinsky O. (2000). Landslide Hazard, Vulnerability and
Risk Assessment. In: Bromhead E., Dixon N. & Ibsen M.L. (Eds.)
B.III-87
Landslides in research, theory and practice. Proc. 8
th
Int. Symp. on
Landslides, Cardiff, Thomas Telford, London, 2000, 1257-1262.
Rennolls K., Carnell R. & Tee V. (1980). A descriptive model of the
relationships between rainfall and soil water table. Journal of
Hydrology, 47, 103-114.
Rib H.T. & Liang T. (1978). Recognition and identification. In: Schuster R.L.
& Krizek R.J. (Eds.), Landslides analysis and control. Washington
Transportation Research Board, Special Report 176. National Academy
of Sciences, WA, 34-80.
Ritchie A.M. (1963). Evaluation of rockfall and its control. Highway Research
Record, 17, 13-28.
Roberds W.J. (1990). Methods for developing defensible subjective
probability assessments. Proceedings of the Transportation Research
Board, No. 1288, National Research Council, Washington DC, 183-190.
Romana M. (1985) - New adjustment ratings for application of Bieniawski
classification to slopes. Int. Symp. on the Role of Rock Mechanics.
Zacatecas. 49-53.
Roth R.A. (1983). Factors affecting landslide suceptibility in San Mateo
County, California. IAEG, 20 (4), 353-372.
Sangrey D.A., Harrop-Williams W., Klaiber J.A. (1984) - Predicting
groundwater response to precipitation. J. Geotech. Eng.ing, ASCE,
110(7), 957-975.
Sarma S.K. (1979). Stability analysis of embankments and slopes. Proc.
ASCE, 105, GT5, 1511-1524.
Sassa K. (1988). Special lecture: Geotechnical model for the motion of
landslides. Proc. 5
th
Int. Symp. on Landslides, Lausanne, 1, 37-55.
Sassa K. (1992). Access to the dynamic of landslides during earthquakes by
a new cyclic loading high-speed ring apparatus. Proc. 6
th
Int. Symp. on
Landslides, Christchurch (New Zealand), Balkema, 3, 1919-1937.
Sassa K. (1993). Landslide volume - apparent friction relationship in the
case of rapid loading on alluvial deposits. Landslide News, 6, 16-19.
Scavia C., Barla G. & Vai L. (1988). Analisi di tipo probabilistico. Atti dei cicli
di conferenze Meccanica e Ingegneria delle Rocce. Politecnico di
Torino, 12, 1-27.
Scheidegger A.E. (1973). On the prediction of the reach and velocity of
catastrophic landslides. Rock Mechanics, 5, 231-236.
Scheidegger A.E. (1994). Hazards: singularities in geomorphic systems.
Schuster R.L. (1995). Keynote paper: recent advances in slope stabilisation.
In: Bell (Ed.) Landslides. Balkema, Rotterdam, 1715-1745.
Schuster R.L. (1996). Socio-economic sisnificance of landslides. In: Turner
A.K. & Schuster R.L. (Eds.) Landslides: Investigation and Mitigation.
Transportation Research Board Special Report 247. National Academy
Press, WA, 12-35.
Schuster R.L., Fleming R.W. (1986). Economic losses and fatalities due to
landslides. Bulletin of American Association Engineering Geologists, 23
(1), 11-28.
Schuster R.L. & Krizek R.J. (1978). Landslides Analysis and Control.
Washington Transportation Research Board, Special report 176.
National Academy of Sciences, WA, 234 pp.
B.III-88
Schoeneich P. (1991) - La datation des glissements de terrain. Proc. VI Int.
Symp. on Landslides, Christchurch (New Zealand), 1992, Balkema, 1,
205-212.
Seed H.B. (1968). Landslides during earthquake due to soil liquefaction.
Terzaghi lecture, J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., ASCE, 94, SM5.
Seed H.B. (1975). Earthquake effects on soil foundation systems. In: Fang
H.Y. Foundation engineering Handbook, 2
nd
ed., 1991. Van Nostrand
Reinhold, New York.
Seed H.B. & Idriss I.M. (1967). Liquefaction of saturated sands during cyclic
loading. Proc. ASCE, 92, SM6, 69-84.
Seeley M.W. & West D.O. (1990). Approach to geologic hazard zoning for
regional planning, Inyo National Forest, California and Nevada. Bull.
American Association of Eng. Geologists, 27 (1), 11-28.
Skempton A.W. & Delory F.A. (1957) - Stability of natural slopes in London
Clay. Proc. 4th Int. Conf. Soil Mech., London, 2, 378-381.
Skempton A.W., Leadbeater A.D. & Chandler R.J. (1989) - The Mam Tor
landslide, North Derbyshire. Phil. Trans. Royal Society London, A 329,
503-547.
Siddle H.J., Jones D.B., Payne, H.R. (1991). Development of a methodology
for landslip potential mapping in the Rhondda Valley. In: Chandler R.L.
(Ed.) Slope Stability, Isle of Wight. Thomas Telford, p.137-148.
Soeters R., van Westen C.J. (1996). Slope instability, recognition, analysis
and zonation. In: Turner A.K. & Schuster R.L. (Eds.) Landslides:
Investigation and Mitigation. Transportation Research Board Special
Report 247. National Academy Press, WA, 129-177.
Soeters R., Rengers N., van Westen C.J. (1996). Remote sensing and
Geographical Information Systems as applied to mountain hazard
analysis and environmental monitoring. 8
th
Thematic Conference
Geology Remore Sensing (ERIM), Denver 2, 1389-1402.
Sorriso-Valvo M., Tansi C., Antronico L. (1996). Relazione tra frane, forme
del rilievo e strutture tettoniche nella media valle del Fiume Crati
(Calabria). Geogr. Fis. Dinam. Quat., 19, 107-117.
Sousa J., Voight B. (1991). Continuum simulation of flow failures.
Geotechnique, 41, 515-538.
Speight J.G. (1977). Landform pattern description from aerial photographs.
Photogrammetry, 32, 161-182.
Starkel L. (1966) - The palaeogeography of Mid and Eastern Europe during
the last cold stage and Western European comparisons.Phil. Trans.
Royal Society, London, B280, 351-372.
Starosolzky O. & Melder O.M. (1989). Hydrology of disasters. World
Meteorological Organisation Technical Conference, Geneva, November
1988. James and James, London, 319 pp.
Starr C. (1969). Social benefit versus technological risk; what is our society
willing to pay for safety? Science, 165, 1232-1238.
Stevenson P.C. (1977). An empirical method for the evaluation of the
relative landslip risk. IAEG Bull., 16, 69-72.
Stout M.L. (1977). Radiocarbon dating of landslides in Southern California.
California Geology, 99-105.
Sunamura T. (1992). Geomorphology of rocky coasts. John Wiley & Sons,
302 pp.
Takahashi T. (1981). Debris flow. Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech. 1981, 13, 57-77.
B.III-89
Talobre J. (1957). La Mcanique des Roches applique aux Travaux Publics.
Dunod, Paris, 444 pp.
Terlien M.T.J., van Westen C.J., van Asch Th.W.J. (1995). Deterministic
modelling in GIS-based landslide hazard assessment. In: Carrara A.,
Guzzetti F. (Eds.), Geographical Information Systems in Assessing
Natural Hazards. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht, The
Netherlands, 57-77.
Terzaghi K. (1950). Mechanism of Landslides, Geol. Soc. America, Eng.
Geol. "Berkey" Volume, 83-123.
Terzaghi K. & Peck R.B. (1948). Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice. 1st
ed; J. Wiley & Sons, New York.
Thorne C.R. (1982). Processes and mechanisms of river bank erosion. In:
R.D. Hey, J.C. Bathurst and C.R. Thorne (ed.) Gravel-bed Rivers,
Wiley, Chichester, 227-271.
Thorne C.R. & Tovey N.K. (1981). Stability of composite river banks. Earth
Surface Processes and Landforms, 6, 469-484.
Tobutt D.C. & Richards E.A. (1979). The reliability of earth slopes. Int. J. of
Numerical & Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 3 (4), 323-354.
Thornthwaite C.W. (1948) - An approach towards a rational classification of
climate.Geogr. Rev. American Geogr. Society, 55, 94.
Trustrum N.A. & De Rose R.C. (1988). Soil depth-age relationship of
landslides on deforested hillslopes, Taranaki, New Zealand.
Turner A.K. & Schuster R.L. (Eds.) (1995). Landslides, investigation and
mitigation. Transportation Research Board Special Report 247. National
Academy Press, WA, 673 pp.
Uno T., Arai H. & Shibeyama M. (1977) - Models for predicting ground water
level. 11th ICSMFE, 3, 495-598.
USGS (1982). Goals and tasks of the landslide part of a ground failure
hazard reduction program. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 880, 48pp.
Valera J.E. & Donovan W.C. (1977). Soil Liquefaction Procedures. A Review.
J. Geol. Eng. Div. ASCE, 103.
Valentini G. (1967). Un modello statistico nello studio della franosit nel
quadro morfologico, geologico e geotecnico della media valle del
F.Fortore. Geologia Applicata e Idrogeologia, 2, 197-227.
van Gassen W. & Cruden D.M. (1989). Momentum transfer and friction in
the debris of rock avalanches. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 26, 623-
628.
van Westen C.J. (1993). Application of Geographical Information System to
landslide hazard zonation. ITC publication no 15, ITC, Enschede, The
Netherlands, 245 pp.
van Westen C.J. (1994). GIS in landslide hazard zonation: a review with
examples from the Colombian Andes. In: Price M.F. & Heywood D.I.
(Eds.), Taylor and Francis, London, 135-165.
van Westen C.J., Rengers N., Terlien M.T.J., Soeters R. (1997). Prediction of
the occurrence of slope instability phenomena through GIS-based
hazard zonation. Geologische Rundschau, 86, 404-414.
Varnes D.J. (1978). Slope movements, type and processes. In: Schuster
R.L. & Krizek R.J. (Eds.), Landslides analysis and control. Washington
Transportation Research Board, Special Report 176. National Academy
of Sciences, WA, 11-33.
B.III-90
Varnes D.J. & IAEG Commission on Landslides (1984). Landslides Hazard
Zonation a review of principles and practice. UNESCO, Paris, 63 pp.
Vecchia O. (1978) - A simple terrain indexfor the stability of hillsides or
scarps. In: J.D. Geddes (ed.) Large Ground Movements and
Structures. J.Wiley & Sons, New York, 446-461.
Verstappen H.T. (1983). Applied Geomorphology: Geomorphological Survey
for Environmental Development. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Viberg L. (1984). Landslide risk mapping in soft clay in Scandinavia and
Canada. Proc. 4
th
Int. Symp. on Landslides, Toronto, 1, 325-348.
Voellmy A. (1955). ber die Zerstrungskraft von Lawinen. Sweiz
Bauzeitung, 73, 159-165, 212-217, 246-249, 280-285.
Voight B. (1988). Material science law applied to time forecast of slope
failure. Landslide News, 3, 8-11.
Wadge G. (1988). The potential of GIS modelling of gravity flows and slope
instabilities. Int. Journal of Geographical Information systems 2, 143-
152.
Ward T.S. (1976) - Factor of safety approach to landslide potential
delineation. PhD Dissertation, Department of Civil engineering,
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado (USA).
Wieczorek G.F (1984). Preparing a detailed landslide-inventory map for
hazard evaluation and reduction. Bull. IAEG, 21 (3), 337-342.
Wieczorek G.F. (1987). Effect of rainfall intensity and duration on debris
flows in central Santa Cruz Mountains, California. In: Costa J.E.,
Wieczorek G.F. (Eds.) Debris flows/Avalanches: process, Recognition
and Mitigation. Reviews in Engineering Geology, vol. VII. Geological
Society of America, Boulder, CO, 93-104.
Wieczorek G.F. & Sarmiento J. (1988) - Rainfall, piezometric levels and
debris flows near La Honda, California, in storms between 1975 and
1983. In: Landslides, floods and marine effects of the storm of Jan 3-
5, 1982, in the S.Francisco Bay region, California. USGS Prof. Papers.,
1434, 43-63.
Wieczorek G.F., Gori P.L., Jager S., Kappel W.M., Negussey D. (1996).
Assessment and management of landslide hazards near Tully Valley
landslide, Syracuse, New York, USA. Proc. 7
th
Int. Symp. On
Landslides, Trondheim, June 1996, 1, 411-416.
Whitman R.V. (1984). Evaluating calculated risk in geotechnical
engineering. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 110(2); 145-
188.
Wilson R.C., Wieczorek G.F. (1995). Rainfall threshold for the initiation of
debris flows at La Honda, California. Environmental and Engineering
Geoscience, 1 (1), 11-27.
Wong H.N., Ho K.K.S., Chan Y.C. (1997). Assessment of consequence of
landslides. In: Cruden D, Fell R. (Eds.), Landslide Risk Assessment.
WP/WLI-International Geotechnical Societies UNESCO Working Party on
World Landslide Inventory (1990). A suggested method for reporting a
landslide. IAEG Bull., 41, 5-12.
World Landslide Inventory (1991). A suggested method for a landslide
summary. IAEG Bull., 43, 101-110.
B.III-91
World Landslide Inventory (1993). A suggested method for describing
the activity of a landslide. IAEG Bull., 47, 53-57.
World Landslide Inventory (1994). Multilingual glossary for landslides.
Wright R.H. & Nilsen T.H. (1974). Isopleth map of landslide deposits,
Southern San Francisco Bay Region, California. US Geol. Surv. Misc.
Field Studies Map, MF-550.
Wright R.H., Campbell R.H., Nilsen T.H. (1974). Preparation and use of
isopleth maps of landslide deposits. Geological Society of America.
Geology, 2, 483-485.
Wu T.H., Tang W.H., Einstein H.H. (1996). Landslide hazard and risk
assessment. In: Turner A.K. & Schuster R.L. (Eds.) Landslides:
Investigation and Mitigation. Transportation Research Board Special
Report 247. National Academy Press, WA, 106-120.
Yin K.L. & Yan T.Z. (1988). Statistical prediction model for slope instability
of metamorphosed rocks. Proc. 5
th
Int. Symp. on Landslides, Lausanne,
2, 1269-1272.
Yong R.N., Alonso E., Tabba M.M., Fransham P.B. (1977). Application of risk
analysis to the prediction of slope instability. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 14 (4), 540-543.
Yoshimatsu H. (1991). Study of the mechanics of debris flow and its
simulation model. Journal of Japan Landslide Society, 28-2.
Zika et alii (1988) - Proc. 5th Int. Symp. on Landslides, Lausanne, 1, 3-36
Zimmerman M., Bichsel M., Kienholz H. (1986). Mountain hazards mapping
in the Khumbu Himal, Nepal, with prototype map, scale 1:50.000.
Mountain Research and Development, 6 (1), 29-40.

LANDSLIDE Current Availability and Methodology For Natural Risk Map Production ARMONIA PROJECT (Contract N° 511208) PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

LANDSLIDE Current Availability and Methodology For Natural Risk Map Production ARMONIA PROJECT (Contract N° 511208) PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ARMONIA PROJECT (Contract n 511208) Deliverable 2.

You might also like