Landslide Hazard and Risk Assessment

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)
Landslide hazard and risk

assessment
Refresher Course on Geo-Information for Natural Disaster Reduction in Eastern Africa
Department of Geography,
Makerere University, 12-23 September 2005
Cees van Westen
Associated Institute of the
ISL 2004
Contents
Intro to landslides
What is landslide risk?
Landslide hazard assessment
methods
Landslide risk approached used
What makes it so difficult to
assess landslide risk?
New relevant advances and
challenges for the future
Conclusions
ISL 2004
Landslides
The occurrence of slope movements is the consequence of a
complex field of forces (stress is a force per unit area) which is
active on a mass of rock or soil on the slope.
Movement occurs when the shear stress exceeds the shear
strength of the material. Difference with soil erosion.
The consequence of these
forces in conjunction to the
slope morphology and the
geotechnical parameters of the
material define together the
specific type of landslide
which might occur.
ISL 2004
Checklist of causes
Geological causes
Morphological causes
Physical causes
Human causes
ISL 2004
Excavation
Weak
material
the Prolonged
slopeuplift
or itsexceptional
toe
Tectonic
Intense
rainfall/
orofvolcanic
precipitation
Sensitive
Deposition
material
of melt/
load on
the slope
or its crest
Glacialsnow
Rapid
rebound
Thawing/
Freeze-and-thaw
weathering
Drawdown material
Weathered
(of reservoirs)
erosion of slope
Earthquake/
Volcanic
toe eruption
Sheared material
Deforestation
Erosion of lateral margins>
Jointed or fissured material
Irrigation
Subterrenean
erosion
(solution,
piping)
Adversely
Mining
oriented
mass
discontinuity
(bedding, schistocity, etc)
Deposition
of loadstructural
on the slope
or its crest(fault, unconformity etc)
Artificial
Adversely
vibration
oriented
discontinuity
Water
Contrast
leakage
in permeability
from utilities
Vegetation
removal
Contrast in stiffness (stiff, dense material over plastic material)
Types of landslides
Fall
Spread
ISL 2004
Topple
Slide
Flow
State of activity (1)

Active
Suspended
Active
Suspended
Reactivated
Inactive
Dormant
Abandoned
Reactivated
Inactive
Stabilized
Relict
ISL 2004
State of activity (2)

Dormant
Abandoned
Active
Suspended
Reactivated
Inactive
Dormant
Abandoned
Stabilized
Stabilized
ISL 2004
Relict
Relict
The most complicated simple formula
RISK = HAZARD * VULNERABILITY * AMOUNT

Hazard = Probability of event with a certain magnitude
Triggering mechanism
Type of event
Magnitude: Volume, domino effect, distance, duration,
speed etc
Vulnerability = Degree of damage. Function of:
magnitude of event, and

type of elements at risk
Amount = Quantification of the elements at risk e.g.

Replacement costs of buildings, infrastructure etc.
Loss of function or economic activities
Number of people
ISL 2004
Specific risk of a building
In which:
P(SPV | TM )= Spatial probability. Conditional probability of initiating a landslide with a specific volume and type at
a specific location, given a certain triggering event (e.g. rainfall, earthquake) with a certain
magnitude/intensity.
P(SVT| TM) = Temporal probability. Conditional probability of initiating a landslide with a specific volume and type
, given a certain triggering event (e.g. rainfall, earthquake) with a certain magnitude/intensity, within a
certain time period.
P(RX |SVT) = Conditional probability that a runout zone with distance X to the building will be covered, given the
occurrence of the landslide with a particular volume and type.
P(DB |SVT ) = Conditional probability of damage to the building of a particular construction type, given the
occurrence of the landslide with a particular volume and type.
CB = replacement costs of the particular building.
ISL 2004
Specific risk of persons in a building
In which:
CB = replacement costs of the particular building.
P(IP | DB) = Conditional probability of injuries or death for a person present in the house, given the degree of
damage to the building by a landslide of a given volume and type
P(PH | SVT) = Conditional probability of persons being present in the building, given then time of the day that the
landslide might occur (or percentage of persons in the building given time of the day)
NP = Number of persons in the building
ISL 2004
Spatial landslide risk assessment

Environmental
Parameters
Triggering
Factors
Landslide
Occurrences
Elements at Risk
Earthquake catalog
Geology,Soil,
Landuse,
type, magnitude,
time, activity
Rainfall, intensity,
duration, frequency
Slope, Height
Building stock
Internal relief,
Population
Hydrology
Infrastructure
P(type, volume)
/ time
P(type, volume)
/ location
Vulnerability
relations
Temporal probability
of landslide initiation
Spatial probability of
landslide initiation
(Susceptibility)
m - (distance) /
(type, magnitude)
Run-out zones
[0..1] / (type,
magnitude, distance)
P (type, magnitude) /
time & location
Landslide Hazard
Vulnerability
E.g. nr/ $ / object
Landslide hazard methods

NR/$ loss (type,
magnitude) / time
Inventory analysis
Heuristic analysis
Specific
Risk
All landslide types

All landslide volumes
All triggering events
All elements at risk
Statistical analysis
Deterministic analysis
NR/$ loss (type,
magnitude) / time
Total Risk
ISL 2004
Amount
Landslide risk input data
Traditional
ISL 2004
New
Landslide hazard analysis at different scales

TYPE OF LANDSLIDE
HAZARD ANALYSIS
MAIN CHARACTERISTICS
REGIONAL
SCALE
MEDIUM
SCALE
LARGE
SCALE
Direct mapping of mass movement features resulting

in a map which gives information only for those sites
where landslides have occurred in the past. Indirect
methods in which earthquake and / or rainfall records
or hydrological models are used for correlation with
known landslide dates to obtain threshold values with
certain frequency
2-3
3-3
3-3
Qualitative analysis
Direct or semi-direct method in which the

morphological map is renumbered to a hazard map or
in which several maps are combined into one using
subjective decision rules based on the experience of
the earth scientist
3-3
3-2
3-1
Statistical analysis
Indirect methods in which statistical analysis are used

to obtain predictions of the mass-movement from a
number of parameter maps
1-1
3-3
3-2
Deterministic
analysis
Indirect method in which parameters are combined in

slope stability calculation
1-1
1-2
2-3
Distribution analysis
First number = Feasibility of obtaining the information using remote sensing (1 = low; 2 = moderate;
3 = good) Second number = usefulness (1 = no use; 2 = limited use; 3 = useful)
ISL 2004
International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth

Observation
(ITC)
Evidence
maps
Example of statistical analysis
Aspcl
geol
geom
slope
landuse
drain
fault
road
Rasterize; distance calculation
Cross operation between factor maps and evidence maps

To calculate four possible combinations of potential landslide
conditioning factor and a landslide inventory map that are npix shows
pixel number. Then calculate weight of evidence can be
written in number of pixels as follow equations:
Npix1
Npix1 + Npix2
W+i = loge
Npix3
Npix3 + Npix4
Waspcl
w60aspcl
wfinal
Wgeol
w60geol
slide60
Create attribute map, calculate prior

probability for all landslides in study
area.
Then, create a bit map showing only
active landslides
Create class, group domain, Reclassify
Npix2
Npix1+ Npix2
Wi = loge
Npix4
Npix3 +Npix4
Wgeom
w60geom
slide
Class_distfault
Wlanduse
w60landuse
Class_disrtdrain
Wslope
w60slope
Class_distroad
Wfault
w60fault
To create final weight evidence maps for each evidence maps (Use script)
To calculate success rate and predict rate then reclassify final weight evidence map.
To compare the result map, which is shows added activity landslide. Also this map can be to check
result is how well predicting final weight evidence map.
bslide
Wdrain
w60drain
bslide60
Wroad
w60road
w60final
Prediction map of landslides
Prediction rate
ISL 2004
Class_wfinal
Added landslide area
Class_w60final
Success rate
Coe et al., 2004
Validation using all inventories

Pre-Mitch
landslides
Mitch
landslides
ISL 2004
Post-Mitch
landslides
Percentage of all landslides
Success & Prediction rate
70 percent of all new landslides is

located in 30 % of the map with
highest prediction scores
Percentage of weight map ordered from high to low

(Chung & Fabbri, 1999)
ISL 2004
Success rate: How well the model performs.

Prediction rate: How well the model predicts
Landslide risk approaches
0 : The hazard method is not appropriate for the risk method. The hazard method
is not appropriate for the risk method;
1 : Moderately useful combination. The hazard method is less appropriate for the
risk method;
2 : Highly useful combination. The hazard method could be the best method for
risk assessment, but depends on the availability of data (e.g. historical
landslide records).
3 : Most useful combination, which will result in the best risk assessment given
ISL 2004
the available input data;
Problems in landslide risk assessment

Spatial probability of
landslide initiation
Temporal vulnerability of elements at risk

Volume and type of
landslide
Degree of damage to
different types of EaR
Runout distance of
landslide
Probability of triggering event &

probability it will trigger a landslide with
given type and volume
ISL 2004
Difficulties related to landslide inventory mapping
Landslides generally isolated, rather small but
ISL 2004
frequent
landslide inventories and database is a
tedious procedure
Often no single agency that has the
responsibility for maintaining a landslide
database
Reporting has to come from the field,
newspapers, image interpretation
Suitable imagery is often not available: must
be high-resolution or airphotos, otherwise a
lot of landslides are missed
Use of Aster for post-event landslide mapping
May 23-25 2004

Haiti / Dominican Rep.
Landslides and
mudflows
Source: http://www.dartmouth.edu/~floods/2004075.html
ISL 2004
Difficulties in defining spatial probabilities

Most hazard maps still are of a qualitative nature
and concentrate basically on determining the

susceptibility
Simplification and generalisation
Develop separate models for different landslide
types and different areas
Combine expert opinion with statistical methods.
Deterministic modeling might give more reliable
answers, but requires too many parameters (high
spatial variation: Dem, soil thickness, soil
parameters)
ISL 2004
Difficulties in estimating temporal probability

Landslides normally do not happen
ISL 2004
with different frequency and

magnitude at the same location
(except debris flows and rockfall)
No magnitude frequency relation in
site, but possible for a region
Requires landslide inventory
Correlation of dates of landslide with
triggering factors, or
Dynamic deterministic modelling
(data requirements)
Source: Savage et al
Difficulties in runout modelling

Limited work has been done, and is often simply ignored.
Can be done using expert knowledge, empirical methods or
through modelling.
Modelling is complex and data demanding.
It may be possible to analyze runout for a single landslide after
it has occurred, but difficult for larger areas.
Scott McDougall and Oldrich Hungr
ISL 2004
Landslide vulnerability and risk analysis

Relatively little work has been done on the definition
of vulnerability curves for landslides, although some

authors have discussed the issue
Due to the uncertainty of the expected landslide
magnitude or volume, and the unclear relationship
between landslide magnitude and frequency, often
simply a vulnerability of 1 (total collapse) is used for
building vulnerability, whereas population
vulnerability depends very much on the expected
speed of the landslide, and hence on the landslide
type
ISL 2004
Landslide damage types
ISL 2004
Pragmatic approach
Method by FOWG, Switzerland

ISL 2004
New relevant advances and challenges for the future
Developments are going on in:

Topographic data
Landslide inventory mapping
Landslide initiation modeling
Temporal modeling
Runout modeling
Vulnerability and risk
assessment
ISL 2004
DEMs and DTMs

Existing sources
Topographical maps
From existing elevation information, e.g.,
SRTM
Various techniques can be used for

DTM creation
Ground surveying
Desktop photogrammetry (airphotos & sat.
images)
Radar interferometry (Permanent scatterers,
Ground-based )
Lidar
Digital cameras
Application of morphometrical
attributes
Automatic landslide detection
ISL 2004
EO data for landslide studies
Landslide inventory
Interpretation
Image classification
Landslide monitoring
Geomorphological mapping
ISL 2004
Lithological mapping
Landuse mapping
Digital elevation models
Satellite hydrology
Fault mapping
Digital techniques for landslide

change detection
ISL 2004
Digital stereo image interpretation

Conventional mirror stereoscope
Screen stereoscope
Anaglyph images
Chromadepth images
Polarization
ISL 2004
Automated field data acquisition
ISL 2004
Dynamic modeling
Linking hydrological models with slope
instability models
Incorporation extreme events
Evaluation effects of climate change
Modeling of runout
ISL 2004
Conclusions
QRA on a site investigation scale or for the
evaluation of linear features (e.g. pipelines,

roads) is feasible
Quantitative risk zonation maps seems still
a step too far, especially at medium scales
(of 1:10,000 to 1:50,000)
LR defined by experts with support from
statistical or deterministic models
Geo-Information tools have become
essential for landslide hazard, vulnerability
and risk assessment
More emphasis on shallow geophysics for
soil depth mapping.
Event-based landslide inventory maps

ISL 2004

Landslide Hazard and Risk Assessment

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Landslide Hazard and Risk Assessment

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC)