Guia JTC -01

8/12/2019 Guia JTC -01

1/13

Commentary

Guidelines for landslide susceptibility, hazard and risk zoning for land-use planning

Robin Fell a, Jordi Corominas b,, Christophe Bonnard c, Leonardo Cascini d, Eric Leroi e, William Z. Savage f

on behalf of the JTC-1 Joint Technical Committee on Landslides and Engineered Slopesa University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australiab Department of Geotechnical Engineering and Geosciences, Technical University of Catalonia -UPC, Jordi Girona 1-3, D-2 Building.08034 Barcelona, Spainc PBBG SA, Lausanne, Switzerlandd Department of Civil Engineering, University of Salerno, via Ponte don Melillo, 84084 Fisciano, SA, Italye Urbater, 48 avenue Trespoey 64000 Pau, Francef U.S. Geological Survey, Box 25046 MS966, Denver, CO., USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Accepted 4 March 2008Available online 26 July 2008

Purpose of the commentary

The Commentary has been prepared to:

Provide background notes to explain the reasons for adopting theprovisions of the guideline.

Elaborate on some parts of the guideline Provide references for additional reading.

The commentary is not meant to be a textbook on LandslideSusceptibility, Hazard and Risk Zoning.

C1. Introduction

There have been examples of landslide susceptibility and hazardzoningin use since the 1970s (e.g. Brabb et al., 1972; Nilsen et al., 1979;Kienholz, 1978). The hazard and risk maps have usually incorporatedthe estimated frequency of landsliding in a qualitative sense ratherthan quantitatively. These examples of zoning have generally beenused to manage landslide hazard in urban areas by excludingdevelopment in some higher hazard areas, and requiring geotechnicalengineering assessment of slope stability before development isapproved in other areas. In some countries, landslide susceptibility,hazard and risk maps are being introduced across the country. Forexample the PPR (Plans de Prevention des Riques Naturels Previsibles)in France (Ministre de l'Amnagement du Territoire et de l'Envir-

onnement, 1999) and the Cartes de Dangers or Gefahrenkarten inSwitzerland which are carried out at the Canton level but with Federalfunding support (Leroi et al., 2005).

C2. Denitions and terminology

C2.1. Denitions

The denitions in the Guideline are consistent with InternationalLandslides and Geotechnical Engineering practice.

C2.2. Landslide classication and terminology

There is no consensus within the international geotechnicalcommunity on which landslide classication system to use. Allexistingsystems are seen to have shortcomings. In recognition of this

JTC 1, the Joint Technical Committee on Landslides and EngineeredSlopes has established a working committee to develop a newclassication system on behalf of ISSMGE, IAEG and ISRM. This willnot be completed until late in 2008.

C3. Landslide risk management framework

More details on the use of risk management in landslides are givenin the State of the Art papers in The International Conference onLandslide Risk Management, Vancouver, June 2005 (Fell et al., 2005a,b; Picarelli et al., 2005; Nadim et al., 2005; Hungr et al., 2005; Roberds2005; Leroi et al., 2005; Cascini et al., 2005; Wong, 2005); in AGS(2000, 2002, 2007a)andLee and Jones (2004).

For information on the historical development of landslide riskmanagement, seeEinstein (1988, 1997),Fell (1994),IUGS (1997)andFell and Hartford (1997).

Engineering Geology 102 (2008) 99111

Corresponding author. Department of Geotechnical Engineering and Geosciences.Technical University of Catalonia -UPC. Jordi Girona 1-3, D-2 Building, 08034 Barcelona,Spain. Tel.: +34 93 401 6861; fax: + 34 93 401 7251.

E-mail address:[email protected](J. Corominas).

0013-7952/$ see front matter 2008 Published by Elsevier B.V.

doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2008.03.014

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Geology

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / e n g g e o
mailto:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2008.03.014http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00137952http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00137952http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2008.03.014mailto:[email protected]

8/12/2019 Guia JTC -01

2/13

C4. Description of landslide susceptibility, hazard and risk zoning

for land-use planning

C4.1. Types of landslide zoning

C4.1.1. Landslide inventory

Landslide inventories are essentially factual in nature. However insome cases there may be a degree of interpretation because they may

be based on geomorphologic attributes seen on air photographs ormapped on the ground.

C4.1.2. Landslide susceptibility zoning

Landslide susceptibility zoning involves a degree of interpretation.Susceptibility zoning involves the spatial distribution and rating of theterrain units according to their propensity to produce landslides. This isdependent on the topography, geology, geotechnical properties, climate,vegetation and anthropogenic factors such as development and clearingof vegetation. It shouldconsiderall landsliding which canaffectthe studyarea andincludelandslideswhichare abovethe studyarea butmay travelonto it, and landslides below the study area which may retrogressivelyfail up-slope into it. The scale of susceptibility is usually a relative one.

The travel and regression of the landslides are dependent ondifferent factors to those causing the landslides. Areas which may beaffected by travel or regression of the landslides from the source willoften be assessed independently.

It should be recognized that the study area may be susceptible tomore than one type of Landslide e.g. rock fall and debris ows, andmay have a different degree of susceptibility (and in turn hazard) foreach of these. In these cases it will often be best to prepare separatesusceptibility, and hazard zoning maps for each type of landslide andto combinethem to obtainthe globallandslide hazardmap of thearea.

There are some differences of viewpoint amongst experts inlandslide zoningas to whether susceptibility zoningshould include anassessment of the potential travel or regression of landslides fromtheir source. Some feel that this should be considered only in hazardzoning. However, in some situations it will be difcult to assess thefrequency of landsliding and land-use zoning may be carried out

based on susceptibility zoning. In these cases the important matter oftravel or regression would be lost. In view of this travel and regressionshould be considered in susceptibility zoning.

C4.1.3. Landslide hazard zoning

Hazard zoning should be done for the area in its condition at thetime of the zoning study. It should allow for the effects of existingdevelopment (such as roads) on the likelihood of landsliding. In somesituations the planned development may increase or reduce thelikelihood of landsliding. This can be assessed and a post-develop-ment hazard zoning map produced.

Hazard zoning may be quantitative or qualitative. It is generallypreferable to determine the frequency of landsliding in quantitativeterms so the hazard from different sites can be compared, and the risk

estimated consequently also in quantitative terms. However in somesituations it may not be practical to assess frequencies sufcientlyaccurately to use quantitative hazard zoning and a qualitative systemof describing hazard classes may be adopted. Usually, even for thesecases, it will be possible to give some approximate guidance on thefrequency of landslides in the zoning classes and this should be done.

C4.1.4. Landslide risk zoning

Risk zoning depends on the elements at risk, their temporalspatialprobabilityand vulnerability.For new developments, an assessmentwillhave to be made of these factors. For areas with existingdevelopment itshould be recognized that risks may change with additional develop-ment and thus risk maps should be updated on a regular basis. Severalrisk zoning maps may be developed for a single hazard zoning study to

show the effects of different development plans on managing risk.

C4.2. Examples of zoning

For examples of zoning seeCascini et al. (2005)which references anumber of zoning schemes. Note that the terms used in theseexamples are not necessarily consistent with each other or with theseguidelines.

C5. Guidance on where landslide mapping is useful for

land-use planning

C5.1. General principles

No comments or additional information.

C5.2. Topographical, geological and development situations where

landsliding is potentially an issue

The examples given in the guideline are categorized into 5 classesbased on:

(a) Where there is a history of landsliding.This is the most obvious class, and the most common reason fordeciding that landslide zoning should be carried out.

(b) Where there is no history of sliding but the topography dictatessliding may occur.If slopes are steep enough they may be susceptible tolandsliding for a wide range of geological conditions. If slidingoccurs, it is likely to be rapid and pose a hazard to lives ofpersons below the slopes.

(c) When there is no history of sliding but geological andgeomorphological conditions are such that sliding is possible.The list of conditions is not meant to be complete, and othersituations may be known locally to be susceptible to land-sliding. It should be noted that in many of the cases listed theareas susceptible to landsliding may be in relatively at terrain,with sliding occurring on low strength surfaces of rupture.

(d) Where there are constructed features which should they fail,

may travel rapidly.Many of these cases relate to soils which lose a large amount ofstrength on sliding, and thus, will suffer a large drop in thefactor of safety and travel rapidly after failure. The list is notmeant to be complete but it is intended to give a reasonablerange of examples.

(e) Forestry works and land clearing where landslides may lead todamage to the environment such as in degrading streams andother receiving water bodies.

This is a separate class with the emphasis on environmentalconsequences.

C5.3. Types of development where landslide zoning for land-use planning

will be benecial

For roads and railways, linear susceptibility, hazard or risk mapsmay be prepared. These maps have some specicities such as, forinstance, the frequency is usually assessed at the road level and not atthe landslide source. However, the general mapping principles are thesame.

It should be noted that, in some countries, unless specically requiredby the organisation funding the zoning study or regulatory authorities,the impact of landsliding of the road or railway on road or railway userswill not usually be considered in the landslide zoning. This is usuallyconsidered the responsibility of the road or railway owner, not thosedeveloping adjacent landunless theproposeddevelopment increasesthelandslide risk to the infrastructure and its users. The effect of landslidingof the road or railway on the adjacent areas which are being developed

will usually be considered in the landslide zoning study.

100 R. Fell et al. / Engineering Geology 102 (2008) 99111

8/12/2019 Guia JTC -01

3/13

C6. Selection of the type and level of landslide zoning

C6.1. Some general principles

Some landslide zoning management schemes rely only onsusceptibility zoning to differentiate between areas where geotechni-cal assessment of landslide risk will be required for an individualdevelopment, and areas where no geotechnical assessment is

required. It should be recognized that:

(a) Such schemes are potentially expensive to implement intotal cost terms because they do not differentiate areas forwhich some general development controls are required (suchas limiting the height of cuts and lls), but no detailedgeotechnical assessment of hazard or risk assessment isneeded.

(b) They potentially categorize as equally susceptible areas whichhave different frequencies of landsliding and as a resultdifferent hazards.

Only risk mapping allows assessment of the risks of life-loss andcomparison with tolerable life-loss criteria. Early experience is thatmany of those involved in landslide zonation were not sufciently

aware of the potential for loss of life from landslides and either did notconsidered life-loss risk, or underestimated its importance.

C6.2. Recommended types and levels of zoning and map scales

Table 1 is intended for use by land-use planners in selecting thetype, level and scale of landslide zoning that should be done. It isemphasised that this should be controlled by the use of the landslidezoning. If statutory controls are to be imposed on developmentapplications based on the landslide zoning, then the zoning should behazard or risk zoning, and at the appropriate large or detailed scale.Zoning boundaries generally cannot be sufciently accurately denedat the medium or small scale. It is also undesirable to base statutoryzoning requirements which may for example impose restrictions on

development on susceptibility zoning that does not consider thefrequency of the potential landsliding.It is recognized that the funding available for landside zoning may

be a constraint and this may force the use of smaller scale zoning ofsusceptibility or hazard. If this is done there should be a realisticunderstanding of the accuracy of zoning boundaries and of thesusceptibility or hazard estimates. These types of zoning should onlybe used to act as a trigger formore detailed geotechnical assessment oflandslide hazard and/or risk, not to impose statutory constraints ondevelopment.

C6.3. Denition of the levels of zoning


C7. Landslide zoning map scales and descriptors for susceptibility,

hazard and risk zoning

C7.1. Scales for landslide zoning maps and their application

Table 3 summarizes map scales and the landslide susceptibility,hazard and risk mapping to which they are usually applied. The tableis based onSoeters and van Westen (1996),Cascini et al. (2005)and

discussions at the JTC 1 Workshop on Landslide Susceptibility, Hazardand Risk Zoning held in Barcelona in September 2006. The followingare some comments on the table:

(a) The input data used to produce landslide zoning maps musthave the appropriate resolution and quality. Generally speak-ing, the inputs to the zoning should be at larger scales than thezoning map, not smaller. Reliable zoning cannot be produced if,for instance, a landslide hazard zoning map prepared at a scaleof 1:5000 is based on a 1:25,000 geomorphological ortopographic maps because the accuracy of boundaries will bepotentially misleading.

(b) The use of larger scale zoning maps must be accompanied by agreater detail of input data and understanding of the slopeprocesses involved.

(c) In practice, only limited detail can be shown on small, mediumand even large scale maps. Most examples of municipal (localgovernment) landslide hazard or risk zoning maps whichassign a hazard or risk classication on an individual propertylevel should be prepared at the detailed level on large scalelandslidezoning maps. There aresome whobelieve that even atdetailed scale it is not technically or administratively defensibleto make site specic decisions based on zoning maps, and thatsite specic assessment is necessary. Others believe it ispossible, provided the zoning process includes ground inspec-tion to dene zoning boundaries, as was done byMoon et al.(1992)for debris ow hazard zoning.

(d) The usefulness and reliability of small scale landslide zoningmapping are considered by some to be questionable, even for

regional developmental planning.

C7.2. Descriptors of the degree of susceptibility, hazard and risk for use in

landslide zoning

C7.2.1. General

The descriptors have been developed based on the experience ofthe scientic committee taking account of the opinions of thereviewers. There is not necessarily equivalence in risk for the differenttypes of landslide having the same hazard descriptor.

C7.2.2. Examples of landslide susceptibility descriptors

Landslide susceptibility may be assessed based on eitherqualitative or quantitative way. In the qualitative approaches, the

Table C.1

Examples of landslide susceptibility mapping descriptors

Susceptibility descriptors Rock Falls Small landslides on natural slopes Large landslides on natural slopes

Probability rock falls will reach the area given rockfalls occur from a cliffa

Proportion of area in which smalllandslides may occurb

Proportion of area in which largelandslides may occurb,c

High susceptibility N0.5 N0.5 N0.5Moderate Susceptibility N0.25 to 0.5 N0.25 to 0.5 N0.25 to 0.5Low susceptibility N0.01 to 0.25 N0.01 to 0.25 N0.01 to 0.25Very low susceptibility 0 to 0.01 0 to 0.01 0 to 0.01

a Spatial probability determined from historic, relative stability indexes, data or analysis taking consideration of the uncertainty in travel distance.b Based on landslide inventory, geology, topography and geomorphology.c

Usually this is active, dormant and potentially reactivated slides, not rst time slides.

101R. Fell et al. / Engineering Geology 102 (2008) 99111

8/12/2019 Guia JTC -01

4/13

8/12/2019 Guia JTC -01

5/13

C7.2.5. Recommended approach


C8. Methods for landslide zoning for land-use planning

C8.1. The purpose of this section


C8.2. The importance of understanding slope processes and the

geotechnical characteristics of the landsliding

It should be recognized that landslide zoning is a multidisciplin-ary exercise. Zoning carried out by persons who do not have therequired knowledge and experience, or without sufcient detail ofgeotechnical investigations is likely to be inaccurate and may betotally misleading.

C8.3. Application of GIS-Based techniques to landslide zoning

(a). GIS-based modeling of landslide susceptibility and hazard

With the available data in place, various methods can be applied toestablish inter-relationships and to ultimately establish levels ofsusceptibility and hazard. Key vector data sets typically used inlandslide zoning studies include landslide polygons, geology, geomor-phological and or terrain units, cadastre, road, rail and utilities, land-use and vegetation. Other data that can be imported given therequired spatial data elements may include borehole information, soilstrength parameters, pore water pressures, rainfall etc. The key grid orraster data is the digital elevation model (DEM). GIS software canderive numerous data sets useful in landslide zoning from the DEMsuch as slope, aspect, ow accumulation, soil moisture indices,distance to streams and curvature to name only a few.

A GIS model can be used to combine a set of input maps or factorsusing a function to produce an output map. The function can takemany forms including linear regression, multiple regression, condi-tional analysis and discriminate analysis etc.

These indirect methods involve qualitative or quantitative modelingandanalysis techniques of various types (Soeters and Van Westen,1996):

(i) Heuristic analysis.In heuristic methods the expert opinion of the person carryingout the zoning is used to assess the susceptibility and hazard.These methods combine the mapping of the landslides andtheir geomorphologic setting as the main input factors forassessing the hazard. Two main types of heuristic analysis canbe distinguished: geomorphic analysis and qualitative mapcombination.Ingeomorphic analysisthe susceptibility or hazard is determineddirectly by the person carrying out thestudy based on individualexperience and the use of reasoning by analogy. The decision

rules are therefore difcult to formulate because they vary fromplace to place.Inqualitative map combinationthe person carrying out the studyuses expert knowledge to assign weighting values to a series ofinput parameters. These are summed according to these weights,leading to susceptibility and hazard classes. These methods arecommon,butitisdifcultto determine theweightingof theinputparameters.

(ii) Knowledge based analysis.Knowledge based analysis or heuristic data mining is thescienceof computer modeling of a learning process (Quinlan, 1993). Thedata mining learning process extracts patterns from thedatabases of landslides (Flentje et al., 2007). Pixels withattributed characteristics (from the input data layers) matching

those forknown landslides are used to dene classes of landslideTable

C.2

Individuallife-lossriskcriteria(Leroietal.,

2005)

O

rganization

Industry

Description

Risk/annum

Referenc

e

H

ealthandSafetyExecutive,United

K

ingdom

Land-useplan

ningaround

industries

Broadlyacceptable

risk.Tolerablelimit

10

6/annum

,publicandworkers10

4/annumpublica10

3/annumworkers

HSE(2001)

N

etherlandsMinistryofHousing

Land-useplan

ningfor

industries

Tolerablelimitb

10

5/annum

,existinginstallation10

6/annum,proposedinstallation

Netherla

ndsMinistryofhousing(1989),

Ale(2001),Vrijlingetal.(

1998)

D

epartmentofUrbanAffairsand

P

lanning,NSW,Australia

Land-useplan

ningfor

hazardousind

ustries

acceptable

(tolerable)limitsb

510

7/annumhospitals,schools,c

hildcarefacilities,o

ldagehousing10

6/annumresidential,hotels,

motels510

6/annumcommercialdevelopments10

5/annum

sportingcomplexes

A

ustralianNationalCommitteeon

L

argeDams

Dams

Tolerablelimit

10

4/annum

existingdam,publicmostatrisksubjecttoALARP

10

5/annumnewdamormajor

augmentation,publicmostatrisk,subjecttoALARP.

ANCOLD

(2003)

A

ustralianGeomechanicsSociety

g

uidelinesforlandsliderisk

m

anagement

Landslides(from

engineeredan

dnatural

slopes)

Suggestedtolerable

limit

10

4/annum

publicmostatrisk,existingslope10

5/annum,pu

blicmostatrisk,newslope

AGS(2000)

H

ongKongSpecialAdministrative

R

egionGovernment

Landslidesfromnatural

slopes

Tolerablelimit

10

4/annum

publicmostatrisk,existingslope.10

5/annumpu

blicmostatrisk,newslope

Hoetal.(2000),ERM(1998),Reevesetal.

(1999)

Icelandministryforthe

e

nvironmenthazardzoning

Avalanchesan

dlandslides

acceptable

(tolerable)limit

310

5/annumresidential,schools,daycarecentres,hospitals,communitycentres.1

0

4/annum

commercial

buildings510

5

recreationalhomesc

IcelandMinistryfortheenvironment

(2000),Arnaldsetal.(

2002)

R

oadsandTrafcAuthority,

N

SWAustralia

Highwaylandsliderisk

Impliedtolerablerisk

10

3/annum

d

Stewartetal.(

2002),RTA(2001)

a

ButfornewdevelopmentsHSE(2001)advisesa

gainstgivingplanningpermissionwhereindividualrisksareN10

5/annum.

b

Basedonatemporalspatialprobabilityof1.0.

c

Assumestemporalspatialprobabilityof0.7

5forresidential,0.4commercial,0.0

5recreational.

d

Bestestimateofsocietalriskforonepersonkilled,topriskranking.Ifsloperanksinthisrangeactionis

takentoreduceriskswithinashortperiod.Forthese

condranking,societalriskis104/annum,andslopeisputonpriorityremediationlist.


8/12/2019 Guia JTC -01

6/13

zoning. The percentage distributions of landslides within thezones are then used to help dene the zones.

(iii) Statistical analysis.The statistical or probabilistic approach is based on the observedrelationships between each factor and the past distribution oflandslides. This approach usually involves the mapping of theexisting landslides, the mapping of a set of factors that aresupposed be directly or indirectly linked to the stability of the

slopes, and the establishment of the statistical relationshipsbetween these factors and the instability process. Hencesusceptibilityor hazard zoning is conducted in a largely objectivemanner whereby factors and their inter-relationships areevaluated on a statistical basis. Various methods exist for thedevelopmentof the rules for and relationshipsbetweenvariablesand these include bi-variate analysis (Brabb et al., 1972), multi-variate analysis, particularly the discriminant analysis (Neuland,1976; Carrara, 1983; Carrara et al., 1995), Boolean approachesusing logistic regression (Atkinson and Massari, 1998; Dai andLee,2001; Ayalew and Yamagishi, 2005), Bayesian methodsusingweights of evidence and neural networks (Gmez and Kavzoglu,2005;Leeetal.,2006). Limitations withsuch methodsresultfromdataquality suchas errors in mapping, incompleteinventory andpoor resolution of some data sets as the models are essentiallydata trained. In addition, the results of such models are notreadily transferable from region to region.

(iv) Deterministic analysis.Deterministic methods apply classical slope stability theoryandprinciples such as innite slope, limit equilibrium and niteelement techniques. These models require standard soil para-meter inputs such as soil thickness, soil strength, groundwaterpressures, slope geometry etc. The resultant map details theaverage factor of safety and boundaries while susceptibility andhazardclasses canbe set according to factorof safety ranges (i.e.unstable b1.0, metastable 1.0 to 1.1 etc). One-dimensionaldeterministic slope stability models have beenused to calculateaverage safety factors of the slopes (Van Westen and Terlien,1996; Zhou et al., 2003) in which an hydrological model may

also be incorporated (Montgomery and Dietrich, 1994; Mon-tgomery et al., 1998). Three-dimensional deterministic model-ling integrated in a GIShave been performedby Xie et al. (2004).Deterministic distributed models require maps that give thespatial distribution of the input data. The variability of inputdata can be further used to calculate probability of failure inconjunction with return periods of triggers (Savage et al., 2004;Baum et al., 2005). The mainproblemwiththese methods is theoversimplication of the geological and geotechnical model,and difculties in predicting groundwater pore pressures andtheir relationship to rainfall and/or snow melt.

These methods of data analysis are applicable to non-GIS-basedsystems but the use of GIS greatly assists the process.

(c). Spatial data and scale in GIS

ScaleinGIS isrelated tothe subsequent useoftheoutput data. Landslideinventory maps, susceptibility and hazard zoning maps will be used byLocal Governments and Government Authorities etc. to make importantland management decisionsat large scale, often down to thecadastral landparcelscale.Dataqueriesanddecisions based ondata mandate theintegrityofthe datato berigorous atthatscale. Hence the scale atwhichinputdataiscollected should relate to the required scale of the output.

A mainissue related tothe scale is the sizeof the mappingunit. Thisunit is dened as the proportionof landsurface which contains a setofground conditions that differ from the adjacent units across denableboundaries (Hansen, 1984), Several mapping units may be dened(Guzzetti et al.,1999): grid cells, terrain units, unique-condition units,

slope units andtopographic units.If thesampleunit coversa large area

(i.e.200200m)itwillbecomeadifcult task to characterize each unitby a single value of a given factor. As the size of the unit becomessmaller it gets easier for one observation to represent the terrain, butthen the number of units may become too large to be manageable.

(d). The need for calibration of GIS modeling

The need toeldcheckiterations of the GIS modeling output is criticalin producing a high quality zoning map that reects, as best one can, the

reality in the

eld. Calibration of this model is essential in any project.Thesignicance of compiling the best possible input data to any GISapplication cannot be overstated. Time and resources devoted to theassemblyof comprehensive, accurate, high quality datawhich is capturedat appropriate scale and resolution are considered to be one of, it not themost signicant task undertaken in any GIS-based inventory compilationand modelingproject. The useof GISis not a substitutefortheinvolvementof geotechnical professionals with the skills required to carry out landslidezoning. GIS is a tool to assist them to do the zoning efciently.

C8.4. Landslide inventory

It should be notedthat the landslide inventory is often the basis forall the zoning, and it is important that this activity is done thoroughly.For precipitation-induced rock falls,slides from cuts,lls and retainingwalls the data will usually need to cover 10, 20 or more years so anumberof signicant rainfall events canbe sampled in the inventoryifit is to be used as the basis for frequency assessment. In many cases itwill not be possible to create a good inventory from past records, sothe inventory has limitations. These can be overcome with time ifthose responsible establish a system for gathering data which canthen be incorporated in later zoning studies.

For small landslides in natural slopes, the quality of the inventorywill be enhanced by carrying out surface as well as aerial photograph-based interpretation. Even experienced aerial photo interpreterscannot see slides which have been hidden by vegetation. Basic smallor medium scale landslide inventorymapping at regional or local levelmay be followed by intermediate or advanced mapping of highersusceptibility areas. The inventory should be mapped at a larger scale

than the susceptibility, hazard or risk zoning maps. Differentinformation can be mapped depending on the scale. For example:

(a) Inventory scale 1:50,000 to 1:100,000 for regional zoning.Theminimum area covered by an inventoried landslide is 4 ha.Smaller landslides may be represented by a dot. It isunnecessary and impossible to distinguish between landslidescarp features and resulting mass or deposit. Landslides areonly classied. Data about activity are simplied to active,dormant. Data about damages are simplied.

(b) Landslide inventoryat scale 1:10,000to 1:25,000 for local zoning.The minimum area covered by an inventoried and mappedlandslide is 1600 m2. Smaller landslides are represented bya dot.Minor andlateral scarps maybe distinguished as well as up-slopedeformations such as tension cracks or minor landslides. Land-slides are classied. Original mass, volume and averaged velocityisrecorded fromdirect information or expertassessment.Activityshould be described using WP/WLI(1993). Data aboutdamages ifthey are available are simplied to: no data, minor and major.

(c) Landslide inventory at a scale greater than 1:5000 for sitespecic or local zoning.

The minimum area covered by an inventoried mapped landslide is100 m2. Smaller landslides are represented by dots. Mapped landslidesmay be divided into its components: scarp, rupture surface and mass ordeposit. Rupture surface is digitized as a polygon comprising visible(scarps) and hidden sides covered by the mass. Landslides are classied.Mass volume and average velocity is estimated and recorded. GISanalysis may be used to obtain the total area of each landslide type in

each lithology unit of the mapped zone so the distribution of landslide


8/12/2019 Guia JTC -01

7/13

rupture surface by lithology units is obtained. Activity should bedescribed usingWP/WLI (1993). Data about damages are recorded ifavailable with mention of economic losses or qualitative description oflosses, number of days, weeks or months of interrupted services orcatastrophic losses. Human losses are also detailed with number ofinjured and dead persons. Historical data or record of temporaldistributionof landslides, triggeringrainfall and earthquake magnitudesmay also be added to the inventory. The inventory may also record

landslide features relating to slope deformations associated to earlystage of landslide development such as inclined trees, inclined fencesand deformed structures, tension cracks on element at risk such asroads, walls, houses, pavements, etc. and tension cracks on slopes.

For landslides from cuts and lls, and rock fall, even the most basicinventory of landslides can be valuable in estimating landslidefrequency. This can be set up in GIS or simply as a spreadsheet withsuch data as the location, classication, volume, travel distance andstate of activity, and date of occurrence.

Those responsible for landslide risk management are stronglyencouraged to develop a landslide inventory if one does not yet existfor the area for which they are responsible.

C8.5. Landslide susceptibility zoning

C8.5.1. Landslide characterization and travel distance and velocity

Table C.3(a) to (d) provides more detail on the activities tocharacterise the landslides for the four main classes of landslides, andlists suggested useful references. In most cases where intermediatemethods are being used basic methods will also be used, and foradvanced methods, intermediate and basic will also be used. Note thatmuch of these activities will be carried out in GIS and the terms usedhere are generic. It should be noted that the more advanced thecharacterization method, then the larger scale the mapping and levelof detail of information and understanding of slope processes isrequired. Some general references on mapping procedures includeVan Westen (1994, 2004), andGuzzetti et al. (1999).

It should be recognized that even at the intermediate andadvanced levels it is difcult to accurately dene landslide suscept-

ibility from terrain and geotechnical characteristics. This uncertaintyshould be borne in mind when carrying the information forward intopreparing hazard and risk zoning.

Some useful references for assessing travel distance include:

Empirical methods for assessing travel distance of soil and rockslides which become debris ows and debris slides involve differentapproaches. They may be based on geometrical relations betweenthe slope and the landslide deposits (Nicoletti and Sorriso Valvo,1991; Evans and Hungr, 1993; Corominas, 1996; Hunter and Fell,2003; and Hungr et al., 2005) or on volume change-methods(Cannon, 1993; Fannin and Wise, 2001).

Dynamic and numerical methods for assessing travel distance havebeen prepared for rockfalls (Bozzolo and Pamini, 1986; Pfeiffer andBowen, 1989; Agliardi and Crosta, 2003), debris ows (Takahashi,1991; Hungr, 1995; Laigle and Coussot, 1997; McDougall and Hungr,2004), owslides (Hutchinson, 1986), and rock avalanches (Soussaand Voight, 1991; Hungr, 1995; Eberhardt et al., 2004).

GIS-based methods for predicting ow paths (Glaze and Baloga,2003) and travel distances (Dorren and Seijmonsbergen, 2003).

The landslide velocity can be estimated from the potential energyand assumedfriction losses using the sliding block model as describedinHungr et al. (2005).

Care should be exercised when dening travel distance based on thelocation of ancient landslide deposits. The source of pre-historiclandslides cannot always be properly located and travel distanceestimation may be subjected to signicant error. It should be notedthat there is not yet available a commercial computer program with

sufcient documentation or guidance on selection of input parameters

to reliablymodel traveldistance andvelocities. Becauseof this, empiricalmethods are the most widely used. These have a signicant modeluncertaintywhichshouldbe allowed for in developingthe susceptibilitymaps for landslides which will travel beyond the source landslide.

C8.5.2. Preparation of landslide susceptibility map

Landslide susceptibility zoning mapsmay be developed fromlandslideinventories and geomorphological maps produced from aerial photos,

satellite images, and

eld work. A relative susceptibility is allocated in asubjectivemanner bythe persondoing the study. Thisoftenleadsto a mapwhichisverysubjectiveanddifcultto justify or reproduce systematically.

A more objective way of developing susceptibility zoning is bycorrelating statistically a set of factors (such as geologicalmorphologi-cal factors) with slope instability from the landslide inventory. Therelative contribution of the factors generating slope failures is assessedand the land surface is classied into domains of different susceptibilitylevels. Finally, the results of the classication are checked by analyzingwhether the spatial distribution of the existing landslides (landslideinventory) takes place in the classes rated as the most unstable.

It should be kept in mind that the aim of susceptibility mappingshould be to include the maximum number of landslides in thehighest susceptibility classes whilst trying to achieve the minimumspatial area for these classes.

At large scale, detailed susceptibility maps may be founded ongeotechnical models suchas theinnite slope with parallel plane failure,provide the landslides in the area are shallow translational slides inrocks or soils (i.e. consistent with innite slopes). An assessment ofgeotechnical and pore water pressure parameters is necessary in ordertouse thisapproach.Thesafety factor may beestablishedin a GISinpixelcells and the results referred to susceptibility depending on thecalculated factor of safety. Given the complexity of geotechnicalconditions in slopes these methods are unreliable unless calibrated bycorrelating with the landslide inventory.

Slope failure is caused by the concurrence of permanent conditioningand triggering factors. Permanent factors are terrain attributes (i.e.lithology, soil types and depths, slope, watershed size, vegetation cover,among others) that evolve slowly (i.e. by weathering or erosion) to bring

the slopes to a marginally stable state. Triggering events include groundshaking dueto earthquakesor riseof groundwater levels and/or pressuresdue to inltration of rainfall or snow melt. Only permanent conditioningfactors are mapped to assess landslide susceptibility while the recurrenceperiod of the triggers is usually used to assess the landslide hazard.

Some examples of susceptibility mapping are given in LCPC-CFGI(2000), Casciniet al.(2005), LeeandJones (2004),and Chacn et al.(2006).

C8.6. Landslide hazard zoning

C8.6.1. Frequency assessment

IUGS (1997) advise that the frequency of landsliding may beexpressed in terms of

The number of landslides of certain characteristics that may occur in

the study area in a given span of time (generally per year, but theperiod of reference might be different if required).

The probability of a particular slope experiencing landsliding in agiven period.

The driving forces exceeding the resistant forces in probability orreliability terms, with a frequency of occurrence being determined byconsidering the annual probability of the critical pore water pressures(or critical ground peak acceleration) being exceeded in the analysis.

This should be done for each type of landslide which has beenidentied and characterized as affecting the area being zoned.Frequency is usually determined from the assessment of the recurrenceintervals (the average time between events of the same magnitude) ofthe landslides. If the variation of recurrence interval is plotted against

magnitude of the event, a magnitude

frequency curve is obtained.


8/12/2019 Guia JTC -01

8/13

Methods of determining frequency include:

Historical records. When complete series of landsliding events are

available, recurrence intervals can be obtained by assuming that

future occurrence of landslides will be similar to the pastoccurrence. Landslides have to be inventoried over at least severaldecades to produce a valid estimate of landslide frequency and the

stability of temporal series has to be checked.

Table C.3

Details of some activities which may be used to characterise, and evaluate the spatial distribution of potential landslides and their relationship to topography, geology andgeomorphology

Characterization method Activity References

(a) Rock Falls

Basic Map historic rock fall scars and record the number, spatial distribution, volume of f allen rocks below the source of the rock falls.Relate rock fall occurrence to presence of fallen blocks and talus deposits.

Intermediate The same activities as Basic plus

Map geomorphic indicators (cracks, partially detached blocks).Develop frequencymagnitude relationships from the historic data Moon et al. (2005)Relate rock fall activity to Slope Mass Rating, Rock Mass Strength or use techniquessuch as Matterock

Romana (1988),Selby (1980),Rouiller et al. (1998)

Prepare landslide magnitudefrequency relations Hungr et al. (1999),Guzzetti et al. (2003),Picarelli et al. (2005)

Advanced The same activities as Intermediate plusDetailed mapping of geological structure (i.e. with laser scanner techniques) and relateeld performance to analysis of stability using planar, wedge andtoppling analyses.

Hoek and Bray (1981),Goodman and Shi (1985),Bauer et al. (2006)

(b) Small landslides

Basic Map historic landslides from air photography, preferably photographs taken at differenttimes some years apart, and using some surface mapping.

Evans and King (1998),Dai and Lee (2001)

Prepare isopleth maps Wright et al. (1974)Relate landslide occurrence to topography (e.g. slope, elevation, aspect) and lithologyusing simple correlation of single variables and judgement.

Nilsen et al. (1979),Brabb (1984)

Intermediate The same activities as Basic plusCarry out more detailed surface mapping of the incidence of landslides, and geomorphologymapping using air photographs, remote sensors and/or by surface mapping.

Van Westen (1994),Carrara et al. (1995),Baynes and Lee (1998),Whitworth et al. (2005)

Relate landslide occurrence to topography, geology, type and depth of soilsand geomorphology using statistical analysis techniques.Prepare landslide magnitudefrequency relations Guzzetti et al. (2002),Reid and Page (2002),

Guthrie and Evans (2004)Advanced The same activities as Intermediate plus

Detailed surface mapping and aerial photo interpretation, geotechnical andhydrological investigations. Relate landsliding with coupled slope stabilitymodels implemented in a GIS.

Baum et al. (2005),Xie et al. (2003)

(c) Large landslides

Basic Map landslides from aerial photography and/or surface mapping. Prepare an inventoryof landsliding.

Crandell et al. (1979),Rohn et al. (2004),Cascini et al. (2005),Hungr et al. (2005)

Relate landslide occurrence to topography (e.g. slope, elevation, aspect) and lithologyusing simple correlation of single variables and judgement.

Intermediate The same activities as Basic plus

Carry out more detailed geological and geomorphology mapping using air photographs,remote sensors and/or by surface mapping, distinguishing the activity of landslidingqualitatively and identifying active processes leading to instability.

Dikau et al. (1996),Parise (2003),Van Westen and Getahun (2003),McKean and Roering (2004)

Relate landslide occurrence to topography, geology, type and depth and geotechnicalcharacteristics of soil and geomorphology using statistical analysis techniques.Obtain series of reactivation events Corominas and Moya (1999)

Advanced The same activities as Intermediate plusDetailed surface and air photo mapping, geotechnical and hydrological investigations.Some analyses of stability may be carried out. Analysis of historic and survey data toassess activity

Wu and Abdel-Latif (2000),Corominas and Santacana (2003)

(d) Cuts, lls and retaining walls in roads and railways and in urban development

Basic Make an inventory of the classication, volume, location and date of occurrenceof landslides from local government records, newspaper articles and consultantsles.Collect data on the population of slopes including the number, height, geology,type of wall construction.Relate these to the length of roads and the number of properties on which they have

occurred to assess susceptibility.Intermediate The same activities as Basic plus MacGregor et al. (2007)Include in the inventory the height of cuts, lls and retaining walls, slope angles, basicgeology (lithology, depth of soil) and possibly basic geomorphology (e.g. are slideslocated in gullies, planar slopes or convex slopes); types of retaining walls for failedslopes and the population.Relate rock fall activity to Slope Mass Rating, Rock Mass Strength Romana (1988),Pierson et al., 1990,

Budetta (2004)Advanced The same activities as Intermediate plus

Include in the inventory details of slope angles, geotechnical properties of typical slopes,drainage and groundwater conditions for the failed slopes and the population.


8/12/2019 Guia JTC -01

9/13

Sequences of aerial photographs and/or satellite images. Averagefrequency of landslides may be obtained dividing the number ofnew landslides identied or the retreat of a cliff in metres by theyears separating the images.

Silent witnesses. They are features that are a direct consequence ofthe landslide phenomenon such as tree impacts produced by fallenblocks or organic soils buried by the slide deposits. They provide theage of the landslide event with a precision that depends on the

method used to date the feature. Correlation with landslide triggering events. Rain storms andearthquakes are the most common landslide triggering mechan-isms. Once the critical rainfall and/orearthquake magnitude capableto trigger landslides has been assessed in a region, the recurrenceintervals of the landslides are assumed to be that of their triggers.

Proxy data. They are data used to study the landslide, for which nodirect information is available. Proxy data may be, for instance,pollen deposited on the surface of the landslide at any time after itsemplacement, lichen colonization of the landslide deposits, or faunaassemblages that lived in a pond generated by the landslidemovement, etc. These elements can be dated with a variety oftechniques (Lang et al., 1999).

Geomorphological features which are associated with the degree oflandslide activity (presence of ground cracks, fresh scarps, tiltedstructures).

Subjective (degreeof belief)assessment.If there is littleor no historicaldata it is necessary to estimate frequencies based uponthe experienceof the person(s) doing the zoning. This is usually done by consideringthe likely response of the slope to a range of triggering events, such asthe 1 in 1; 1 in 10; 1 in 100 AEP rainfall and combining the frequencyof the triggering event to the probability, given the trigger occurs, theslope will fail. This should be summed over the full range of triggerfrequencies.

Assessing the recurrence periods of the landslide events willusually require using different and complementary methods. Thefrequency of the small size landslides may be obtained from thestatistical treatment of the historical records. The frequency of large

landslide events having long recurrence periods may be obtained forexample from a series of dated old landslide deposits.

Landslides of different types and sizes do not normally have thesame frequency (annual probability) of occurrence. Small landslideevents often occur more frequently than large ones. Differentlandslide types and mechanics of sliding have different triggers (e.g.rainfalls of different intensity, duration, and antecedent conditions;earthquakes of different magnitude and peak ground acceleration)taking place with different recurrence periods. Because of this, toquantify hazard, an appropriate magnitudefrequency relationshipshould in principle be established for every landslide type in the studyarea. In practice the data available is often limited and this can only bedone approximately.

Preliminary landslide hazard zoning maps are often prepared from

simple geomorphological maps showing the types of landslides and aqualitative estimation of theiractivity (i.e. active, dormant or inactive).More elaborated maps are based on the quantitative, or at least semi-quantitative, assessment of frequencymagnitude relationship fordifferent landslide types.

Deterministic approaches for estimating frequency by correlationwith rainfall have been mostly performed at a site level (large scale).Recent developments in coupling hydrological and slope stabilitymodels have allowed the preparation of landslide hazard maps at alocal level. These approaches require data of high quality: detailedDTM, relatively uniform ground conditions, landslide types easy toanalyze and a well established relationship between precipitationregime and groundwater level changes (e.g. Baum et al., 2005). This isusually only possible for shallow landslides which generally t these

conditions. The frequency of landsliding can be linked to the

frequency of the precipitation. The complex geotechnical natureof slopes makes it impractical to use these methods withoutcalibration against eld performance with landslide inventories inthe study area.

Some useful references on frequency assessment include:

For assessing geomorphology data:Baynes and Lee (1998),Wiec-zorek (1984),McCalpin (1984),Carrara et al. (1995),Palmquist andBible (1980),Fell et al. (1996).

For assessing historic data to produce magnitudefrequency curves.Fell et al. (1996),Bunce et al. (1997),Hungr et al. (1999),Dussage-Peisser et al. (2002); Chau et al. (2003); Malamud et al. (2004);Remondo et al. (2005),Coe et al. (2004),Picarelli et al. (2005),Moonet al. (2005)),Evans et al. (2005).

For assessing remote sensing images data (aerial photographs,satellite images) to produce magnitudefrequency curves.Cardinaliet al. (2002), Reid and Page (2002), Guthrie and Evans (2004),Guzzetti et al. (2006).

For assessing proxy data: Gardner (1980),Bull et al. (1994), Langet al. (1999),Schuster et al. (1992),Van Steijn (1996),Alexandrowiczand Alexandrowicz (1999),Gonzlez-Dez et al. (1999),Corominaset al. (2005);Stoffel et al. (2005);Irmler et al. (2006).

For relating landslide frequency to rainfall and other factors:

Picarelli et al. (2005),Strunk (1992),Wilson and Wieczorek (1995),Crozier (1997), Finlay et al. (1997), DUTI (1983), Soeters and vanWesten (1996),Baum et al. (2005).

For relating the frequency of rock falls and small slides on naturalslopes to seismic loading: Wieczorek (1996),Keefer (1984),Schusteret al. (1992), Cascini et al. (2005), Harp and Jibson (1995, 1996),

Jibson et al. (1998). For assessing the susceptibility of slopes to liquefaction and ow

failure:Youd et al. (2001),Hunter and Fell (2003).

It should be noted that:

(a) The assessment of frequency of sliding from geomorphologyis very subjective and approximate, even if experiencedgeomorphologists are involved. It should be supported with

historic data so far as possible. In principle, the methodshould work best for frequent sliding where fresh slide scarpsand other features will be evident. However, such featuresmay be covered within weeks by farming and constructionactivity.

(b) Most methods for relating landslide frequency to rainfallindicate when landsliding in an area may occur, not whethera particular slope may slide. The gures from these analysesmust be adjusted for the population of slopes to allowestimation of the frequency of sliding. This is discussed inPicarelli et al. (2005)and inMacGregor et al. (in preparation).

(c) The incidence of landsliding of slopes to rainfall is usually non-linear. For smaller slides from natural slopes and cuts and llsthere is often a threshold rainfall below which little or no

landsliding will occur, and then a greater frequency of slidingfor increasing rainfall. This is evident in the data for failuresfrom cuts, lls and retaining walls in Hong Kong (Finlay et al.,1997), MacGregor et al. (in preparation) for cuts and lls inPittwater shire, Sydney; and in small shallow slides from steepnatural slopes (Kim et al., 1992).

(d) For larger landslides it is often the combination of rainfallintensity and antecedent rainfall over a period which causeslandslides to become active.Leroueil (2001)provides severalexamples.

(e) When relating the frequency of landsliding to rainfall it shouldnot be assumed that 24 h rainfall is the critical duration. Theeffect of shorter duration high intensity rainfall should beassessed if the rainfall data is available. However, pluviograph

data is seldom available. The effect of antecedent rainfall should


8/12/2019 Guia JTC -01

10/13

be assessed at least qualitatively (e.g. MacGregor et al., inpreparation).

(f) The frequency of seismically induced landsliding is related tothe peak ground acceleration at the site, and the magnitude ofthe earthquake. Studies by Keefer (1984), Harp and Jibson(1995, 1996)andJibson et al. (1998)have shown that there is acritical magnitude and peak ground acceleration (or distancefrom the earthquake epicentre) above which landsliding will

occur. This varies for different classes of landslide. Pre-earth-quake rainfall and water tables inuence the response of slopesto earthquakes.

(g) Newmark type displacement analysis is described inNewmark(1965)andFell et al., 2005a,b.

(h) The assessment of the frequency of collapse of coastal cliffs isrelated to coastal erosion processes which may control thefrequency of landsliding. This is a specialist area and should beassessed by a multi-discipline team including engineeringgeologist, rock mechanics engineer and coastal engineer.Similarly, for mapping of coastal sand dunes subject to erosionby the sea a team consisting of geotechnical engineer,engineering geologist and coastal engineer is required.

Because of the complex interaction between the mechanicalbehaviour of geo-materials and triggering factors it is recommendedthat a geotechnical engineer familiar with the mechanics of slopes beinvolved in frequency estimation for zoning studies.

C8.6.2. Intensity assessment

Hungr (1997) dened landslide intensity as a set of spatiallydistributed parameters describing the destructiveness of the land-slide. These parameters are varied, with the maximum movementvelocity the most accepted one, although total displacement,differential displacement, depth of moving mass, depth of depositedmass and depth of erosion are alternative parameters. Keeping inmind the design of protective structures, other derived parameterssuch as peak discharge per unit width, kinetic energy per unit area,maximum thrust or impact pressure may be also considered.

Landslide movements can range from imperceptible creep dis-placements of large and small masses to both large and very fast rockavalanches. The likelihood of damage to structures and the potentialfor life-loss will vary because of this. Intensity is the measure of thedamaging capability of the landslide. In slow-moving landslides,persons are not usually endangered while damages to buildings andinfrastructures might be high although, in some cases, only evidencedafter long periods of time. By contrast, rapid movements of small andlarge masses may have catastrophic consequences for both personsand structures. For this reason it is desirable to describe the intensityof the landslides in the zoning study.

The same landslide may result in different intensity values alongthe path (for instance, the kinetic energy of a rock fall changescontinuously along its trajectory).

There is therefore, no unique denition for intensity and thosecarrying out the zoning will have to decide which denition is mostappropriate for the study. Useful references include Hungr (1997),Lateltin (1997),Hungr et al. (2005),Cascini et al. (2005)andCopons etal. (2004).

C8.6.3. Preparation of landslide hazard zoning map

Examples of hazard zoning mapping are given in Cascini et al.(2005),Wong (2005), andCorominas et al. (2003).

C8.7. Landslide risk zoning

C8.7.1. Elements at risk

The elements at risk are the population, buildings and engineering

works, economic activities, public services utilities, infrastructure and

environmental features in the area potentially affected by thelandslide hazard. These need to be assessed for existing and proposeddevelopment.

C8.6.2. Temporal spatial probability and vulnerability

Some useful references include Roberds (2005), Van Westen(2004),Wong (2005)andAGS (2000, 2002, 2007b).

Elements at risk may be damaged in multiple ways ( Leone et al.,

1996; Glade et al., 2005; Van Westen et al., 2005 ). In large landslides,there are sensitive areas where damage will be more likely (or muchhigher), no matter what the total landslide displacement or the releasedenergywill be.This occurs,for instance,in thelandslideboundaries, suchas the head or sides, or at local scarps where tensile stresses developwith the result of cracks, surface ground depletion and local rotation.Similarly, large differential deformations are expected in the landslidetoe where thrusting and bulging of theground surface might take place.

The resistance of a building is dependent on the landslidemechanism. It might be sufcient to resist the impact of a fallingblock but it can be insufcient to avoid development of tension cracksdue to differential displacements produced by a translational slide. Itmay be concluded that, for a similar structure or building, theexpected damage will depend on: (i) the landslide type (rock fall,debris ow, slide, etc); (ii) the hazard intensity and (iii) the relativelocation of the vulnerable element in relation to the landslidetrajectory or to the position inside the landslide affected area.

The vulnerability of lives and properties are often different. Forinstance, a house may have a similar high vulnerability to both slow-movingand rapid landslides, while a person livingin it mayhave a lowto negligible vulnerability in the rst case. It is recommended thatvulnerability of the elements at risk be estimated for each landslidetype, and hazard intensity. In order to make reliable estimation of thevulnerability of the elements at risk, it is indispensable to carry out theanalysis of the performance of structures during past landslide eventsand the inventory of the observed damages (Faella and Nigro, 2003).

Vulnerability mapping can be performed with the aid ofapproaches which, depending on both the scale and the intendedmap application, may be either qualitative or quantitative. A

qualitative approach, coupled with engineering judgement, usesdescriptors to express a qualitative measure of the expected degreeof loss (Cascini et al., 2005). However, qualitative approaches, asrecommended byAGS (2000), are only applicable to consideration ofrisk to property. Quantitative approaches, like that proposed byAGS(2000, 2002, 2007a) for life-loss situations andRemondo et al. (2005),need data on both landslide phenomenon and vulnerable elementcharacteristics (Leone et al., 1996).

Mostly this is empirical data. It should be noted that any errorsintroduced by uncertainty in vulnerability estimates are usually faroutweighed by the uncertainty in frequency estimates.

C8.7.3. Preparation of landslide risk zoning maps

Examples are given in Cascini et al. (2005), Belland Glade (2004) Lee

andJones (2004) Michael-Leiba et al.(2003)and Corominas et al.(2005).

C9. Reliability of landslide zoning for land-use planning

C9.1. Potential sources of error

The inability of advanced methods to model slopes in zoningstudies is discussed further in Picarelli et al. (2005) and Fell et al.(2000). Where used they should be calibrated against landslideinventories and empirical methods.

C9.2. Validation of mapping

Bulut et al. (2000),Remondo et al. (2003),Ardizzione et al. (2002)

andIrigaray et al. (1999)give examples of validation.


8/12/2019 Guia JTC -01

11/13

C10. Application of landslide zoning for land-use planning

C10.1. General principles

The importance of carrying out the zoning at an appropriate leveland scale cannot be over-emphasised.

C10.2. Typical development controls applied to landslide zoning


C11. How to brief and select a geotechnical professional to

undertake a mapping study

C11.1. Preparation of a brief


C11.2. Selection of a consultant for the mapping


C11.3. Provide all relevant data


C12. Method for development of the guidelines,

and acknowledgements

It is emphasised that the guidelines have been subject to extensivereview Internationally.

Acknowledgements

The draft of this Commentary has received comments and sugges-tions from the participants of the workshop held in Barcelona in 2006and other experts mentioned in the preface of this issue. All of them are

gratefully acknowledged.

References

Agliardi, F., Crosta, G.B., 2003. High resolution three-dimensional numerical modelling ofrockfalls. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 40, 455471.

AGS, 2000. Landslide risk management concepts and guidelines. Australian Geome-chanics Society. Australian Geomechanics 35, 4992 No 1.

AGS, 2002. Landslide risk management concepts and guidelines. Australian Geome-chanics Society. Australian Geomechanics 37, 144 No 2.

AGS, 2007a. Guideline for landslide susceptibility, hazard and risk zoning for land usemanagement.Australian geomechanics society landslidetaskforce landslidezoningworking group. Australian Geomechanics 42 (1), 1336.

AGS, 2007b. Commentary on guideline for landslide susceptibility, hazard and riskzoning for land use management. Australian geomechanics society landslidetaskforce landslide zoning working group. Australian Geomechanics 42 (1), 3762.

Ale, B.J.M., 2001. Risk AssessmentPracticesin TheNetherlands, RIVM.(National Institute ofPublic Health and the Environment), P.O. Box 1, 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands.

Alexandrowicz, S.W., Alexandrowicz, Z., 1999. Recurrent Holocene landslides: a casestudy of the Krynica landslide in the Polish Carpathians. The Holocene 9, 9199.ANCOLD,2003. Guidelineson RiskAssessment. AustralianNational Committee on Large

Dams Inc., Melbourne. ISBN: 0731 027 620.Aleotti, P., Chowdhury, R., 1999. Landslide hazard assessment: summary review and

new perspectives. Bulletin of Engineering Geologyand the Environment 58, 2144.Ardizzione, F., Cardinali, M., Carrara, A., Guzzetti, F., Reichenbach, P., 2002. Impact of

mapping errors on the reliability of landslide hazard maps. Natural Hazards andEarth System Sciences 2, 314.

Arnalds, P., Sauermoser, S., Jhannesson, T., Jensen, E., 2002. Hazard zoning forEskifjr ur. Iceland meteorological Ofce Report 02015. Reykjavk available at IMOwebsite http://www.vedur.is/english/.

Atkinson, P.M., Massari, R., 1998. Generalised linear modelling of susceptibility tolandsliding in Central Apennines, Italy. Computers and Geosciences 24, 373385.

Ayalew, L., Yamagishi, H., 2005. The application of GIS-based logistic regression forlandslide susceptibility mapping in the Kakuda-Yahiko Mountains, Central Japan.Geomorphology 65, 1531.

Bauer, A., Paar, G., Kaltenbk, A., 2006. Mass movement monitoring using terrestriallaser scanner for rockfall management. In: van Oosterom, P., Zlatanova, S., Fendel,

E.M. (Eds.), Geo-information for Disaster Management, pp. 393406. StringerBerlin Heidelberg.

Baum, R.L., Coe, J.A., Godt, J.W., Harp, E.L., Reid, M.E., Savage, W.Z., Schulz, W.H., Brien,D.L., Chleborad, A.F., McKenna, J.P., Michael, J.A., 2005. Regional landslide-hazardassessment for Seattle, Washington, USA. Landslides 2 (4), 266279.

Baynes, F.J., Lee, E.M.,1998. Geomorphology in landslide risk analysis, an interim report.In: Moore, P., Hungr, O. (Eds.), Proc.8th Congress of the Int. Assoc. Eng. Geologists.Balkema, pp. 11291136.

Bell, R., Glade, T., 2004. Quantitative risk analysis for landslidesexamples fromBildudalur, NW-Iceland. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 4, 117131.

Bonnard, Ch., Coraglia, B., Durville, J.L., ad Forlati, F., 2004. Suggestions, guidelines and

perspectives of development. In: Bonnard, Forlati, Scavia (Eds.), Identication andMitigation of Large Landslide Risks in Europe - IMIRILAND Project, EuropeanCommission - Fifth Framework Program. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 289306.

Bozzolo, D., Pamini, R., 1986. Simulation of rock falls down a valley side. ActaMechanica63, 113130.

Brabb, E.E., Pampeyan, E.H., Bonilla, M.G., 1972. Landslide susceptibility in San MateoCounty, California. U.S. Geol. Surv., Misc. Field Studies, Map MF-360. Scale 1:62,500.

Brabb, E.E., 1984. Innovative approaches to landslide hazard and risk mapping. Proc. ofthe IV International Symposium on Landslides, Toronto, 1, pp. 307323.

Budetta, P., 2004. Assessment of rockfall risk along roads. Natural Hazards and EarthSystem Sciences 4, 7181.

Bull, W.B., King, J., Kong, F., Moutoux, T., Philips, W.M.,1994. Lichen dating of co-seismiclandslide hazards in alpine mountains. Geomorphology 10, 253264.

Bulut, F., Boynukalin, S., Tarhan, F., Ataglou, E., 2000. Reliability of landslide isoplethmaps. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment 58, 9598.

Bunce, C.M., Cruden, D.M., Morgenstern, N.R., 1997. Assessment of the hazard from rockfall on a highway. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 34, 344356.

Cannon, S.H., 1993. An empirical model for the volume-change behaviour of debrisows. Proceedings ASCE National Conference on hydraulic Engineering, San

Francisco, CA, pp. 17681773.Cardinali, M., Reichenbach, P., Guzzetti, F., Ardizzone, F., Antonini, G., Galli, M., Cacciano,

M., Castellani, M., Salvatti, P., 2002. A geomorphological approach to the estimationof landslide hazards and risks in Umbria, Central Italy. Natural Hazards and earthSystem Sciences 2, 5772.

Carrara, A., 1983. Multivariate methods for landslide hazard evaluation. MathematicalGeology 15, 403426.

Carrara, A., Cardinali, M., Guzzetti, F., Reichenbach, P., 1995. GIS technology in mappinglandslide hazard. In: Carrara, A., Guzzetti, F. (Eds.), Geographical InformationSystems in Assessing Natural Hazards. Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 135175.

Cascini, L., Bonnard, Ch., Corominas, J., Jibson, R., Montero-Olarte, J., 2005. Landslidehazard and risk zoning for urban planning and development. In: Hungr, O., Fell, R.,Couture, R., Eberthardt, E. (Eds.), Landslide Risk Management. Taylor and Francis,London, pp. 199235.

Chacn, J., Irigaray, C., Fernndez, T., El Hamdouni, R., 2006. Engineering geology maps:landslides and geographical information systems. Bulletin of Engineering Geology& Environment 65, 341411.

Chau, K.T., Wong, R.H.C., Liu, J., Lee, C.F., 2003. Rockfall hazard analysis for Hong Kongbased on rockfall inventory. Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering 36, 383408.

Christian, J.T., 2004. Geotechnical engineering reliability. How well do we know whatwe are doing? Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE130 (10), 9851003.

Coe, J.A., Godt, J.W., Baum, R.L., Bucknam, R.C., Michael, J.A., 2004. Landslidesusceptibility from topography in Guatemala. In: Lacerda, Ehrlich, Fontoura,Sayao (Eds.), Landslides evaluation and stabilization, Proceedings 1Xth Int. Symp.on Landslides. Balkema, Leiden, pp. 6978.

Copons, R., Vilaplana, J.M., Corominas, J., Altimir, J., Amigo, J., 2004. Rockfall riskmanagement in high density urban areas. The Andorran experience. In: Glade, et al.(Ed.), Landslide Hazard and Risk. Wiley.

Corominas, J.,1996.The angle ofreachas a mobilityindex for small andlarge landslides.Canadian Geotechnical Journal 33, 260271.

Corominas, J.,Moya,J.,1999.Reconstructingrecentlandslideactivityin relationto therainfallin the Llobregat river basin, Eastern Pyrenees, Spain. Geomorphology 30, 7993.

Corominas, J., Santacana, N., 2003. Stability analysis of the Vallcebre translational slide,Eastern Pyrenees (Spain) by means of a GIS. Natural Hazards 30, 473 485.

Corominas, J., Copons, R., Vilaplana, J.M., Altimir, J., Amig, J., 2003. Integrated landslidesusceptibility analysis and hazard assessment in the Principality of Andorra.

Natural Hazards 30, 421

435.Corominas, J., Copons, R., Moya, J., Vilaplana, J.M., Altimir, J., Amig, J., 2005. Quantitativeassessment of the residual riskin a rockfall protectedarea.Landslides 2 (4), 343357.

Crandell, D.R., Mullineaux, D.R., Miller, C.D., 1979. Volcanic-hazards studies in theCascade Range of the western United States. In: Sheets, P.D., Grayson, D.K. (Eds.),Volcanic Activity and Human Ecology. Academic Press, pp. 195219.

Crozier, M., 1997. The climate landslide couple: a Southern Hemisphere perspective.Palaeo-climate Research 19, 333354.

Dai,C.F.,Lee, C.F., 2001. Terrainbased mapping of landslide susceptibility usinga geographicinformation system: a case study. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 38, 911923.

Dikau, R., Brunsden, D., Schrott, L., Ibsen, M.L., 1996. Landslide Recognition. Wiley,Chichester.

Dorren, L.K.A., Seijmonsbergen, A.C., 2003. Comparison of three GIS-based models forpredicting rockfall runout zones at a regional scale. Geomorphology 56, 4964.

Dussage-Peisser, C., Helmstetter, A., Grasso, J.R., Hantz, D., Desvarreux, P., Jeannin, M.,Giraud, A., 2002. Probabilistic approach to rockfall hazard assessment: potential ofhistorical data analysis. Natural Hazards and earth System Sciences 2, 1526.

DUTI, 1983. Detection et utilisation des terrains instables. cole Polytechnique Fderalede Lausanne, Switzerland.

http://www.vedur.is/english/http://www.vedur.is/english/

8/12/2019 Guia JTC -01

12/13

Eberhardt, E., Stead, D., Coggan, J.S., 2004. An integrated numerical analysis of initiationand progressive failure in natural rock slopes the 1991 Randa rockslide.International Journal of rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 41, 6987.

Einstein, H.H., 1988. Special lecture: landslide risk assessment procedure. ProceedingsVth ISL Lausanne, 2, pp. 10751090.

Einstein, H.H., 1997. Landslide risk-systematic approaches to assessment and manage-ment. In: Cruden, D., Fell, R. (Eds.), Landslide Risk Assessment. Balkema, Rotterdam,pp. 2550.

ERM, 1998. Landslides and Boulder Falls from Natural Terrain: risk guidelines. Report toGeotechnical Engineering Ofce of Hong Kong. ERM-Hong Kong Ltd.

Evans, N.C., King, J.P., 1998. The natural terrain landslide study. Debris avalanche

susceptibility. Technical Note TN 1/98, Geotechnical Engineering Ofce, Hong Kong.Evans, S.G., Hungr, O., 1993. The assessment of rock fall hazard at the base of talusslopes. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 30, 620636.

Evans, S.G., Cruden, D.M., Bobrowsky, P.T., Guthrie, R.H., Keegan, T.R., Liverman, D.G.E.,Perret, D., 2005. Landslide risk assessment in Canada: a review of recentdevelopments. In: Hungr, O., Fell, R., Couture, R., Eberthardt, E. (Eds.), LandslideRisk Management. Taylor and Francis, London, pp. 351363.

Faella, C., Nigro, E., 2003. Dynamic impact of the debris ows on the constructionsduring the hydrogeological disaster in Campania-1998: failure mechanical modelsand evaluation of the impact velocity. Proc. of the Int. Conf. on Fast SlopeMovements - Prediction and Prevention for Risk Mitigation , Napoli, 1. PtronEditore, pp. 179186.

Fannin, R.J., Wise, M.P., 2001. An empiricalstatistical model for debris ow traveldistance. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 38, 982994.

Fell, R., 1994. Landslide risk assessment and acceptable risk. Canadian GeotechnicalJournal 31, 261272.

Fell, R., Hartford, D., 1997. Landslide risk management. In: Cruden, D., Fell, R. (Eds.),Landslide Risk Assessment. Balkema, Rotterdam.

Fell, R., Walker, B.F., Finlay, P.J., 1996. Estimating the probability of landslidingProc. 7th

Australian New Zealand Conference on Geomechanics. Adelaide. Institution ofEngineers Australia, Canberra, pp. 304311.

Fell, R., Hungr, O., Leroueil, S., Riemer, W., 2000. Keynote lecture-Geotechnicalengineering of the stability of natural slopes, cuts andlls in soil. Geo Eng 2000, 1.Technomic, Lancaster, pp. 21120.

Fell, R., Ho, K.K.S., Lacasse, S., Leroi, E., 2005a.A framework for landslide risk assessmentand management. In: Hungr, O., Fell, R., Couture, R., Eberhardt, E. (Eds.), LandslideRisk Management. Taylor and Francis, London, pp. 326.

Fell, R., MacGregor, P., Stapledon, D., Bell, G., 2005b. Geotechnical Engineering of Dams.Balkema, Leiden.

Finlay, P.J., Fell, R., Maguire, P.K., 1997. The relationship between the probability oflandslide occurrence and rainfall. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 34, 811824.

Flentje, P., Stirling, D., Chowdhury, R., 2007. Landslide susceptibility and hazard derivedfrom a landslide inventory using data mining an Australian case study.Proceedings of the First North American Landslide Conference. Vail, Colorado,June 2007. Abstract accepted, paper submitted.

Gardner, J.S., 1980. Frequency, magnitude and spatial distribution of mountain rockfallsandrockslides in theHighwoodPass area, Alberta,Canada.In: Coates,D.R., Vitek, J.D.(Eds.), Thresholds in Geomorphology. Allen & Unwin, pp. 267295.

Glaze, L.S., Baloga, S.M., 2003. DEM ow path prediction algorithm for geologic massmovements. Environmental Engineering and Geosciences 9, 225240.

Gkceoglu, C., Aksoy, H., 1996. Landslide susceptibility mapping in slopes of residualsoils of the Mengen region (Turkey) by deterministic stability analyses and imageprocessing techniques. Engineering Geology 44, 147161.

Gmez, H., Kavzoglu, T., 2005. Assessment of shallow landslide susceptibility usingarticial neural networks in Jabonosa river basin, Venezuela. Engineering Geology78, 1127.

Gonzlez-Dez, A., Remondo, J., Daz de Tern, J.R., Cendrero, A., 1999. A methodologicalapproach for the analysis of the temporal occurrence and triggering factors oflandslides. Geomorphology 30, 95113.

Goodman, R.E., Shi, G., 1985. Block Theory and its Applications to Rock Engineering.Prentice Hall.

Glade, T., Anderson, M., Crozier, M., 2005. Landslide Hazard and Risk. John Wiley& SonsPublisher.

Guthrie, R.H., Evans, S.G., 2004. Magnitude and frequency of landslides triggered by astorm event, Loughborough inlet, British Columbia. Natural Hazards and earthSystem Sciences 4, 475483.

Guzzetti, F., Carrara, A., Cardinali, M., Reichenbach, P., 1999. Landslide hazardevaluation: a review of current techniques and their application in a multi-scalestudy, Central Italy. Geomorphology 31, 181216.

Guzzetti, F., Malamud, B.D., Turcotte, D.L., Reichenbach, P., 2002. Power-law correlationof landslide areas in Central Italy. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 195,169183.

Guzzetti, F., Reichenbach, P., Wieckzorek, G.W., 2003. Rockfall hazard and riskassessment in Yosemite valley, California, USA. Natural Hazards and Earth SystemSciences 3, 491503.

Guzzetti, F., Galli, M., Reichenbach, P., Ardizzone, F., Cardinali, M., 2006. Landslidehazard assessment in Collazzone area, Umbria, Central Italy. Natural Hazards andEarth System Sciences 6, 115131.

HSE, 2001. Reducing risks, protecting people. Health and Safety Executive, UnitedKingdom, Her Majesty's Stationery Ofce, London.

Hansen, A., 1984. Landslide hazard analysis. In: Brunsden, D., Prior, D.B. (Eds.), SlopeInstability. Wiley and sons, New York, pp. 523602.

Harp, E.L., Jibson, R.W., 1995. Inventory of landslides triggered by the 1994 Northridge,California earthquake. US Geological Survey Open File Report, pp. 95213.

Harp, E.L., Jibson, R.W., 1996. Landslides triggered by the 1994 Northridge, Californiaearthquake. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 86 (1B), S319S332.

Ho, K.K.S., Leroi, E., Roberds, B., 2000. Quantitative risk assessment: applications,myths andfuture directions. GeoEng 2000 InvitedPapers. TECHNOMIC, LancasterPA, pp. 209312.

Hungr, O., 1995. A model for the run out analysis of rapidow slides, debris ows andavalanches. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 32, 610623.

Hungr, O., 1997. Some methods of landslide hazard intensity mapping. In: Cruden, D.,Fell, R. (Eds.), Landslide Risk Assessment. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 215226.

Hungr, O., Evans, S.G., Hazzard, J., 1999. Magnitude and frequency of rock falls and rockslides along the main transportation corridors of southwest British Columbia.Canadian Getechnical Journal 36, 224238.

Hungr, O., Corominas, J., Eberhardt, E., 2005. Estimating landslide motion mechanisms,travel distance and velocity. In: Hungr, O., Fell, R., Couture, R., Eberhardt, E. (Eds.),

Landslide Risk Management. Taylor and Francis, London, pp. 99

128.Hunter, G., Fell, R., 2003. Travel distance angle for rapid landslides in constructed andnatural slopes. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 40, 11231141 No 6.

Hutchinson, J.N., 1986. A sliding-consolidation model for ow slides. CanadianGeotechnical Journal 23, 115126.

Iceland Ministryfor theEnvironment, 2000. Regulationon hazard zoning dueto snow- andlandslides,classication and utilizationof hazard zones, andpreparation of provisionalhazard zoning6 July 2000. available at IMO website http://www.vedur.is/english/.

Irigaray, C., Fernndez, T., El Hamdouni, R., Chacn, J., 1999. Verication of landslidesusceptibilitymapping:a casestudy. EarthSurfaceProcessesand Landforms24,537544.

Irmler,R., Daut, G., Musbacher,R., 2006. A debris owcalendar derived fromsedimentsof lake Lago di Braies (N. Italy). Geomorphology 77, 6978.

IUGS, 1997. Quantitative risk assessment for slopesand landslidesthe state of theart. In:Cruden, D., Fell, R. (Eds.), Landslide Risk Assessment. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 3 12.

Jibson, R.W., Harp, E.L., Michael, J.A., 1998. A method for producing digital probabilisticseismic landslide hazard maps: an example from the Los Angeles, California, area.US Geological Survey Open File Report, pp. 98113.

Keefer, D.K., 1984. Landslides caused by earthquakes. Geological Society of AmericaBulletin 95, 406421.

Kienholz, H., 1978. Map of geomorphology and natural hazards of Grindelwald,Switzerland, scale 1:10,000. Artic and Alpine Research 10, 169184.

Kim,S.K., Hong, W.P., Kim,Y.M.,1992. Prediction of rainfall triggered landslides in Korea.In: Bell, D. (Ed.), Landslides. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 989994.

Laigle, D., Coussot, P., 1997. Numerical modelling of mudows. Journal of HydraulicEngineering 123, 617623.

Lang, A., Moya, J., Corominas, J., Schrott, L., Dikau, R., 1999. Classic and new datingmethods for assessing the temporal occurrence of mass movements. Geomorphol-ogy 30, 3352.

Lateltin,O., 1997. Recommandations. Oriseen compte desdangersdus aux mouvementsde terrain dans le cadre des activits de l'amnagement du territoire. OFAT. OFFE.OFEFP. Berne. Switzerland.

LCPC-CFGI, 2000. Caractrisation et cartographie de l'ala d aux mouvements deterrain. Collection Environnement / Risques naturels. Laboratoire Central des Pontset Chausses. 91pp.

Lee, E.M., Jones, D.K.C., 2004. Landslide Risk Assessment. Thomas Telford Limited.Lee, S., Ryu, J.H., Lee, M.J., won, J.S., 2006. The application of articial neuralnetworks to

landslide susceptibility mapping at Janghung, Korea. Mathematical Geology 38,199220.

Leone, F.,Ast, J.P., Leroi, E.,1996.Vulnerabilityassessment of elements exposed to massmoving:working towardsa better risk perception. In:Senneset, K. (Ed.), Landslides.Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 263269.

Leroi, E., Bonnard, C., Fell, R., McInnes, R., 2005. Risk assessment and management. In:Hungr, O., Fell, R., Couture, R., Eberhardt, E. (Eds.), Landslide Risk Management.Taylor and Francis, London, pp. 159198.

Leroueil, S., 2001. Natural slopes and cuts: movements and failure mechanisms.Geotechnique 51, 197243 No 3.

Malamud, B.D., Turcotte, D.L., Guzzetti, F., Reichenbach, P., 2004. Landslide inventoriesand their statistical properties. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 29, 687711.

McCalpin, J., 1984. Preliminary age classication of landslides for inventory mapping.Proc. 21st Annual Engineering Geology & Soils Engineering Symposium, Moscow,pp. 99111.

McKean, J., Roering, J., 2004. Objective landslide detection and surface morphologymapping using high-resolution airborne laser altimetry. Geomorphology 57,331351.

McDougall, S., Hungr, O., 2004. A model for the analysis of rapid landslide run outmotion across three dimensional terrain. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 41,

1084

1097 No 6.MacGregor, P., Walker, B.F., Fell, R., Leventhal, A., 2007. Assessment of landslidelikelihood in Pittwater Local Government Area. Australian Geomechanics 42 (1),183196.

Michael-Leiba, M., Baynes, F., Scott, G., Granger, K., 2003. Regional landslide risk to theCairns community. Natural Hazards 30, 233249.

Ministre de l'Amnagement du Territoire et de l'Environnement, 1999. Guidemthodologique plans de prvention des risques de mouvements de terrain. LaDocumentation franaise, p. 72.

Montgomery, D.R., Dietrich, W.E., 1994. A physically based model for the topographiccontrol on shallow landsliding. Water Resources Research 30, 11531171.

Montgomery, D.R., Sullivan, K., Greenberg, H.M., 1998. Regional test of a model forshallow landsliding. Hydrological Processes 12, 943955.

Moon, A.T., Olds, R.J., Wilson, R.A., Burman, B.C., 1992. Debrisow zoning at Montrose,Victoria. Landslides, Proc. Sixth Int Symp. on landslides, Christchurch. Balkema,Rotterdam, pp. 10151022.

Moon, A.T., Wilson, R.A., Flentje, P.N., 2005. Developing and using landslide frequencymodels. In: Hungr, O., Fell, R., Couture, R., Eberhardt, E. (Eds.), Landslide RiskManagement. Taylor and Francis, London, pp. 681690.

http://www.vedur.is/english/http://www.vedur.is/english/

8/12/2019 Guia JTC -01

13/13

Nadim, F., Einstein, H., Roberds, W., 2005. Probabilistic stability analysis for individualslopes in soil and rock. In: Hungr, O., Fell, R., Couture, R., Eberhardt, E. (Eds.),Landslide Risk Management. Taylor and Francis, London, pp. 6398.

Netherlands Ministry of Housing, 1989. Physical planning and environment, Dutchnational Environmental Policy PlanPremises for Risk Management. SecondChamber of the States General, Session 19881989, No.5.

Neuland, H., 1976. A prediction model for landslips. Catena 3, 215230.Newmark, N.M., 1965. Effects of earthquakes on dams and embankments. 5th Rankine

lecture. Geotechnique 139160 15, 2.Nicoletti, P.G., Sorriso Valvo, M., 1991. Geomorphic controls of the shape and mobility of

rock avalanches. Geological Society of America Bulletin 1003, 13651373.

Nilsen, T.H., Wright, R.H., Vlasic, T.C., Spangle, W.E., 1979. Relative slope stability andland-use planningin theSan Francisco Bayregion,California. U.S. Geological SurveyProfessional Paper 944: 96.

Palmquist, R.C., Bible, G., 1980. Conceptual modelling of landslide distribution in timeand space. Bulletin Association Engineering Geologists 21, 178186.

Parise, M., 2003. Observationof surface featureson an active landslide,and implicationsfor understanding his history of movement. Natural Hazards and earth SystemSciences 3, 569580.

Pfeiffer, T., Bowen, T., 1989. Computer simulation of rockfalls. Bulletin of the Associationof Engineering Geologists 26, 135146.

Picarelli, L., Oboni, F., Evans, S.G., Mostyn, G., Fell, R., 20 05. Hazard characterization andquantication. In: Hungr, O., Fell, R., Couture, R., Eberhardt, E. (Eds.), Landslide RiskManagement. Taylor and Francis, London, pp. 2762.

Pierson, L.A., Davis, S.A., Vickle, R., 1990. The Rock Fall Hazard Rating SystemImplementation Manual. Oregon State Highways Division.

Quinlan, J.R., 1993. C4.5: Programs for Machine Learning.Reid, L.M., Page, M.J., 2002. Magnitude and frequency of landsliding in a large New

Zealand catchment. Geomorphology 49, 7188.Reeves, A.H.K.K.S., Lo, D.O.K., 1999. Interim risk criteria for landslides and boulder falls

from natural terrain. Proc. Seminar on Geotechnical Risk Management. Geotechni-cal Division. Hong Kong Institution of Engineers, pp. 127136.

Remondo, J., Gonzlez, A., Daz de Tern, J.R., Cendrero, A., Fabbri, A., Cheng, Ch.-J.-F.,2003. Validation of landslidesusceptibilitymaps: examples and applications fromacase study in Northern Spain. Natural Hazards 30, 437449.

Remondo, J., Bonachea, J., Cendrero, A., 2005. A statistical approach to landslide riskmodelling at basin scale: from landslide susceptibility to quantitative riskassessment. Landslides 2, 321328.

Roberds, W., 2005. Estimating temporal and spatial variability and vulnerability. In:Hungr, O., Fell, R., Couture, R., Eberhardt, E. (Eds.), Landslide Risk Management.Taylor and Francis, London, pp. 129158.

Rohn, J., Resch, M., Schnieider, H., Fernandez-Steeger, T.M., Czurda, K., 2004. Large-scalelateral spreading and related mass movements in the Northern calcareous Alps.Bulleting of Engineering Geology and the Environment 63, 7175.

Romana,M., 1988. Practiceof SMRclassication for slopeappraisal. In:Bonnard,C. (Ed.),Proc. 5th International Symposium on Landslides. Lausanne. Balkema.

Rouiller, J.D., Jaboyedoff, M., Marro, Ch., Philippossian, F., Mamin, M., 1998. Pentesinstables dans le Pennique valaisan. Rapport nal du Programme National deRecherche PNR 31/CREALP 98. vdf Hochschulverlag AG. Zrich (in French).

RTA, 2001. Guide to Slope Risk Analysis Version 3.1 Roads and Trafc Authority, NewSouth Wales, Australia (www.rta.nsw.gov.au).

Savage, W.Z., Godt, J.W., Baum, R.L., 2004. Modeling time-dependent slope stability.Proceedings IX International Symposium on Landslides, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, June27July 2, pp. 2338.

Schuster, R.L., Logan, R.L., Pringle, P.T., 1992. Prehistoric rock avalanches in the OlympicMountains, Washington. Science 258, 16201621.

Selby, M.J., 1980. A rock mass strength classication for geomorphic purposes: withtests from Antarctica and New Zealand. Zeitschrift fr Geomorphologie, 24, 3151.

Soeters, R., van Westen, C.J., 1996. Slope instability recognition, analysis and zonation.In: Turner, A.K., Schuster, R. (Eds.), Landslides Investigation and Mitigation.Transportation Research Board Special report, 247. National academy press,Washington DC.

Soussa, J., Voight, B., 1991. Continuum simulation of ow failures. Geotechnique 41,515538.

Stewart, I.E., Baynes, F.J., Lee, I.K., 2002. The RTA guide to slope risk analysis version 3.1.Australian Geomechanics 37 (2), 115148.

Stoffel, M., Livre, I., Conus, D., Grichting, M.A., Raetzo, H., Grtner, A.W., Monbaron, M.,2005. 400 years of debris ow activity and triggering weather conditions:Ritigraben, Valais, Switzerland. Artic, Antartic and Alpine Research 37, 387-305.

Strunk, H., 1992. Reconstructing debrisow frequency in the southern Alps back to AD1500 using dendrogeomorphological analysis. In: Walling, D.E., Davies, T.R.,Hasholt, B. (Eds.), Erosion, Debris ows and Environment in Mountain Regions,209. IAHS publication, pp. 299307.

Takahashi, T., 1991. Debris Flows. IAHR Monograph. A.A. Balkema, Rotte

Documents

Guia JTC -01